Rudy Democrats Could Make The Difference

[red states rule]

I disagree. Fred Thompson has the best chance of pulling a R victory. He's actually a conservative for one thing, so he will appeal across the board to conservatives.

To many REAL conservatives won't vote for Rudy. I'm not going to. He's a RINO, plain and simple, and I REALLY don't see how RSR reconciles "vote for Rudy" cheerleading with his avatar.

On the issues that matter the most to me -Rudy fits the bill - and I like him personally

I like Fred as well. A Fred/Rudy or Rudy/Fred ticket would be a solid winner

 

[Gunny]

On the issues that matter the most to me -Rudy fits the bill - and I like him personally

I like Fred as well. A Fred/Rudy or Rudy/Fred ticket would be a solid winner

No it wouldn't.

Thompson has cancer in remission. His running mate would be every bit as important as he. Thompson needs a solid, moderate conservative Republican as a running mate, not a liberal being passed as a conservative.

 

[red states rule]

No it wouldn't.

Thompson has cancer in remission. His running mate would be every bit as important as he. Thompson needs a solid, moderate conservative Republican as a running mate, not a liberal being passed as a conservative.

The most important issues we have today (IMHO) the war on terror, border security, the economy, and Judges

Rudy in on target on those issues with me

Rudy ia healthy and looks fine. Fred and Rudy is a good combination

 

[Gunny]

The most important issues we have today (IMHO) the war on terror, border security, the economy, and Judges

Rudy in on target on those issues with me

Rudy ia healthy and looks fine. Fred and Rudy is a good combination

Conservatives who would otherwise vote for Thompson might not with Guilliani on the ticket.

I don't see what part of Guilliani is going to split the Republican party guaranteeing a loss you don't get. True conservatives are NOT going to vote for him.

 

[red states rule]

Conservatives who would otherwise vote for Thompson might not with Guilliani on the ticket.

I don't see what part of Guilliani is going to split the Republican party guaranteeing a loss you don't get. True conservatives are NOT going to vote for him.

Is that why he is ahead nationally?

In some polls he is even leading Hilllary in NY - not eaxctly a red state. Granted it is very early

 

[onedomino]

Conservatives who would otherwise vote for Thompson might not with Guilliani on the ticket.

I don't see what part of Guilliani is going to split the Republican party guaranteeing a loss you don't get. True conservatives are NOT going to vote for him.

There is no Red state from 2004 that would turn Blue because Rudi was on the ticket. Whereas, Rudi might put some Blue states in play that otherwise would remain Democrat, e.g., PA. Remember, it's about electoral votes. Thompson, with another of similar strict ideology, would probably lose in FL, OH, and NM. They were extremely close Red states in 2004. Without all those states in the Red electoral block, no Republican can win in 2008.

 

[Annie]

Conservatives who would otherwise vote for Thompson might not with Guilliani on the ticket.

I don't see what part of Guilliani is going to split the Republican party guaranteeing a loss you don't get. True conservatives are NOT going to vote for him.

These two cannot run together, they don't have enough experience on their own.

 

[red states rule]

There is no Red state from 2004 that would turn Blue because Rudi was on the ticket. Whereas, Rudi might put some Blue states in play that otherwise would remain Democrat, e.g., PA. Remember, it's about electoral votes. Thompson, with another of similar strict ideology, would probably lose in FL, OH, and NM. They were extremely close Red states in 2004. Without all those states in the Red electoral block, no Republican can win in 2008.

I do not think Fred would loose those sates. As Fred get s out more and tlaks to the people - I think his numbers will go up

Pres Bush won FL by about 6 points (I think) - not exactly a close one

 

[Gunny]

There is no Red state from 2004 that would turn Blue because Rudi was on the ticket. Whereas, Rudi might put some Blue states in play that otherwise would remain Democrat, e.g., PA. Remember, it's about electoral votes. Thompson, with another of similar strict ideology, would probably lose in FL, OH, and NM. They were extremely close Red states in 2004. Without all those states in the Red electoral block, no Republican can win in 2008.

The way I see it is what's it matter if the choice is a Democrat or a liberal dressed up like a Republican?

 

[onedomino]

The way I see it is what's it matter if the choice is a Democrat or a liberal dressed up like a Republican?

We will never get the candidate that we can support end to end. It is a question of what is possible. Rudi is to the Left on some issues, e.g., guns. But he is in favor of low taxes and wants to vigorously fight radical Islam. That is far better than what the Dems are offering. So I will choose the candidate I agree with most. And the candidate that has the best chance of preventing a Hillary or Obama Presidency.

 

[red states rule]

We will never get the candidate that we can support end to end. It is a question of what is possible. Rudi is to the Left on some issues, e.g., guns. But he is in favor of low taxes and wants to vigorously fight readical Islam. That is far better than what the Dems are offering. So I will choose the candidate I agree with most. And the candidate that has the best chance of preventing a Hillary or Obama Presidency.

When you compare Rudy and Hillary - the differences are plain to see

If you want much higher taxes, liberal judges creating law from the bench, government run health care, appeasement and surrender to terrorists, and government oversight of CEO pay and corporations - vote for Hillary

Rudy is the opposite of her views and it will be claer to the voters

 

[Annie]

When you compare Rudy and Hillary - the differences are plain to see

If you want much higher taxes, liberal judges creating law from the bench, government run health care, appeasement and surrender to terrorists, and government oversight of CEO pay and corporations - vote for Hillary

Rudy is the opposite of her views and it will be claer to the voters

I wouldn't be so sure Rudy wouldn't support these that I bolded. Likewise interference in schools, being pro-choice, more government regulations across the board. Like onedomino said, I'll be voting for the person that I think has a chance of winning, that puts my top issues at the top in agreement. It's the best I can do.

 

[Gunny]

We will never get the candidate that we can support end to end. It is a question of what is possible. Rudi is to the Left on some issues, e.g., guns. But he is in favor of low taxes and wants to vigorously fight radical Islam. That is far better than what the Dems are offering. So I will choose the candidate I agree with most. And the candidate that has the best chance of preventing a Hillary or Obama Presidency.

Anyone who is for infringing on my Second Amendment Rights may as well piss into the wind as expect MY vote.

 

[Annie]

Anyone who is for infringing on my Second Amendment Rights may as well piss into the wind as expect MY vote.

Congress for the time being is no longer threatening in any meaningful way the 2nd amendment, state and local governments are though. Which is why I'm fairly comfortable with Guiliani.

 

[maineman]

I'll be voting for the person that I think has a chance of winning, that puts my top issues at the top in agreement. It's the best I can do.

will you be using that criteria in the primaries, or just in the general election?

Or to rephrase, in the primary, is general election electability the most important issue for you and does it trump political philosophy?

 

[Annie]

will you be using that criteria in the primaries, or just in the general election?

Or to rephrase, in the primary, is general election electability the most important issue for you and does it trump political philosophy?

In both, as they apply. I have no intention of signing up for DNC.

 

[Annie]

In both, as they apply. I have no intention of signing up for DNC.

If a democrat should come closer to my pov in general election, I would vote for them, unlike yourself from what I've read, though the chances of that seem remote to say the least.

 

[maineman]

If a democrat should come closer to my pov in general election, I would vote for them, unlike yourself from what I've read, though the chances of that seem remote to say the least.

I understand in the general...but it was this preeminence on "electibility" and name recognition that caused your party to nominate Dubya over a host of more qualified candidates.

Until the republican platform and the democratic platform exchange names, I cannot imagine ever voting for a republican...
but I can see myself voting in the primary for a democrat who may be perceived as less electable than some other candidate.

I am, for example, supporting Bill Richardson for my party's nomination and am on his state committee.

I will support him in our caucuses regardless of how electable folks think Hillary is

 

[Annie]

I understand in the general...but it was this preeminence on "electibility" and name recognition that caused your party to nominate Dubya over a host of more qualified candidates.

Until the republican platform and the democratic platform exchange names, I cannot imagine ever voting for a republican...
but I can see myself voting in the primary for a democrat who may be perceived as less electable than some other candidate.

I am, for example, supporting Bill Richardson for my party's nomination and am on his state committee.

I will support him in our caucuses regardless of how electable folks think Hillary is

But when Hillary wins over Richardson, even if some Republican made more sense to you, you'd vote Hillary. I wouldn't case reversed.

 

[maineman]

But when Hillary wins over Richardson, even if some Republican made more sense to you, you'd vote Hillary. I wouldn't case reversed.

again.... any republican running for president will be running on the platform of the republican party. As long as the platform of the republican party is what it is, and as long as the platform of the democratic party is what IT is, why would I vote for someone standing on a platform with which I profoundly disagree? Because he did a good job in front of the cameras on 9/11?

And we haven't even mentioned the nomination of judges!