February’s 2008 GOP straw poll
posted at 12:13 am on February 12, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
 |
|
posted at 12:13 am on February 12, 2007 by Ian
|
|
GreenRoom
Hot Links
- Right Channels
- Left Channels
- War on Terror
- Cartoons/Satire
- Audio podcasters
- Entertainment
- Industry/Internet TV
- Hangouts
- Talkers
- Hot Air Affiliates
Feeds
© 2006-2009 Hot Air Network, LLC | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Slim pickin’s indeed. Gotta love the choice for “I’m a lefty troll”. Newt, Rudy, or Mitt! It’ll be one of those three.
thedecider on February 12, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Petitions – yeah. baby!
Tru2my2 on February 12, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Did anyone notice how Guiliani and Gingrich are tied on acceptability, but Guiliani is the candidate of first choice? Curious since Gingrich is clearly the more conservative of the two.
thedecider on February 12, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Maybe because people realize far-right conservatives can’t win.
Ian on February 12, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Exactly what I’ve been thinking too. It’s time for the GOP to reconsider what qualifies as presidential material these days if they want to win back the White House in ‘08.
thedecider on February 12, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Or because Pres. Bush is (incorrectly IMO) labeled as a “far-right” conservative and he’s lost the support of too many conservatives let alone the left-wingers who will hate him not matter what so now the Right-wing is essentially forced to take a moderate candidate to have a chance.
Yakko77 on February 12, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Also, I hate to say it but the most conservative candidate who might have a decent chance would be Sen. Hagel (R-NE) due to his Iraq War opposition. I don’t agree with his reasons for opposing the Iraq War but much of the nation seems to if you believe the polls.
Yakko77 on February 12, 2007 at 12:49 AM
If it’s Hillary in ‘08 then the Republicans can run the yellow dog against her and the yellow dog would win. I think the left is deluded if they believe she’ll be a good candidate. Run Hillary Run!
Mojave Mark on February 12, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I don’t think the problem with Gingrich is that he is too conservative, my problem with him is he didn’t show real leadership ability when he was Speaker of the House. He was very good as the minority leader, when being a combative cheerleader type would work, but once he finally attained a true leadership position he was ineffective.
Also I think he is just plan too damn nerdy to actually be elected president. I know that is shallow, but so are a helluva lot of voters.
B Moe on February 12, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Far right conservatives can’t win? Like Reagan?
The problem is that too many Republicans have drifted out of core principles and are supporting big government while following polling info on what they should think about Iraq.
Of course, far-left liberals can win, like Hillary or Obama. But our guys? Nah. Throw them under the bus. That’s a great strategy. Abandon core principles to elect another Bush.
Nethicus on February 12, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Even the man infamous for bashing everyone in politics (thus some call him an extremist) is considering running. He is apparantly so conservative he also dogs Limbaugh. Michael Savage anyone?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop020807.htm
What the heck. why not? Can the # 1 talk show host in the most liberal city (San Fran) run an inadvertant risk of pulling another Ross Perot – stealing GOP votes and arguably allowing Clinton to get elected? Again.
El Guapo on February 12, 2007 at 1:13 AM
…or Lamont?
B Moe on February 12, 2007 at 1:14 AM
The left will win, sorry to say. And it was because the right, especially Bush, allowed the far left and the MSM and Hollywood to tell lies and distortions so often, unchallenged, that they are now believed to be true. Global warming (even though Clinton ddint want Kyoto), no WMDs, bad economy, etc. This is the 60’s and 70′ all over again. I still know people who think Farenheit 9/11 is a 100% true documentary and Bush started terrorism.
But that is no excuse for not voting. I still will, even though that election cycle falls on my deployment window. I will make sure I am registered absentee.
El Guapo on February 12, 2007 at 1:25 AM
The silent majority being so silent is another reason. Loud and violent minority movements (NO! I’m not talking about skin color!) get their way just so we can avoid controversy (and get re-elected) and it appears they ARE the majority opinion since the silent majority doesn’t speak up. Why is that? How do these guys afford to take to the streets alot more often than conservatives? Is it because we know how to work for a living and make Capitolism work the way it should for ourselves, thus can’t afford time off from work like that?
El Guapo on February 12, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Maybe if we could have a stronger and more educated voter turnout. Why did the Iraqis beat us in % voter turnout? They have the threat of suicide bombers and massacres to worry about for voting. And why are high schools not teaching the roles of our 3 branches of government and the benefits of and how capitolism works? Was I lucky for growing up during the cold war?
El Guapo on February 12, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Based on what? Exactly how many far-righties lost in 2006? Most of those I saw losing were rinos. It was a Republican purge.
I will give you Santorum, who else?
- The Cat
MirCat on February 12, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I’m saying in this upcoming election. The country is obviously tired of how they ran the House and Senate and decided to vote these people in. Soon, the electorate will realize how bad these people are but won’t forget how the far-right ran it. That is why someone like Rudy had a strong chance of winning the nomination.
Ian on February 12, 2007 at 2:01 AM
The far right hasn’t run anything since 1989. A brief pretense in 1994-1996 in the House, before the national party caved in to the leftish moderates amongst them.
I seriously believe this to be a badly missed analysis, IAN. A strong, Reaganesque, conservative who honestly believes in reducing spending, rolling back government and restoring national sovereignty WOULD WIN BIG.
As I’ve watched these straw polls repeated over the last several months, I see two names moving steadily in the right direction. Tancredo and Hunter. Both had overall negative results as little as three months ago. Savage’s voice in the mix up until the primaries would actually favor both of them, since he would not only speak to the same beliefs as them, but would bring up their names regularly.
There are 21 months left. Name recognition is a non-factor. Less than 5% of the nation had ever heard of Bill Clinton before 1992. He was not considered a legitemate candidate through all of the early caucuses. And we got him for 8 years.
Freelancer on February 12, 2007 at 3:09 AM
I’m for Jeb…
Zorro on February 12, 2007 at 6:36 AM
I would like to know your definition of far right… I haven’t seen the far right running anything lately, and definately not the Senate.
Gianni on February 12, 2007 at 6:39 AM
and…
I completely disagree. I think that a true conservative (aka “far right”) can win, especially if running against Hillary or Obama because they will bring something different to the table. Republicans get in the most trouble when the lines between the parties blur (hello 2006?). And I honestly don’t believe that any pro-choice Republican has a hope – especially in Rudy Guiliani’s case since he does not even support a ban on partial birth abortion. That really doesn’t seem to jive with the Republican values of the country at-large.
tiekitwist on February 12, 2007 at 6:51 AM
Where’s Ron Paul on the list?
celeste on February 12, 2007 at 6:54 AM
And I just want to add one more thing in the context of my previous post:
My candidate of choice right now is Duncan Hunter. I think Hunter is a candidate all (conservative) Republicans could be satisfied with because of his strong stance on immigration, issues of life, and the war on terror. He’s not a moderate by any means, but he also does not have the reputation of being a crazy right-wing nut job – not that that’s a bad reputation in my book, haha.
tiekitwist on February 12, 2007 at 6:56 AM
I think a distinction between far right fiscally and socially would be important in this discussion. Far right fiscally isn’t going to alienate nearly as many swing voters as far right socially. I think it is important the Republicans learn from Ned Lamont. Appeasing your hard right base will not be productive in the long run.
B Moe on February 12, 2007 at 8:22 AM
Absolutely fascinating that so many would choose Gingrich if they had the option – and I said exactly the same thing. I met him at a book signing and the man is simply brilliant.
Equally fascinating that it looks like no one here gives him a snowball’s chance of getting anywhere. I wonder – are too many of us falling into the same “electability” trap that has doomed a lot of Democrats?
For the record, I think the debate above about whether a truly conservative candidate can be elected completely misses the point. Ideology is always far less important than leadership. A far right (or perhaps even far left) candidate is electable, if he (or she) has the right combination of communication skills and leadership skills … and, above all else, if he holds true to core principles.
That’s what’s missing in most of our politicians – the core principles. I think a great many people (including me) are more impressed by a true leader who sticks to principles that they might not agree with, than with a politician who may voice the right ideological views but have no core principles.
Trying to please everyone almost always pleases nobody. Stick to what you beleive. Say so. Be passionate about it. And you might get my vote. Or at least I’ll listen to you.
Try to tell me what you think I want to hear, whether you believe it or not, and I won’t be impressed.
And by the way – this is exactly what all the liberal pundits are missing about Guiliani. They keep spouting the canard that he can’t win in the primaries because of his social views. Wrong. Completely wrong. Conservatives (and liberals) will give him a chance, if he shows leadership and core principles. (In fact, if he does that – and convinces me that he’ll at least appoint strict constructionist justices – then I’ll happily support him).
Politicians are not cookie-cutter menu items, like picking from a Chinese food menu. We don’t vote based on a checklist of views. That’s not how it works.
Professor Blather on February 12, 2007 at 8:29 AM
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
We have the winning statement! Those of you who think running, talking and then serving “conservative” can’t win are trolls.
TwinkietheKid on February 12, 2007 at 8:34 AM
I’m amazed at only how many people are close to dead set on their choices with nearly two years til elections.
As far as Hilary and Obama, I don’t think they have a prayer. They are being focused on now because they are the most recognized (Obama being over publicized) black and woman to ever run. But in the long run, I doubt it. I have no intention of voting for either one.
IMHO, I don’t think anyone far left or right really has a chance, but Giuliani certainly isn’t hard right is he?
SouthernDem on February 12, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Oh, quite the opposite is true—an ULTRA Conservative would blow the DOORS OFF the electoral map!
HellOOOoooo…except for that WASTE OF DIRT, Minnesota…EVERY STATE WENT FOR REAGAN…EVERY STATE..and he was no p*ss panty apologist.
DUH.
seejanemom on February 12, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Well, how about the big question: could YOU vote for Giuliani?
After all, if he can make it past the primaries, it’s votes exactly like yours that will be critical. If Republicans don’t stay home, and moderate Democrats will vote for him, neither Hillary nor Obama could touch him in a general.
So – what say you?
Professor Blather on February 12, 2007 at 9:17 AM
RR was a classic conservative, not far right.
Interesting that McCain still is strong in the “regular” polls, the tilt of the blog-set is pretty clear I guess. Read someplace that if you really want to have a handle on political races, forget polling, check the Vegas odds.
honora on February 12, 2007 at 9:29 AM
I got an “account suspended” error when I tried to vote.
Neo on February 12, 2007 at 9:37 AM
I sent an e-mail Neo…I got that message as well…
Pam on February 12, 2007 at 9:44 AM
“thatsducky”, some lefty pirate has done a bad thing.
Jaibones on February 12, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Honora just said something intelligent.
Caution: flying pigs approaching. Hell due for a cold front shortly.
Professor Blather on February 12, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Ditto Neo and Pam. I will check back later – interactive stuff like this is great!
RushBaby on February 12, 2007 at 9:53 AM
My account has been suspended. I am not a lefty troll.
bloggless on February 12, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Same account suspended error for moi…
I do have a comment on the 2008 elections though. Who are we kidding? It is a posturing election for Republican unless Rudy makes the final cut, then MAYBE there’ll be a real horse race. Posturing as in you just can’t give up the flag must be seen a waving. IMHO there is NO WAY a Republican other than Rudy is going to win. The Dems are and will continue to win with “other than reason” strategies and tactics (that is the way our culture is). The only way to beat them is with “other than reason” strategies and tactics, Rudy the star of 9/11, blah blah blah.
BTW anyone done any analysis on what investments do well in a dhimmocracy? The time to make lemonade out of lemons appears to be approaching.
ttfn,
GoingThere on February 12, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I’ve been disenfranchised!
If they’re motivated enough to interfere with this vote, what do you think they are up to on the real election days?
Perchant on February 12, 2007 at 10:02 AM
I seriously believe this to be a badly missed analysis, IAN. A strong, Reaganesque, conservative who honestly believes in reducing spending, rolling back government and restoring national sovereignty WOULD WIN BIG.Freelancer on February 12, 2007 at 3:09 AM
I concure.
Lawrence on February 12, 2007 at 10:06 AM
I think far right-conservative needs to be defined before you can talk about their chances of winning.
I don’t think a far right neo-con could win, not after the past 8 years. I don’t think a theo-con could win either, at least not one who made abortion and gay marriage his primary issues.
However I do think a far right traditional conservative, in the Regan mold of economic policy with Goldwater-type liberatarian views of social issues and foriegn policy would stand a chance. At least I would hope so.
JaHerer22 on February 12, 2007 at 10:06 AM
I’d like to follow the results of the poll without have to cast another vote.
LonelyMassRepublican on February 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I think a majority of Americans would vote for a strong person who means what they say.
We need another Reagan, a man (or woman) with vision, and the ability to describe that vision. People are tired of the current state of do nothing politics. All bickering and keep the status quo.
Sure, the far left would kick and scream, but a strong leader would not be effected by the whines. He may toss them some cheese and crackers to shut them up, but thats it.
Their are far mre moderates then far left/right types. A strong leader can unite the right and the moderates. This would be a sweeping victory and would be a true mandate (as opped to a few points) Now if we could only fine this guy, where the hell is he? plowing the north fourty or something???
Wyrd on February 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, but I wouldn’t quite rule out anybody just yet, with the exception of Clinton, Biden, Romney and Gingrich.
SouthernDem on February 12, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Not by today’s definitions. Pro-life, anti-terror, anti-communist, anti-illegal immigration. He’s further right from Bush.
And if you read any of the lefty blogs or even mainstream media, they’re convinced Bush is a far-Right fascist dictator. So what does that make Reagan? Libertarian?
Let’s face facts that the yard markers are shifting. People are trying to label Hillary as “moderate” while labeling Bush a “conservative”. Obama’s got a 96% rating from some lefty org touting him as a great liberal, and people are calling him “a man to bring the left and right together”.
Nethicus on February 12, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Why does everyone want to rule out Newt? Aside from the previous marital woes? I saw him at a Chic Filet in Atlanta and he has a bit of humble aproachablity mixed with an aura of dependability and leadership. I think he is just waiting in the wings for the right time. He at least has a plan.
bloggless on February 12, 2007 at 10:28 AM
There’s no option for ‘Should be thrown out of party and have ‘lib buttkisser’ tattooed to his forehead’ for Hagel. Damn unscientific polls. ;)
austinnelly on February 12, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Newt would make a great President. However, The MSM would tar and feather him. They would call out all the biggest guns they could find. If the man were to fart in public CNN would broudact “Newt gasses protestors at peace rally”
When in reality Newt got Gassy while eating AT Rally’s. heaven forbid he gets a “jomocha” shake, they would go ballistic.
Newts other problem is he is too smart to be president. He can draw out an entire policy plan on a napkin that would solve most of the problems in America, but he would not be ableto express it in such a way to keep the MSM from crucifying him.
Course thats my opinion, I could be wrong.
Now maybe VP, and then run for pres in 8 years…
Wyrd on February 12, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Anti-terror? Terror was hardly on the landscape back in the 80s, and to the extent the US had any experience under RR, that was primarily Lebanon.
Anti-illegal immigration? The 1986 reform act?
I liked RR. But there is a tendency for those on the RW to try to twist his legacy into something it was not. Strong militarily, strong against the USSR, fiscal conservative, wonderful leadership skills, all true; but let’s not forget the Social Security plan with O’Neil and the fact that RR raised taxes in his second term. Too pragmatic to be a true far rightie!
I’m not sure how to categorize Bush–neocon with lack of fiscal restraint and a lot of theo-con rhetoric?
honora on February 12, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Newt has a low Q score as they say in the television biz. Meaning he’s not likeable. Which is rather a shame as he has a great mind and a creative approach to problems. The times I’ve heard him talk recently it’s clear he has matured (odd thing to say about a man in his 60s) in that he not longer has that confrontational, take no prisoners manner.
That is what a lot of folks remember though.
honora on February 12, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Newt’s the only one with a plan, as far as I know. He thinks deeply about things, and he takes action. That’s what I want–a man with a vision that is deeply rooted in conservative philosophy, who can communicate that vision to others and make things happen. Newt’s my guy, but if he doesn’t run I’ll happily vote for Rudy.
aero on February 12, 2007 at 10:46 AM
You’re forgetting the whole “Bomb Qadaffi” incident.
Are you suggesting Reagan is to the left of Bush?
Nethicus on February 12, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Newt can’t win. He’s still associated with the demonization he endured while Speaker of the House. In addtion, he said something that will kill any campaign — the “wither on the vine” statement about Social Security (that was taken completely out of context, but it really hurt his credibility with seniors).
I’ll take Newt any day, but he’s a tough sell to the country. He’d be better in a VP role to someone like Hunter.
Nethicus on February 12, 2007 at 10:49 AM
On some things, yes. I can’t picture RR getting involved in that Terry Schiavo nonsense, can you? Or that intelligent design foolishness? RR didn’t traffic in demagoguery, the palette of the far right and the far left.
And RR had a far more pragmatic approach to foreign policy than Bush, less dogmatic, more pragmatic.
I think RR is the hero of the conservative movement because he made conservatism mainstream. He took control of the party from the country club set, the Rockefellers and the other moderates. But there a lot of room between these guys and the far right IMO.
So was RR to the left of Bush? Hard to say as I don’t honestly know where Bush stands.
honora on February 12, 2007 at 10:56 AM
It sickens me to think rational people in this day and age would base their presidential choice on a candidate’s position on abortion or gay marriage – two issues completely irrelevant to the survival of our great nation and completely missing, never addressed or mentioned by our forefathers in the U.S. Constitution. They too, had more important matters to resolve at the time.
Personally, I am looking for leadership in a world that has become a ticking time bomb. Be it Rudy, Hillary or any other candidate, I am looking for courage, strength and resolve. I will start to seriously evaluate the candidates in about another year, when the peacocks have finished spreading their feathers for the MSM.
Let me throw another question out there. Why should states like Iowa and New Hampshire set the tone for who’s best qualified to be our next president? Why’s that?
Because they’re Thmarter? Are the rest of us cavemen?
fogw on February 12, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Tradition. And someone has to be first, while Iowa and NH are no smarter (or thmarter..) than the rest of us, nor are they any less thmart.
honora on February 12, 2007 at 10:59 AM
This poll induces Linda Blair projectile vomiting every time I see it. It would be best if that poll was not seen again till February 2008.
Jose Chupacabra on February 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Definitely time to hop on a flying pig and take my ice skates to that rink in Hades.
Professor Blather on February 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Still not getting anything on this poll, “account suspended”. Anyone know where I can go to get results?
Jaibones on February 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Tradition, huh? Like marriage between a man and a woman?
fogw on February 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
I’d buy that. I’ve always thought of neocons as liberal socialists in disguise… From what I can see, Con is to Neocon what Sand is to Sandwich. But then you get Bush who’ll throw (ostensibly) social conservativism into the mix for a strange cocktail that a lot of people claimed to want, but now discover they don’t like.
In reality though I’d just go with the neocon label for Bush… He talks a big Social-Con game, but if he’s a theocrat then that’s 1 more thing he’s wildly ineffective at. As far as I know kids still can’t pray to Jesus in school and people can get as many abortions as they want.
True enough. Reagan has a cult following these days, but it’s not hard to idealize Reagan’s very successful presidency looking back… especially through the unpleasant haze of the Bush years.
Lehosh on February 12, 2007 at 11:29 AM
* golf clap *
Professor Blather on February 12, 2007 at 11:29 AM
El Guapo,
Savage is not “right wing”, he’s just a nutbag. He’s not a conservative. He is a self-promoting, bomb throwing, narcissistic book seller, and a fraud.
He is currently donating money to the campaign of Jerry Brown for Attorney General.
Savage is a populist nothing.
Jaibones on February 12, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I get the same thing. Maybe they just don’t like our choices. Something about “blogs for bush” came up and if the poll is being done by Bush people, I know they wouldn’t like my choices since Tancredo and Duncan are the only two I marked as acceptable.
Perchant on February 12, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Do you carry your lunch or drive to work?
honora on February 12, 2007 at 11:56 AM
It’s a conspiracy!!!
Slublog on February 12, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Loosen the tinfoil “account suspended”-conspiracy theorists. The poll now says that they are having a recurring server error and they are working to get the problem fixed.
But it is obviously Bush’s fault.
eeyore on February 12, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Do you wear your tin foil hat or bathe in kool aid?
fogw on February 12, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Hey, lighten up, I said it half jokingly…or at least one third jokingly.
Perchant on February 12, 2007 at 12:51 PM
It works now. You can see the results here. Mayor Gun Control leads the hapless pack.
Valiant on February 12, 2007 at 1:22 PM
fogw on February 12, 2007 at 10:57 AM – kisses!
I have a hunch that a lunch btw. fogw and honora w/b a riot :)
honora, on a serious note, your analysis of RR was excellent. Also, today you finally came through with a critical statement on both extremes. For that, thank you!
Entelechy on February 12, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I have the same post up over at The Autopsy. Plus I also have a post where you can see each candidate’s ontheissues.org page.
Nethicus on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Except for the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter, and the Israeli Olympic hostages before that. Plus a number of rebel ‘armies’ in some Central and South American nations.
The face of the terrorist have changed from time to time, but terrorism was a problem in the 80s. The fact the Media did such a good job of spinning it explains a lot about of our ignorance of terrorism, both then and now.
Lawrence on February 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Did you ever hear of Ronald Reagan ?
Maxx on February 12, 2007 at 4:14 PM
These are two great moral issues of the day fogw, knowing where a candidate stands on these issues give you a clear indication of their worldview.
Maxx on February 12, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Knowing where a candidate stands on defending our country, securing our borders, fighting terrorism and stifling nuclear proliferation will give me an indication of their worldview. Whether they are for or against abortion or gay marriage will never enter into the equation for me. My survival, and the safety and prosperity of my children, is not threatened by abortion or homosexuality.
But heh, if you want to factor them into your choice, it’s a free country. Good luck with that.
fogw on February 12, 2007 at 6:00 PM
An open question to everybody expressing this sentiment, is there someone in this race I am missing? Because I am not seeing any Reagans out there right now.
B Moe on February 12, 2007 at 6:52 PM
First of all, you make it seem like it is illogical to have an opinion on all of these issues which is completely unjustified. Can you explain your logic there?
Secondly, while I’m sure that abortion does not pose a threat to you since you have already been born, does that truly excuse cruelly murdering unborn children – simply because they are not related to you? You may feel that taking every issue – whether it be relating to national security, social or fiscal issues – makes no sense, but I guess I’m not seeing where the missing link is. My bad, it would seem I can’t comprehend your level of self-centered idiocy.
tiekitwist on February 12, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Rudy is acceptable, even if a few of his positions are off (guns and abortion). But he’s really the only candidate out out of all of the Republican or Democratic candidates that I find acceptable. It’s a pretty bleak selection. No Reagans to be found here.
Mark Jaquith on February 13, 2007 at 1:09 AM
You need to take a reading comprehension course. How does the following statement I made “make it seem like it is illogical to have an opinion on all issues” …..
Now, just so you know, that little diddy means we live in a country where everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Debate and disagreement aren’t harmful, they are often helpful and should be encouraged. That’s what this site is all about. But if you’re going to enter the arena, it’s best to bring some arguments that will hold up under scrutiny.
You really are thick-headed. Nowhere in my post did I say I was pro-life or pro-choice when it comes to abortion. If you must know my personal preference, I am pro-life, but that had nothing to do with my original post. My post had to do with priorities, specifically which priorities I put at the top of the list when evaluating a presidential candidate who must lead and protect us against those who would destroy us and our civilization.
Now when a terrorist or illegal immigrant comes knocking on your front door and sticks a gun in your face, you can try to convince him not to kill you or your family by saying, “Wait a minute, don’t you know I’m anti-abortion, or pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage”, and see how that works out for ya with Mr. Compassionate Terrorist Guy.
Me, I don’t want to ever face that dilemma. That’s why social moral issues like abortion and gay rights will not be at the top of my priorities in the next presidential election – they won’t be on my list at all. Guess what, I have every right to do that, regardless of what you think. I am not only pro-life when it comes to abortion, I am pro-life when it comes to me. Can you comprehend that?
It appears to me that you are the one who has a problem with other people expressing their opinions. Next time before you post, take a minute to collect your thoughts and decide if what you intend to say makes any sense whatsoever.
Now who’s the idiot?
fogw on February 13, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Comment pages: