What happens if Thompson gets the (R) nomination and Giuliani decides to run as an independent?

The Dem The Dem, the terrorists, the socialists, Iran, and Mexico, win, we America loses

KBird on June 26, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Thought I’d flesh that out a bit.

ReubenJCogburn on June 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM

JM2C: I don’t think Rudy’s dumb enough to go for that. IMO, while he might disagree with his fellow candidates, I think he’d rather see a Rep he disagrees with in the WH (within reason… *cough*RonPaul*cough*), rather than risk a Dem as Pres, and he’d probably back Thompson (or any other candidate), rather than try to sabotage the campaign.

From your lips to God’s ears, so to speak, but at this point I’m pretty unimpressed with what candidates say. Especially when they’re campaigning.

rho on June 26, 2007 at 8:52 PM

Fred was saying similar things while he was not a candidate, not an elected official, and apparently not even seriously considering any of the above. So he’s probably the most likely of the candidates to have been telling the unvarnished truth about what he really thinks–at least until very recently. And he hasn’t changed the tone or tenor of his comments since he started testing the political waters again, either. He seems like he’s the real deal as far as conservatism goes.

Most of the Republicans in the race now are pale imitations of their party’s true legacy, pre-packaged to offend the least number of people. Such wishy-washy weenies; haven’t we had enough of them already?

A lot of Republicans say they’re tired of the war. I can think of a lot of guys who are tired of getting shot at, and as long as they’re away from home, they don’t need a knife in their backs from guys who would get their kids out of having to fight if there were a draft. If my reading of history tells me anything, there are only two ways to fight a war. One is to pound the enemy into total submission before they know what hit them. The other is to stay the hell out of everybody’s business, and draw a line in the sand that the enemy would only cross at their mortal peril. We used to call such a line “secure borders.”

People say that Fred pretends to be an outsider when in fact he’s not. I don’t remember him pretending to be anything, least of all making such a dumb-ass claim. I may not like lobbying all that much, but a man who owns up to it is better than a man who doesn’t, all other things being equal.

Fred’s looking better by the day.

Assurance? None. I can’t get in the man’s head. But everything he’s said about the bill makes me think he opposes it.

From your lips to God’s ears, so to speak, but at this point I’m pretty unimpressed with what candidates say. Especially when they’re campaigning.

I saw this post over at Hot Air.com, this post at InstaPundit and Ace Of Spades weighed in a bit too. I like them am very disappointed in our Senate and the President over the immigration Amnesty bill and what it means for America. There is a lot of an…

- The Cat

P.S. Ya know, these kinds of things have actually spawned successful 3rd parties in the past. But to pull it off right, we need run off elections.

In 2008, the Republican Party will break up — over the war, immigration, profligate spending, you name it. John Cornyn will establish an angry third party, carry the South and West, pick up 30 percent of the popular vote, and hand the election to Ba…..

The Dem The Dem, the terrorists, the socialists, Iran, and Mexico, win, we America loses

KBird on June 26, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Thought I’d flesh that out a bit.

That worked so well with shamnesty. NOT!

Wade on June 26, 2007 at 6:19 PM

It’s a long-term approach, not suited to promoting or defeating a single bill.

aero on June 26, 2007 at 6:12 PM

That worked so well with shamnesty. NOT!

What happens if Thompson gets the (R) nomination and Giuliani decides to run as an independent?

Big S on June 26, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Can you say “El Presidente Hillary” ?

Actually, it does matter. Careful, or it might be the “RINOs” who are throwing the right wingers out.

Big S on June 26, 2007 at 5:57 PM

They ARE throwing us out–quite successfully, it would seem. And we would be helping them do it faster if we ran a conservative third-party candidate for president. If we do that, every right-leaning voter will lose.

The ones who say we need to stay with the party and try to force it back to the right rather than try to blow it up and start over are correct. Letting ourselves be driven out of the party or trying to force the RINOs completely out only hands power to the Dems for the very long foreseeable future. We need to regain control of our platform and our elected representatives through the marketplace of ideas, our carefully-placed donations, and through voting. We need another conservative Republican Revolution–but this time, we can’t let them take our leader(s) out so easily, like they did Newt. He was flawed, but we needed him. He drove that movement and held it together. Without him, it crumpled like wet paper and the RINOs took over. We should not have let him go so easily. Whoever is the next Newt–a genuine conservative thinker with real leadership skills and the guts to get things done–needs and deserves our full support. Find that man or woman and give him or her everything you’ve got.

Careful, or it might be the “RINOs” who are throwing the right wingers out.

Big S on June 26, 2007 at 5:57 PM

They already have

Actually, it does matter. Careful, or it might be the “RINOs” who are throwing the right wingers out.

There are still some very good conservative Republicans in the party, Presidential candidates, Senators, Congressmen and people who would be good candidates to support to defeat the bums who are selling us down the amnesty highway. I plan to support them.

I also plan to continue to fight this thru the second cloture vote and main vote in the Senate and if needed thru the House votes. I’ll send tea bags, write letters to my local papers, and send calls, messages, faxes, etc to everyone I can.

My message will be that there is no other issue of more importance to me than securing the borders, enforcing existing immigration laws and that any and every candidate who is for this grand ShAmnesty bill is putting their political career at grave risk.

My litmus test for Presidential candidates is how they will verbally oppose this bill and how strenuously. Will Rudy renounce his “sanctuary city” past totally? Will Mitt remove his “en espanol” button on his web site? Will Fred step up and denounce this bill without reservation and call Bush, Graham, McCain etal. the traitors they are for supporting it? If they won’t then I’ll support Hunter and Tancredo to the hilt because at that point they will be the only candidates that are worthy of my support.

I’m not giving up yet, but I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

Who comes in third?

Big S on June 26, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Doesn’t really matter, does it? Second, third–both losers.

Any third-party candidate who attracts even a handful of right-leaning voters away from the official Republican candidate automatically throws the election to the Democrat. Witness how Nader, with less than 2% of the popular vote, has negatively affected the Dems in the past. We’re already fighting an uphill battle in 2008. Pray no right-leaning candidate goes third-party.

Hit your legislators, not the presidential candidates, with this third-party stuff. Third-party candidates are useless in presidential elections except to throw it away for one of the major candidates.

Vote out the traitors. Slowly and surely.

Stick to the basic American credo of life, liberty and the pursuit of… hookers, cocaine and gambling?

No, happiness.

(Because STD’s, addiction and poverty do not a happy camper make.)

Target the weasels. Put a bead on their sorry bee-hinds. And send them packing… unfortunately to cushy pensions and plush lobbying posts… but at least they won;t be able to vote for crapzilla like this “Every Border-buster Legal and Free” bill

Easier to purge a few than create anew.

Who comes in third?

The Dem wins, we loose