Posted on 08/19/2008 8:50:27 AM PDT by mnehring
Isn't that what the left does and something we decry? MSM manipulation of voters through propaganda and false information?
It may have happened, I was only wondering if the a story was backed up by any of these “state leaders’ who allegedly had been contacted.
Check out the link at post #79. This wasn’t a bogus story. Limbaugh talked to delegates who gave him names of McCain staff members who’d called them, polling whether a pro-choice VP pick would fly.
In addition, both the GNC and McCain campaign admitted to such polling over the last couple weeks. This was NOT a bogus issue. Fortunately, McCain got the message (apparently). But I’m taking that at face value, and will await the news of his pick before making a decision whether that’s true or not.
Are we sure this isn’t a Democratic ploy to put Republicans at each other’s throats?
There is a thread on here that says Rudy is the “Pro-Choice” pick. But Rudy is the opening speaker, and they rarely have the future VP introduce.
Maybe the leak was about having Pro-Choice speakers like Rudy, not a Pro-C Vice-President.
Regardless you cannot change McCain’s mind if they have decided. But I strongly suspect this is a false controversy. Only time will tell.
That means Mutt Romney! Add in anti-gun and pro-queer agenda and you have the worst possible pick.
Well, let him know how you feel. The links are on this thread.
In my state, there will be more than two choices, probably five or maybe even six if they are qualified. That is what I meant. Thanks for engaging in meaningful, civil dialogue on this point.
Let me clarify.
Some people claim that we only have "two choices".
I hear that claim a lot.
That means you can only vote for one of two people on the ballot.
That might be true in some states, but I doubt very few, and maybe those Freepers are in those states which have only two choices.
By the 34 you gave me, (the only state, if I am not mistaken, that has that amount is Texas)...you probably are refering to the number of Electors your state is allowed under the Electoral college.
What I was asking is "how many slates of electors" will be on your eventual general election ballot?
For example, for each candidate there for President, you will see "Electors Pledged to ......" before each person's name.
Such as "Electors Pledged to Barack Obama", or "Electors Pledged to Chuck Baldwin", or "Electors Pledged To Ralph Nader", etc. etc.
Under our American political system as it stands, particularly under individual state laws, how can it logically be said that one has only two slates of electors to chose from, when there might be four or five or six slates of electors.
In your state, regardless of the candidate, each candidate ballot qualified will have 34 Electors.
If I see a slate other than those pledged for McCain or Obama, I have more than two choices.
I think that explains it.
Thanks for having a good, cordial give and take on this issue.
P.S. at least in the case of Texas, as in Oklahoma, it might be possible there are only two choices there in terms of strict ballot access questions in those particular states. So, actually, we might both be right on this one
“Here you go, but don’t stop calling.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2064442/posts “
I tried to call AGAIN (I keep calling and e-mailing), but the voice box was filled. I think that’s a good sign, because it shows many others are calling, too.
Laura Ingraham interviewed McCain Wednesday.
Questions from Laura’s listeners, 1st question was about VP running mate pick. McCain said he didn’t make up his mind yet, so yes, we should still keep calling.
AOK.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I would make one respectful suggestion: consider asking the admin moderator to change "Pro-Choice" to "Pro-Abortion" in the title.
The term "pro-choice" was invented by abortionists and their allies back in the 80's. They had found that "pro-abortion" did not test well in their focus groups. It has been parroted by the MSM ever since.
Like much of the politically correct corruption of our language, it serves to diminish meaning, trying to make the guilty feel better about themselves, hiding the reality of what words really mean.
Anyway, just a thought. :)
No. McCain will be allowing Obama to win. Personally I simply won't participate or I'll vote 3rd party.
I not only will vote for him, but I will ACTIVELY participate in his campaign.
The ball is in McCain's court.
Sounds good. I am holding a check to wait to see who he chooses. I may hold my nose and vote with almost any choice, but actively support is a different ballgame. This is the first election since 96 I haven’t spent hundreds of hours volunteering yet, all waiting for the VP pick.
If McCain picks a pro-abortion VP, he is demonstrating that he is an enemy of Life and is unworthy of being president. I, too, will vote 3rd party or not vote at all.
The ball is in McCain’s court.
At this point, I’m hoping he picks Palin or Cantor.
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.