Hillary Will Win

[Adam's Apple]

Guiliani is too liberal and many of the GOP faithful will stay at home. And the ones who do vote for him will be holding their noses. The evangelical voters are not very happy.

Voting for Guiliani who holds a few social ideas opposite to mine but has real experience in governing is smarter than voting for the socialist candidate. When conservatives and evangelicals see Hillary in all her glory during the debates, they'll undoubtedly show up at the polls in record numbers. I can't imagine any real conservative/evangelical staying home on election day and taking a chance that another Clinton might occupy the White House. And you're talking about holding their noses and voting??????????

 

[maineman]

all we need is Hillary and 60 senators. that alone will spell the end of the reagan/gingrich revolution. It will save the supreme court, and it will allow government to get back to work on the democratic agenda with little to no interruptions.

 

[steeliniraq]

Hillary winning doesn't scare.

The Dems picking up 58-60 Senate seats and 250 in the House scares the sh!t out of me though.

Yes Yes thank you for saying that!!! Why the hell do the Amercian people always elect one party to rule everything? Checks and balances are a great thing when used right, lol!

 

[steeliniraq]

all we need is Hillary and 60 senators. that alone will spell the end of the reagan/gingrich revolution. It will save the supreme court, and it will allow government to get back to work on the democratic agenda with little to no interruptions.

And what about the 40-70% of the American population that doesnt agree with the democratic agenda? I thought they were suppose to listen to THE PEOPLE and be THEIR voice. Why am I always hearing about the Republican and Democratic agendas? Can our ELECTED officials get off their high horses and do what the people tell them to? How about the peoples agenda?

 

[JimH52]

Yes Yes thank you for saying that!!! Why the hell do the Amercian people always elect one party to rule everything? Checks and balances are a great thing when used right, lol!

I must admit you are right. One reason that the GOP lost both houses of Congress in 06 is because "complete control corrupts completely." The voters got sick and tired of a GOP white house and congress running unchecked over the Constitution.

So, it the Demos do regain the WH in 08 and take a bigger majority in Congress, you can thank GW and his "take no prisoners" manner of governing. The "decider" has basically sold your party down the road so that he could gain 8 years of his never ending dogmatic manner of governing.

So all the whining republicans can go whine on someone else's shoulder.

 

[mattskramer]

Some time ago, I predicted that the race will be between Hillary and Rudy. I also predicted that Hillary will win. I still stand by my prediction.

 

[JimH52]

Some time ago, I predicted that the race will be between Hillary and Rudy. I also predicted that Hillary will win. I still stand by my prediction.

You may be right but anything can happen...I think Hillary is a lock but the GOP...I don't know. I thought Thompson would draw away from the pack but he is floudering like a big fish. I don't get it...?

 

[jillian]

And what about the 40-70% of the American population that doesnt agree with the democratic agenda? I thought they were suppose to listen to THE PEOPLE and be THEIR voice. Why am I always hearing about the Republican and Democratic agendas? Can our ELECTED officials get off their high horses and do what the people tell them to? How about the peoples agenda?

Where are you getting that 70% number? Right now, Bush has an approval rating of under 30%. Even assuming that's due to his own ineptness and not from any sudden liberalization of the right, it's still about 40%, at best. Most of the country probably sits somewhere closely to the middle, whether on the right or left of that middle.

That said, after the way the radical right has run roughshod over the 50% of the country that doesn't agree with IT and the 70% of people who don't support Bush's war of choice or Bush or any of his failures, do you think that anyone is paticularly interested? Have you been complaining for the last 7 years that *my* voice hasn't been heard? We're THE PEOPLE, too.. yes?

 

[Adam's Apple]

all we need is Hillary and 60 senators. that alone will spell the end of the reagan/gingrich revolution. It will save the supreme court, and it will allow government to get back to work on the democratic agenda with little to no interruptions.

Dream on, Maineman; enjoy your fantasy while you can.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where are you getting that 70% number? Right now, Bush has an approval rating of under 30%. Even assuming that's due to his own ineptness and not from any sudden liberalization of the right, it's still about 40%, at best. Most of the country probably sits somewhere closely to the middle, whether on the right or left of that middle.

That said, after the way the radical right has run roughshod over the 50% of the country that doesn't agree with IT and the 70% of people who don't support Bush's war of choice or Bush or any of his failures, do you think that anyone is paticularly interested? Have you been complaining for the last 7 years that *my* voice hasn't been heard? We're THE PEOPLE, too.. yes?

I wonder what excuse you'll come up next time when the libs lose again?
I haven't seen anyone ridden over roughshod. I see a lot of whiners who supported the war initially, and then freaked out because...(gasp) it's really war! And changed their stance.

 

[007]

My way or the highway, huh? I am providing a link at the end of this post to an article directed to election-day-threatening conservatives like you.

Keep in mind that if Rudy is in the White House, conservatives have a chance to exert pressure and affect decisions on important decisions the president makes; with socialist Hillary in the White house, no chance in hell.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071010/EDITORIAL01/110100005/1013

The article argues that one should compromise. Well, I'm not up for that. I'll vote my conscience for the person who most closely represents my ideals, and that is Tom Tancredo, maybe Hunter. I believe it's my right.

You go ahead and compromise. Vote for "conservative lite." Frankly, I wouldn't want to admit to anyone that I did that. I support those who best represent me. No one else. Rudy Giuliani is a Republican in name only, and he most assuredly isn't a true conservative.

 

[AllieBaba]

Vote your conscience in the primaries.

Vote party in the presidential election.

I fear Hillary more than I fear Guiliani, and it's about what's best for the country..not about making a point. Which nobody will hear.

 

[007]

Vote your conscience in the primaries.

Vote party in the presidential election.

I fear Hillary more than I fear Guiliani, and it's about what's best for the country..not about making a point. Which nobody will hear.

I disagree. If hillary wins the White House, the message to the Republican party will be don't send us anymore half backed conservatives and expect us to vote them in.

I don't think you realize how many people feel the same as I do. There is no way in hell I'd ever vote for giuliani. Seriously, if he's the Republican nominee, I'll write in my choice. He will NOT get my vote, and I'm far from alone in this.

I thought the Republicans learned something from the last butt kicking they got in the midterm elections. Republican voters are pissed off, and if you don't think that won't carry over into the Presidential election, you're crazy.

 

[Adam's Apple]

The article argues that one should compromise.

Compromise is the name of the game in politics (or anything else, for that matter). If you wish to accomplish anything at all, you have to be a team player. Look at Washington, D.C. today. There is no willingness to compromise on anything, and the contempt of the people is reflected in very low poll numbers for those currently serving as our elected officials.

 

[007]

Compromise is the name of the game in politics (or anything else, for that matter). If you wish to accomplish anything at all, you have to be a team player. Look at Washington, D.C. today. There is no willingness to compromise on anything, and the contempt of the people is reflected in very low poll numbers for those currently serving as our elected officials.

"Team player"... OK... I'll vote for my team, but that surely won't be lead by the likes of Guiliani, or Romney, or Thompson for that matter. I was listening to Sean Hannity today on talk radio, and they had a caller that was espousing exactly what I've been saying here. They put the number of Republicans that will NOT vote for a sanctuary city, pro abortion, gun ban Giuliani, or a status quo slickster Romney, or a doesn't know anything beyond his script Thompson, at about one quarter of the vote. That's enough to lose the election right there, and it should be enough to make the Republican party take notice. Do they WANT to lose? Then don't send us ex-liberals and pro abortionists. Simple as that.

 

[Adam's Apple]

"Team player"... OK... I'll vote for my team, but that surely won't be lead by the likes of Guiliani, or Romney, or Thompson for that matter.

Yep, I see that you're a "my way or the highway" kind of man. Well, enjoy your false sense of superiority with Hillary as commander in chief. To your way of thinking, I guess socialist Hillary is far better than any conservative who doesn't walk the straight conservative walk, although Reagan didn't walk the straight conservative walk all the time either.

 

[JimH52]

I disagree. If hillary wins the White House, the message to the Republican party will be don't send us anymore half backed conservatives and expect us to vote them in.

I don't think you realize how many people feel the same as I do. There is no way in hell I'd ever vote for giuliani. Seriously, if he's the Republican nominee, I'll write in my choice. He will NOT get my vote, and I'm far from alone in this.

I thought the Republicans learned something from the last butt kicking they got in the midterm elections. Republican voters are pissed off, and if you don't think that won't carry over into the Presidential election, you're crazy.

Evidently they didn't learn. Again, why is Thompson floundering like a bit fish? I thought he was the second coming Reagon?

 

[JimH52]

Yep, I see that you're a "my way or the highway" kind of man. Well, enjoy your false sense of superiority with Hillary as commander in chief. To your way of thinking, I guess socialist Hillary is far better than any conservative who doesn't walk the straight conservative walk, although Reagan didn't walk the straight conservative walk all the time either.

Reagon and GW Bush as great examples of conservatives has always been flawed. These two Presidents amassed the greatest national debts of of time. That is conservative? While the vilified Clinton showed a surplus.

 

[007]

Yep, I see that you're a "my way or the highway" kind of man. Well, enjoy your false sense of superiority with Hillary as commander in chief. To your way of thinking, I guess socialist Hillary is far better than any conservative who doesn't walk the straight conservative walk, although Reagan didn't walk the straight conservative walk all the time either.

"False sense of superiority?" Where are coming up with that stuff? I'm not the one judging here... ahem.

I consider myself as a person that will stand fast to what he believes in a better person than one who would "compromise." Your judgement is skewed.

If hillary is elected because of the political climate and disgruntled conservative voters that are unhappy with the so called Republican candidates, then this country deserves what it will get.

 

[007]

Reagon and GW Bush as great examples of conservatives has always been flawed. These two Presidents amassed the greatest national debts of of time. That is conservative? While the vilified Clinton showed a surplus.

The "surplus" was in projection only. It never materialized. All politicians spend money like drunken sailors. Well, I should apologize to sailors. Politicians even out spend them.

Case in point, who's saying they're going to raise taxes? Who's saying they want to socialize health care? Who's going to pay for it all? Easy questions to answer.