RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback-poliblog.html?p=12952
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
0.117 Powered by Wordpress
The question that immediately jumps to my mind is whether those who “would not support their party’s nominee” would actually vote for the opposition, or if they would just stay home. I’m guessing it would be just stay home. Either way, it does seem like a significant thing for the party to consider when selecting their candidate.
Comment by Jan — Wednesday, December 12, 2024 @ 11:28 am
The National Review, as usual, is not to be taken seriously. They say, presumably with a straight face, that the sort of candidate they embrace is a supporter of:
“free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest”
When your candidate must (1) impose his moral views on society as a whole and (2) define the “national interest” based on the preferences of those special interests that insist on global military domination, then one is manifestly not serious about “limited government.”
Comment by MSS — Wednesday, December 12, 2024 @ 1:05 pm