I agree with aShepard. If we conservatives want to make a difference we have two realistic options: Vote for the Republican candidate or not vote at all and let the DemonRats win elections.
Rudy may not be a conservative, but he is conservative enough for me to vote for him if he’s the Republican nominee: war on terror, cutting taxes, appointing original-intent judges, and moving contentitious social issues away from spurious consititutional “rights” to legislative processes at the state level. Plus the guy has true leadership grit. If it comes to a showdown between Rudy and Hillary, I am not willing to turn the country over to the Hildebeast by not voting for Rudy.
I love FR and hope Al Simmons doesn’t get banned. As someone said, “The Left looks for heretics, and the Right looks for converts.” Plus the Right has far and away the best sense of humor, particularly on dispaly here at FR (with a special thanks to all the hilariously terrific photoshoppers!)
This kind of dilemma in the voter is exactly what allowed Canadian politics to be dominated by moonbats and slightly-to-the-right of moonbats for decades. Canadian conservative voters eventually solved this problem by destroying the so-called PC conservative party.
Rudy may not be a conservative, but he is conservative enough for me to vote for
That's just what Canadian PC party strategists were relying on. When the conservative voter is offered a choice between moonbat and slightly-right moonbat, they figured the conservative would always choose the slightly-right moonbat. But eventually this backfired when conservatives began to massively support hard-core conservative Reform, and grass-roots movements.
Given that every GOP candidate (except the traitorous Rin Paul) can be excpected to take the fight to the terrorists, I suggest we come up with a better plan than running a northeastern lib against a northeastern lib.