|
Post by killer on Feb 7, 2007 18:37:30 GMT -5
Maccus wrote, "Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She is self destructive. The only thing we can count on her doing is completely destroying Obama and ensuring the harried nomination of Edwards." If you are saying Edwards would be the nominee over Hillary, I believe you are wrong. Also, someone (womi) above said McCain would beat Hillary. Wrong. If McCain is candidate against Hillary, she will win. The Republicans need a better candidate than McCain.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 7, 2007 18:43:18 GMT -5
killer,
I would agree with you. Edwards has already stated that he will raise taxes, so there is no way he is going to win now.....unless of course it's forgotten about.
I think it's going to come down to Hillary and McCain at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 7, 2007 18:49:27 GMT -5
If that's the case, Hillary will be the next president. The Republicans need to get it together and find someone better -- Rudy's not the answer either. Hillary will beat him too.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 7, 2007 19:41:18 GMT -5
McCain is in the process of discovering that the MSM loved him only so long as they could use him to bash President Bush. Now that that particular usefulness is at an end, they'll turn on him like a rabid dog turns on his master.
In my mind, the more good things the MSM has to say about you, the less I am inclined to consider voting for you. As Groucho Marx said, "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me."
Hegel, Collins and the other RINOS will discover this as well. The only Republican the MSM will embrace is one who is not enbrasive of the Republican agenda.
Now, that said, I think McCain is un-nominateable but is electable.
I think he's burned far too many bridges with the still largely conservative base of the Republican Party to get the nomination. Aside from his general support of the President in the War on Terror, I can't point to very much he's done that aids the conservative cause. His support of de facto (and de jure) amnesty- co-authored with Teddy ('hic') Kennedy no less, his demagoguing of the 'torture' issue, his obviously unconstitutional infringment of First Amendment free speech rights with McCain-Feingold....all of those make his chances of getting the nomination (with a caveat I'll hit below) slim to none.
Guiliani is, sad to say, in the same general boat as McCain. While conservatives like myself applaud his efforts in cleaning up New York and, especially, for his grace and determination in dealing with 9/11 and his steadfast support of the President in the War on Terror, conservatives are going to be VERY uneasy about nominating someone who has so many personal skeletons in his closet (unlike among Democrats, among conservatives sexual dalliances are seen as a character flaw). His support of abortion and gay rights also raises large red flags (or maybe more accurately, BLUE flags...).
Romney is, by comparison, largely an unknown. It's been reported that he was pro-choice at one time- being from the Northeast, especially Massachusetts, that might be in tune with his constituency there but not with Republicans as a whole. On other issues, I've not really heard much about his stances. On the basis on lack of knowledge to this point, I couldn't support Romney.
So that leaves.....who?
Brownbeck might have the conservative credentials to gain the nomination, but I think not only Hillary but Obama and probably Edwards would beat him in the general election.
Gingrich has the credentials, the intellect and the vision- if he runs I will support him for the nomination, no question- but, nationally, I don't think he's electable so a Gingrich nomination means a Hillary Presidency.
This is where the issue that I raised with Maccus comes into play. Do I support a candidate with which I largely agree but is ultimately unelectable, thus handing the Presidency to the Democrats or do I hold my nose and vote for someone with whom I might largely disagree just to deprive Democrats of the big prize?
Democrats in the '06 Midterms took the second approach. They ran candidates whose positions were, in many cases, virtually indistinguishable from that of their Republican challengers. They ran conservative candidates in districts that Bush had carried in 2000 and 2004. Combined with a general distaste for Republicans, this ideological "bait and switch" gave Democrats control of Congress.
But what the voters didn't consider when they pulled the lever for the Democrats was that it would not be the conservative Democrats in charge; it would be the far-Left of the party as championed by San Fran Nan, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel. The only way that these self-styled "Blue Dog Democrats" will have a voice with their own leadership is to side constantly with conservative Republicans. All Pelosi et.al. were interested in was getting the majority so that they could enact their liberal agenda and conduct an endless parade of investigations.
So one side of me wants to repay the Dems for their duplicity with a bit of duplicity of my own- supporting a Republican who can win the general election just to prevent the Democrats from winning. I have zero doubt that they would do so- they just did, in fact. But I also think that conservatives are far, far more principaled than liberals, so that darn conscience of mine rears its ugly head and tells me that we're better than they are.
But with the stakes as high as they are- nothing less than they fate of the country is at stake- can we conservatives afford to put principal ahead of pragmatism?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 7, 2007 20:05:15 GMT -5
womi,
Ask yourself this as a conservative, what has voting pragmatically done but to keep the status quo? Has conservative principles moved to any degree forward through the executive branch since Reagan?
I think Newt Gingrich is the only current hope for a win based on principal. You know I like Condi Rice as a candidate, not really knowing what her core ideological values are, which could change my opinion, but she probably won't run.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 7, 2007 20:56:29 GMT -5
womi wrote, "Do I support a candidate with which I largely agree but is ultimately unelectable, thus handing the Presidency to the Democrats or do I hold my nose and vote for someone with whom I might largely disagree just to deprive Democrats of the big prize?" Who is running at this point that could deprive the Dems. of the big prize?
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Feb 7, 2007 23:06:21 GMT -5
If that's the case, Hillary will be the next president. The Republicans need to get it together and find someone better -- Rudy's not the answer either. Hillary will beat him too. I still believe (HOPE) this Country realizes the sheer HORROR of having this woman in charge of the Army, Navy and Air Force, etc. not to mention (I just did) the ruthless, Phony husband of hers who almost destroyed the Military! People, take a look at the revealing book by Barbara Olson, ''Hell to Pay''--- www.nndb.com/people/897/000049750/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Feb 8, 2007 2:48:36 GMT -5
re: Somebody a while back...
"He asked one very simple question: "At what time in your life did you decide to become straight?" I think it was the first time I saw that girl doing flips on the monkey bars with no undies on... LOL Before that, one would probably have not thought about it either way... Unless maybe Dad told them he would kill them if he found out they were one of them "pantywaist sissyboys" So my thought would be that a person doesn't usually have a "become straight" or "become gay" moment in thier life... which reminds me of something I heard a few years back... People say that homosexuality is genetically determined, but I don't buy that. I figure maybe 50% of the gay people are born that way, and the other half just get sucked into it...
(Heh, heh... I'm so politically correct...)
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 8, 2007 22:28:30 GMT -5
phin-
Very legitimate question to ask.
Wish I had an equally legit answer.
Right now, I'm in the distinctly uncomfortable position of voting against a Democrat rather than voting for a Republican, and I don't like it. That damn conscience thing again.
I'm absolutely convinced that the current crop of Democrats running would do catastrophic damage to the United States. None of them are even pretending to be moderates like Bill Clinton did to fool us twice. When John Edwards is the least liberal of the major candidates, you're talking candidates Marx and Lenin would be proud to vote for.
Republicans have been a disappointment, no question about it.
But, as a Conservative, the 10% chance that I have to see my agenda advanced under Republican stewardship is exactly 10% greater than the chance I'd have under Democrat stewardship.
Maybe Republicans aren't doing such a hot job closing the borders....but the mere fact that the fence bill was brought up and passed was due to Republicans forcing the issue over lockstep Democrat opposition.
If you're pro-life, do you want more judges like Roberts and Scalia or more judges like Ginsburg and Stevens? Maybe Republicans didn't get Roe overturned but you have a better chance of whittling away the 'right' to kill a baby under Republican stewardship than that of the Democrats.
But, as important as those issues are, the primary issue of our times is the War on Terror. Here, the choice is very simple:
If you believe there really exists a threat to the US from the Jihadists, you have to vote Republican.
If you believe that there is no threat to us from the Jihadists, that 9/11 was merely a 'disagreement among friends', you have to vote Democrat.
Democrats, going back to Carter, give me no reason at all to trust them with our national security. They have absolutely zero credibility on this issue and no one that I've seen on their side, save possibly Joe Liebermann, gives me any hope at all that they'll come around, even at the cost of perhaps tens of thousands of US lives. They'll just wonder what it is that WE did to provoke THEM.
You mention Condi.....Dick Morris is absolutely convinced that she is the only Republican that could defeat Hillary. Now wouldn't THAT be an interesting race?
|
|
|
Post by jcatthedizzy on Mar 2, 2007 17:53:24 GMT -5
Did the guy who misspelled weirdo just tell someone else to learn how to spell?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Mar 6, 2007 4:23:16 GMT -5
I figure maybe 50% of the gay people are born that way, and the other half just get sucked into it... Sure, because so many teenaged boys see how gays are treated and say, "Hey, I want to be queer so that the Baptists can persecute me. I'd love to be gay!" Nobody chooses to be gay just like no man chooses to like girls with big asses or big tits.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Mar 6, 2007 19:00:58 GMT -5
Hmm... On looking up, I seem to see the contrails from the "great joke jet" in the sky... Whoosh!
(That joke is like 25 years old, at least...)
|
|