Skip to comments.Are you going to vote in the November 2008 election no matter who wins the Republican primary?
Posted on 11/25/2007 5:29:03 PM PST by cradle of freedom
click here to read article
“We disagree as to whether there is an imminent risk”
Perhaps we do agree. I feel that there is an imminent risk posed by ALL national socialist/communitarian candidates. I see no difference between those in either party. Our country is at a tipping point, and the higher you rise the longer the tip and the harder you hit. The consolidation/grab of power by a Giuliani administration is no less inimical to our freedoms than that by a Clinton administration. He has shown himself to be as much an enemy of freedom as the she-devil.
You are pathetic. I’ll be damned if I will belong to a party who has HillaryLite for a nominee. You liberal country-club so-called Republicans can have her and Rudy.
I will repeat myself from earlier in this thread.
Some of us conservatives aren’t going to put up with becoming to the Republican party what black voters are to the democrats. Vote for the dem no matter what. And all they get it a pat on the head and wink and a thank you.
And all this staying home stuff is bull.
I intend to vote on election day ‘08. That doesn’t mean I will vote in every race.
Seriously, who the hell needs folks like you... For every radical nut that the GOP has to kowtow to, we get double the Reagan Dems/yellow dog conservatives... Good riddance.
I will not stay home, I will vote a 100% republican ticket. But if Tootyfruityrudy gets the nomination, the top slot will be a write-in for the best republican in the race: Duncan Hunter. 100% republican ticket.
If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for the Republican no matter who it is. If she is not, and I find the Republican nominee too bad, I’ll vote third party.
And yet it was only in the Clinton administration where staffers wound up dead.
It’s your choice to drive away traditional Reagan voters.
Those who throw stones at us for NOT supporting a rino and would chose to stay home, are the same stone throwers who would not vote for McCain or Ron Paul. So they hate us for not voting for Rudy and raising the question on how the heck can we allow Hillary to win, yet they themselves would do the same if the nominee is Paul or McCain.
At least we know where these two stand on the issues. The top three keep changing their position to fit the audience.
Just keep supporting your candidate in the primary and hope to any and all gods that we do NOT have Rudy as the nominee.
Broken glass republicans will vote no matter what.
Amen to your post #619!
Keep your promises and stick to your convictions. Look what happened when those who voted for a republican so that a democrat would not win. We got Mark Foley and Larry Craig.
Democrats have some major issues, but we should be better than them and have better choices. I would love to see some turnovers in these next couple of elections.
Well, all I can say is that it sounds as if your entire political philosophy amounts to a fear of Hillary. I guess people don't actually choose to live in a state of terror like that, but it sounds awfully uncomfortable. Politicians like Rudy exploit that kind of fear.
So, while those of us who don't have the hots for Rudy may seem to you to be "a bunch of self-important egomaniacs," it might be worthwhile for you to look around and see if you can't support a candidate for reasons that are not just grounded in fear. Maybe you'll see why some of us feel that Rudy just doesn't meet our minimum standards for a Commander in Chief.
In any event, maybe you'll at least be able to chuck some of that terror you're living with.
“Its your choice to drive away traditional Reagan voters.”?!?!??!?!?!!?!????
Huh? How am I driving away traditional Reagan voters?!?!? All I am doing is voting for an acceptable candidate. If other sane people choose “other than gungrabbers,” I assure you it was based on their integrity and good judgement, not my example.
I intend to vote for Duncan Hunter in the primary and writing his name in on the November general ballot in the event he is not the nominee.
It is obvious that you have not worked in any political campaign for at least 28 years.
In 1980 Reagan ran on an anti abortion anti gun control stance. In every stump speech he made in the mid west, west, and south he reinforced his position on abortion and gun control.
I remember nearly every other reporter covering Reagan thought he was making a terrible mistake by being pro gun and anti abortion. But Reagan knew what many other stupid media types and dumb Republicans did not. The truth is well over half of the so called Religious Right are Registered Democrats. An
The millions of Democrat votes that Reagan got nation wide were Democrats who wanted to keep their guns and did not want unborn babies killed.
If both candidates had been for Abortion and for Gun control then those Democrats would have voted for Jimmy Carter. But the leftist Republicans keep thinking that Rudy can get the Religious right to vote for him. THERE IS NOT A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL THAT THOSE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR RUDY. And to get the socialists leftwing votes Rudy would have to out Hillary... Hillary. Even the leftist moderates want more goverment programs that benefit them. He would have to be at least as liberal as Hillary to get their votes. That is not going to happen.
Those who think a Republican who takes Democratic positions on abortion and guns can win an election are totally ignorant of what both Reagan and Dubya knew well.
In 1980 I was a reporter and in 2004 I was very active in the Bush campaign. Over and over in 2004 here in Ohio Bush pushed his stance on abortion. As the Bush Media Rep for the bellwether county in Ohio, I was inside the campaign. I saw the polls I saw the research Karl Rove did. I know what it takes to win Ohio. Even if Taft, Blackwell, DeWine and assorted other Republicans did not.
Bush was against abortion and against gun control. He campaigned about it at every stop. He knew like Reagan that the key to Ohio was DEMOCRAT VOTERS voting for BUSH.
Bush got nearly all his base and half the moderates, but his winning margin was from anti abortion and anti gun control Democrats. That is why Kerry refused to concede until the next day. He could not believe that Registered Democrats would vote for Bush. But they sure did as the internal Bush polls showed they would. Seven out of every 10 anti abortion Democrats voted for Bush.
Rudy VS Hillary will lose Ohio by 700 thousand votes.
I am reasonably certain that Reagan did not call conservatives names because they did not conform to his will. Reagan is the man who said thou shalt not criticize thy fellow Republican.
He debated the issues, not the person.
Reagan appealed not just to conservatives, but to independents and conservative Democrats. But there were two things that bound us together: the fight against communism and the right to keep more of what you earn. These were the fundamental principles that bound very different minded people together. It was a short list. You may remember what it was like in liberal land before Reagan. I do.
It was nothing like what I read in your posts, but we will all have different observations.
To Reagan’s great credit, the economy grew by leaps and bounds and communism fell. And he was assertive without behaving badly. Think about it, Reagan handled trade unions— he really knew how to get what he wanted so that he didn’t have to behave in such a way that someone had to apologize for him later.
And in reading your posts, I see a pattern of telling other people (some of whom dare to believe that they are conservative! the nerve!) to take a hike. That’s not going to drive other conservative voters away? If you can’t appeal to conservatives, how are you also going to get the Independents and conservative Democrats who voted for Reagan?
But Reagan didn’t tell off other conservatives.
He debated the issues, not the person.
He also won not on gun ownership, but on taxes, the economy and the fight against communism.
You read some weird stuff into my words.
“I am reasonably certain that Reagan did not call conservatives names because they did not conform to his will. Reagan is the man who said thou shalt not criticize thy fellow Republican.”
I did not even bring Reagan into this, nor tell anyone off. I simply asserted my opinion: I will not vote for those who would destroy our Constitution. Period. Who did I call names?
“He debated the issues, not the person.”
I addressed the ISSUES, which are the records, while in office, of Giuliani and Romney. They are as bad as the Clinton woman on THE ISSUES.
I spent ALL of Reagan’s term in office (plus another 6 years) at the tip of the spear, defending this country. I earned my vote and will not squander it on the likes of Giuliani or Romney who have shown contempt for the Constitution that I swore to uphold and defend.
I am not the problem. The problem is: If Rudy is nominated, Hillary will win. Romney might be able to beat her, but I would not bet my house on it.
If there will be a new party in America, it has to have an appeal to independents and some Democrats as well. I think the issues of trade, jobs and illegal immigration hits home with people of all parties. We need to point out that Bill Clinton supported NAFTA and many “working man” Democrats have supported outsourcing jobs to China. This would be a good way of splitting the Democratic Party. Wish there were some polls or surveys about what issues overlap across party lines.
I’m right there with ya, Nutmeg.
Her Heinous has got to be stopped.
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.