Many candidates are now coming to the surface on both sides of the isle. I have been speaking about this with several friends lately and I personally believe that George W. Bush has done such great harm to the Republican name that we may be forced to support a Pro-Choice Republican just to stay alive as a Party. I also think that this could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as we know it. If the Republicans are forced to support a liberal just to keep the Party afloat we will lose the far right. I would also say that we would lose more on the far right that we would gain from democrats who are just left of center. We have always been able to choose a conservative candidate. We may not have this choice in 2008. Sure we can vote for a conservative like Brownback, but can a conservative win in 2008. I would say no. Bush has painted himself a conservative. This could not be further from the truth. Bush is no conservative. The war is viewed as a conservative's war. Republicans were forced to support Bush or risked being viewed as pro-terrorist. Conservative after conservative supported the President with the "stay the course" garbage. We can't run from that now.
The Republican frontrunner's include McCain, Guliani, and Romney. Could someone help me find the conservative in that list? That's right, there isn't one. Many times people don't necessarily vote for the best person but rather for the person they think can win. Many Republicans will vote for the person that they feel has the best chance to beat Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. To be honest, I prefer Obama from that bunch. The other two are bad news in almost every way.
The major dilemma here is that we might not be able to support a true conservative. While conservatives like Newt Gingrich are now championing conservative causes like the abolishment of the 9th Curcuit, they have a huge uphill climb ahead of them. They will be outspent and out politicked. Imagine a primary where Republicans beat up on Republicans for not being liberal enough. We may see this over the next two years. Whatever they do, run far and fast from Bush.
Once again I hope I am wrong.
___________________________________
If you are still using Internet Explorer 6.0 you should consider switching to Firefox or upgrading to Internet Explorer 7.0.
I strongly recommend Firefox. I design the site using Firefox and that is the best way to view it. Click the link on the side to download it.
10 responses so far ↓
1 hmmmm // Mar 14, 2007 at 7:40 am
Rudy has my vote right now, but I am very interested in Fred Thompson running for President. Fred is good, solid Republican that could probably seperate himself from Bush, although, any Republican has that problem. The real disaster right now is all the Republican candidates, attempting to appease the right, are saying that they would do exactly what Bush has done in regards to the war, and Fred Thompson has done the same. It isn’t necessarily Geroge Bush that is killing the Republican Party. It is the blind faith in George Bush that is killing the party. If Republicans in Congress stopped carrying the water for Bush on the war, on spending, etc… and started questioning his actions, then we would be a Party, not a herd of sheep.
2 Travis Seitler // Mar 14, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Undercover or not, I don’t see the GOPerative getting invited to many GOP dinners now that he’s come out with a stance like this.
But he’s got balls… I’ll give him that.
The problem with the Republican Party is that it’s all about what’s “good” (that is, generates revenue) for key members of the Republican Party. The party is no longer (assuming it was at one point) driven by a desire to honor God and promote honorable candidates. It’s no longer about protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If we need to toss the Constitution down the crapper to get what we want, then the Republican Party as a whole has shown it’s willing to do that. The only problem is that people who act that way are precisely the domestic enemies of the Constitution which elected officials are sworn to fight.
In other words, what we have today is the equivalent of Communists in the White House, Congress and the Courts… and we sit back and wonder why our Cold War isn’t faring so well. (Duh! It’s because the people we’ve elected have no intention of fighting that war!) We need candidates who care more about upholding the Constitution than about garnering the support of the people. They’ll get the support they need so long as they remain faithful—and their supporters have the courage to publicly support them.
3 Dave // Mar 18, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I tried to add Duncan Hunter ( gohunter08.com ) and Ron Paul ( ronpaulexplore.com )to your presidential poll list, and couldn’t. Is your polling software designed by democrats? These two men are the only ones who I could possibly get my vote at this point. All the guys except Gingrich are liberals, and Newt has way too much baggage to win. I don’t think conservatives need to compromise by putting up a liberal candidate- we lost the last election, I believe, because conservatives did not stand on their core principles and beliefs. Republicans are spending like drunken sailors, tolerating corruption, and increasing the size and scope of government more than democrats ever did. More of the same is not going to help us. If Republicans want to start winning again, then they need to return to theie core values and start acting responsibly.
As far as Obama, he can talk a good talk. He gave a great speech at the last Dem. Convention, he talked about the greatness of our country- I thought he sounded a bit like Reagan- but don’t be fooled, he is every bit as liberal and dangerous as Hillary. Just look at his record in Illinois, and some of the folks that are supporting him now.
4 hmmmm // Mar 20, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I am amazed that Obama voted against anti-gang legislation. It seems that he is more worried about african americans in gangs being punished, so his solution is let’s NOT get tough on gangs.
5 Harcodem // Apr 7, 2007 at 8:09 am
Hmmmm is on to something with Fred Thompson. I know many are willing to write hiim off because he’s on Law & Order.
Fact is, he’s the only Reagan conservative in the race. I myself have no problem with conservatives…as long as they act like conservatives. Not conservatives who want to fatten their wallets or bible-thump from the law.
Fred Thompson doesn’t do that…just so happens, he’s a decent actor. Nothing wrong with that. I’ve followed a bit of his senate career, and its pretty good stuff. Votes to lower taxes when it can be afforded. Here’s a nice little gem from way back “Mr. President, we can’t afford this tax cut. The people who benefit from this are far outnumbered by the Americans who are disadvantaged…” (that may not win him any fans here, but hey.)
He’s been married twice, but believes in the sanctity of marriage…blah blah blah.
If I keep propelling this guy, I’ll sound Republican myself (not a bad thing, just not my thing)
I’m saying that if you’re worried that you’re only choice is Guiliani, then consider Fred Thompson.
Hell…you think YOU have it bad? Look who I have to deal with! I’ve been looking at the announced candidates for awhile now, and none of them make me want to say “OOOH! I want to vote for THAT guy!”
Both sides of the isle-I swear-are the least inspiring candidates of my generation.
Take that as you will
6 hmmmm // Apr 9, 2007 at 11:54 am
A bigger question I have, that I would like to ask the Republicans here (no offense HarCoDem, although I think you would be interested in the answer). Would being anit-war preclude a nominee from your vote. Chuck Hagel is flirting with jumping in and he is the only anti-war Republican currently out there. I ask because so far, all the candidates when asked about Iraq say they would do just what GWB is doing and I think that is a flawed answer both for a primary and obviously for the general. I think they are all saying this because they think this is what we want to hear and I personally would like to hear someone give an honest assessment.
7 Malnurtured Snay // Apr 19, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I’ve got news for you - the Republican Party “as you knew it” died and got swept under the rug during the last six years. The new question becomes “what direction will the Republican Party go?” Will it continue as a Christian-socialist party? Or will it go back to the quasi-libertarian idealism of states’ and individuals’ rights? The two aren’t compatible, and are the choices the voters of the party face.
8 GOPerative // Apr 20, 2007 at 4:40 am
Malnurtured Snay,
I agree with you 100%. If Guliani is selected as the Republican candidate, the Republican Party as we know it will continue to decline. The Christian right will not stay with Guliani and we will see record numbers voting for 3rd party candidates, thus killing the Republican Party.
9 Travis Seitler // Apr 20, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Whoa… so I actually have a reason to hope Guliani gets the nomination?!
10 PolJunkie // May 14, 2007 at 10:06 am
Speaking of the ‘08 elections, can someone confirm or deny if Dave Craig is considering running against Wayne Gilchrest? The first I learned of this was over the weekend, but I’ve been behind in news before.
Leave a Comment