Posted on 02/08/2008 6:53:23 PM PST by NoGrayZone
Here's to ponder.
1) Vote for whomever best represents your point of view and is qualified to hold the office. Your choice is not limited to names printed on the ballot. Those who have qualified for candidacy to the office are just as eligible as those who have won their partisan nominating process.
2) Never, ever vote for any candidate who has, in your eyes, violated one of your cardinal, political sins.
3) Never vote a party ticket. Investigate the candidates, make a choice and vote. If you don't care for any of the candidates, write in your choice.
4) Vote the candidate's record; not the candidate's campaign rhetoric. Candidate's without a record demand more rigorous background examination but are not automatically excluded from consideration.
That’s what I’m trying to do now. Basically, I’ve been a republican since I was 18 and voted for Reagan in my first election. A Conservative in every way.
I wasn’t paying much attention to the 90s, too busy having and raising babies. And appalled at the Clinton presidency but not paying that much attention at the time. Been paying attention since 2000 but not as much I should have been.
Thanks. Your post was interesting and informative.
Why on earth does anyone delude themselves with the idea that major party figures are going to refuse to back the party nominee?
Get ready for it - once Huck is done, 99.5% of all the prominent Republicans you would like to think are to conservative for McCain WILL - repeat WILL - close ranks and support McCain. It has ever been thus and so shall it ever be.
I understand the sentiment but it was very naive of you to hope it would not happen.
Hell, Tom Couburn is way more conservative than Thompson and he was on the McCain train weeks ago.
“Who schedules the primaries so this one is early, that one is latter?”
States and state parties.
If it’s a primary, the state sets the date. If it’s a party run primary ala South Carolina, I believe the state party sets the date. Cauci are organized by the state party.
Both the RNC the DNC did not not want any primaries or cauci to occur before Feb 5. Exceptions were made for Iowa and New Hampshire and a couple other states.
“Who punishes states by stripping them of their delegates for trying to move their caucus/primary up to an earlier date? Who decides if it is a primary or a caucus? Who decided if a primary, in an early state, is open and that one is closed? “
Surf around this site:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/
It does a pretty good job of answering your questions. As near as I can tell, they’re pretty accurate and non-biased.
“Who decides to hype the media coverage of say a certain Candide squeaking out a win in state A and ignoring him getting blown by double digits in State B?”
The media, both dinosaur and new.
“How is it that the media spends 90% more time talking about Candidate A, who finished 4th in Iowa then they do talking about Candidate B who pulled a surprising 3 place finish?”
Unprofessional journalism?
“Why do party politicians line up, like good little whores, to all endorse a specific candidate?”
This is a rhetorical question, right?
“Who decides the timing of those endorsements to make sure they have maximum impact on the voter’s?”
In a well-run campaign, it’s whoever’s runnin’ the show.
“The Primaries are rigged. That doesn’t mean they are not honest competitions but that they are structured and gamed as much as possible so that the Party Chiefs, not us peons, pick the candidate.”
I’m not sure I agree.
McCain was greatly helped by Huckabee and Thompson being in the race...
McCain’s campaign was greatly helped by Rudy’s exit from the race 6 days before Super Tuesday...
McCain was greatly helped by New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut’s Winner-Take-All rules...
I don’t have an all encompassing theory on how we ended up with McCain.
It kinda reminds me of how World War I started.
Sorry I don’t have any better answers for you.
—Checkers
My BA is in History. That is a remarkably apt comparison.
“My BA is in History. That is a remarkably apt comparison.”
That’s really a nice compliment. Thank you.
'Morning and welcome. Reality will sink in with time. Too critical of a time for it not to.
Re:1049 Yep. Plus he’s gonna have Thompson and Olson types helping. I’m not to worried—unless the ‘rats win. Then I’ll be scared sh*tless. ;^)
That’s idiotic. They’d both have to be dying of it at the exact same time. The sitting President gets to nominate a new VP if the office becomes vacant ( like Nixon bringing in Ford vice Agnew.) Were McCain to die in office, his VP would become President, and then immediately nominate a VP-designate, to be confirmed by the Senate. It would take both of them dying together in such close timing, as to not be a real consideration. I dont think Pe-Lousy would get a chance. Somehow I think if Fred were VP, and in such a spot, he’d pick someone as conservative as himself.
Funny would be his picking Romney to be HIS VP.
He is just supporting the party nominee now that he is chosen. However, it is quite telling that he didn’t give McCain his “endorsement.” Rather, he said Republicans should “close ranks” behind McCain. That unenthusiastic endorsement is telling.
You were fooled, but I know you are unable to admit it.
I was never a Mittbot, I was for Hunter. I always had a feeling Fred was not committed. Well, guess what, he wasn’t. He will never be the VP either. Soooo...you are left with MCCain, in spite of all the yelling you did to people who were no different than you.
Well unspun, I don’t care for Rollins, and I am not sold on Mike, but there is no reason Huck should get out of this race at this point. He is better than McCain, and his run is pissing off the the GOP elites. Which pleases me.
So give it a go, Mike. Respect is earned not given.
Nope, no bluster, just facts. And there was no "big black bold type." I boldface my comments in same font size to distinguish them from the person to whom I'm replying if I quote from them, regardless of topic. You folks seem to have a problem figuring out the difference between that versus CAPS which is shouting.
"Unbelievable. Sir, your credibility is dead."
Baloney. My credibility and reputation is in the upper echelons of this website. Has been from the beginning. Just because you're jealous of my skills, no need to resort to personal insults.
"Fred is a nice guy, but you have blinded eyes. He put up the fight of a little mouse."
The problem here is that you cannot distinguish between running a campaign of issues and of character & honor versus one of unvarnished and unprincipled whoring after a job. Whoring and into-the-gutter fighting and lying isn't and never was Fred's style. He ran the campaign on his terms and not the media's. It was because of that that made him the best man for the job.
"You were fooled, but I know you are unable to admit it."
Fooled how ? That makes no sense. He ran the campaign exactly as he ran it, as I stated above. He should've won the nomination, but the primary voters preferred flashy liars and con-men with no substance and no credibility. That's THEIR fault, not Fred's. We earned the sobriquet "The Stupid Party" with this primary season, unquestionably so.
"I was never a Mittbot, I was for Hunter. I always had a feeling Fred was not committed. Well, guess what, he wasn’t. He will never be the VP either."
He didn't sell his soul to go whoring after the job. He walked away with his conscience. That cannot be said of the rest of the field (save Hunter, perhaps). Whether he will be chosen to be VP is yet to be seen. I would hope McCain would have the common-sense to do something that smart, but you and I both know McCain, and that is often the exception rather than the rule.
"Soooo...you are left with MCCain, in spite of all the yelling you did to people who were no different than you."
Nope. The GOP is left with McCain.
Good Points Here:
“So if you’re correct, and I think you are, then McCain would certainly replace the ultra-left wing Ginsburg or nutcase globalist Kennedy with a “moderate or mod-lib”.
If all McCain does is replace a Stevens/souter/Kennedy “inform the SCOTUS decisions based on international law” attitude, with another Kennedy-lefty who doesn’t believe that international law should enter into SCOTUS decisions, then it will radically alter the balance of the court in the right’s favor.”
Obama or Hilldebea$t would appoint SCOTUS candidates, who might make Ginzy look moderate.
Screw it. I have said over and over that I won’t vote for McCain, but I give up.
I don’t care WHO the Republican candidate is, I’m voting against the Commies, even if it means voting for Commie Lite. That Che flag in Obama’s HQ really got to me.
Pass the d@mn Coolaide.
Fred, we hardly knew ye.
No, really.
Story out tonight is that Mr. Shear made it up. He said he got it off the AP wire, but they didn’t carry the story. So I guess, it is a hoax as you said in your post.
http://www.pinnaclecascade.com/
I would have expected FRed to deny it, but we haven’t heard a peep out of him since SC. I really have a feeling that being betrayed by his own staff has taken a lot of heart out of him.
I miss him so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.