Usually, it comes down to who you are and what you want….

Agreed but what about opposing view…

Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

EXACTLY!

No matter who gets the Republican nomination, we can not afford to sit out the general election. Hold your nose when you vote, go to vote for your candidate, or vote against HER. But please vote. The country is at risk. We can not afford another klintonin the WH.

Rudy is certainly making hay, but that crossdressing clip was disturbing as hell. Give me Hunter or Huckabee or Mitt for VP, someone who will keep Guiliani to his word on strict constructionist judges.

Not Fred though, when the man running as the second coming of federalism doesn’t have an opinion on the Terri Shiavo case, you’re looking at a shyster. Was Fred in a coma for the two weeks that was playing out? I don’t trust him as far as I can throw his 6′6 slimy washington insider frame. Talk about a man who just wants to be president for being president.

Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 8:19 PM

No. You have had your head up your a$$ for months. You still have your head up your a$$. Your choice of candidates confirms this also. You’d rather vote for a guy who lobbied for a dictator and gave legal advice to terrorists than for an electable candidate in Rudy or Mitt.

McCain is my favorite candidate. However, his immigration meltdown, his lack of money and other problemas put his nomination in heavy jeopardy.

Baphomet on September 18, 2007 at 11:03 PM

“other problemas” that you obviously felt too minor to mention: i.e., McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and Shamnesty, just to name a few off the top of my head.

Not to mention those 3 or 4 years of the Bush Admin. where he was alpha-RINO of the pack of ‘moderate’ Republicans who frequently voted with the Dem’s to torpedo Republican initiatives.

You say “other problemas”, I say “big farking roadblocks”. McCain doesn’t seem to care about the 1st Amendment or national sovereignty, so why again should I vote for him?

Hillary plus Iraq tied around the Republican nominees legs = She can most certainly be elected.

Hillary can’t be elected. Her only merit is being someone’s wife. That doesn’t happen in America. People are elected to the highest office for a reason.

Obama won’t be elected. His name is Barack.

Edwards won’t be elected: he’s too down in the polls and too much to the left.

That means the Presidential is up for the Republicans to lose, despite the fact that the Congress will still be controlled by Democrats – the country does lean that way. They just have too problematic candidates.

So, what about those Republican candidates?

Fred Thompson is unelectable. He has never accomplished anything of substance. He’s no Reagan, because he’s lazy, boring and because Ronnie was actually the Governor of the most important state of the union.

McCain is my favorite candidate. However, his immigration meltdown, his lack of money and other problemas put his nomination in heavy jeopardy.

That leaves Rudy and Mitt. Personally, I think Rudy has more defects:

*Leftist positions, particularly on infanticide
*Complicated persona: three wives, estranged children, pictures of him in drag, etc.
*The capacity of making a blunder

None of those apply to Mitt Romney, so it’s just a matter of time before Rudy makes a mistake. Romney, on the other hand, is a slick operator. He’s not wrong on any issue, speaks coherently, looks the part, etc. Americans want to lurch left on some issues -by electing Democrats to Congress. However, they want steady and real leadership. Romney can provide that. That’s why he’ll be the nominee and the next President.

If by some chance McCain does get the nomination. I am going to have such fun with you.

You will stay and play, right?

;-)

Rightwingsparkle on September 18, 2007 at 8:21 PM

I don’t know- I might be too busy ice skating in Hades since it’ll be the only place safe from the flying pigs :p

But sure, you go ahead and make fun… just be aware that you’re now making it a lot easier for me to tease you relentlessly when McCain drops out.

We have seen upsets during primaries before. The Dean explosion and then implosion. The Bush run over McCain. Things change. One thing can get blown up and cost a primary state. Like I said, it should be interesting.

If by some chance McCain does get the nomination. I am going to have such fun with you.

You will stay and play, right?

;-)

I haven’t decided yet.

csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Well, apparently you’ve decided to be a liar. You’ve been in the tank for Mitt for the past 6 months.

Just admit it- you’re a Mormon and you want the Mormon candidate to win. There’s nothing wrong with that- own it.

Or just continue to be a troll who’s lost all shred of credibility. Up to you.

Who convinced you goofballs that the Republicans lost in ‘06 because they weren’t conservative enough?
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 7:13 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15614139/

Three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandal were important to their votes, and they were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for the House.

Aside from the Foley scandal, most of the problems were related to corruption that bred from earmark spending.

Yes, Iraq was a major factor as well, but bad behavior that was the result of abandoning conservative principles cost the Republican party. Many of the Dems who defeated Republican incumbents were “blue dog” Democrats who were nearly as conservative as (and in some cases campaigned to the right of) the Republicans they beat.

And yet you’re Mitt supporter, correct?

2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 6:17 PM

I haven’t decided yet.

2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 6:13 PM

How do you demand something that doesn’t exist? The painful truth is that we do not have an electable conservative in the vein the single issue voters demand. They are whining like little children because they don’t get what they want. I have a relative who used to hold her breath until she turned blue and passed out. It never accomplished a dang thing and neither will this temper tantrum these people are throwing. Well, it will accomplish getting Hillary elected.

Remember this you folks, in 1992 the voters “taught” the republican party a lesson by voting Perot and giving the election to the Clenis. Yeah BABY! They showed them alright! And you know what happened after those shorted sighted ridged conservatives got their way? The republicans learned their lesson so thoroughly that after 8 years of the painfully left leaning Clenis (and the liberal supreme court justices he nominated), they give us 8 years of GW Bush! Hardly the staunch conservative that they demanded the reps give them in 92.

And here we are again, 15 years later ready to give this country over to Hillary for 8 years and goodness knows how many liberal justices just WAITING to take your guns and re-affirm Roe V Wade.

You single issue 2nd amendment and abortion voters will get what you want. You’ll teach the conservatives a lesson, and then you’ll lose your guns and your taxes will be paying for abortions.

Then you’ll be blaming the reps for not giving you a conservative candidate to vote for in 08, and the rest of us will be spewing venomous accusations at you for giving us 8 years of Hillary because you were too dense to see the light.

Ridiculous. If you refrain from voting for a candidate, that candidate will have one less vote than if you had voted for said candidate.

That was a rather hollow point, so to speak.

hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 7:28 PM

If I refrain for voting for a candidate I wasn’t going to vote for anyways, it’s a gain for the other candidate that I also wasn’t going to vote for? By that logic the Republican would also get a net vote gain because I didn’t vote for the Democrat either.

I don’t owe any candidate my vote, and they’re going to have to try harder than usual to get it this time.

No, it’s not. It’s a net gain of +0 to either the Democratic or Republican candidate- that’s why.

Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Ridiculous. If you refrain from voting for a candidate, that candidate will have one less vote than if you had voted for said candidate.

That was a rather hollow point, so to speak.

A final question:

Isn’t the end result of a no-vote vote, or a third candidate protest vote a net gain of +1 for the opposition?

If not, please explain why not.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 6:23 PM

No, it’s not. It’s a net gain of +0 to either the Democratic or Republican candidate- that’s why.

Actually, no. It means the party isn’t as conservative as you may wish it to be, and your decision to stay home is petulant narcissism disguised as principled action.

Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 6:22 PM

No, it means the Republican party shifted far enough to the left that I no longer feel any loyalty to the party or it’s candidates. I won’t have left the party, they will have left me.

The RINO Congressmen (and President) who’ve been increasing spending, increasing the size of the government and refusing to secure the border stay in office for one reason and one reason only- because of voters who decided that being at least a little more electable and the lesser of two evils meant they deserved a vote no matter how they governed. I ain’t one of those people. Not this time.

What will socialist Hillary bequeath to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren? What will she add to the already-unsustainable entitlement burden? Universal health care? What else? I guarantee there’s more. I say again, once a socialist program is in place, it can’t be undone. Not without a revolution. Is that what we want for our descendants? Perhaps I’m being overly dramatic. But unfortunately, the lessons of history indicate I’m not.

Rudy is a proven tax-cutter. He won’t enact more socialist programs. After the War on Terror, the looming entitlement crisis is my next highest priority for the president to tackle–those are simply the two issues that most clearly threaten the survival of our culture. Hillary will, of an absolute certainty, make the entitlement crisis worse. Rudy will try to make it better. He has me on the war, he has me on the economy. The social issues simply have to take a back seat this time.