Posted on 01/27/2009 6:00:49 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Reagan picked Bush? How about, Bush blackmailed his way onto the ticket, and his people's way onto the President's White House staff, which they took over with a lot of insider-political moves and proceeded to try to paint Reagan into a corner on policy five times a week?
That would be more like it.
No, Mitt Romney did not defend the institution of marriage. He did nothing. He led no legislative effort, he issued no call for the justifiable impeachment of the two members of the three-member Supreme Judicial Court who voted with the Chief Justice, and in fact he did nothing but sit on his hands and issue a few press-release mumbles.
He was put on the spot by the SJC, and he refused to fight. He refused to mobilize Massachusetts's hordes of Italian and Irish Catholic voters, he refused to attack the SJC for overreaching, he refused to lead in the legislature to write a new law correcting the solecism of the SJC, and submitting it to a plebiscite for even greater political authority.
He could have done plenty but he did zip. Bottom line.
So you are with the Reagan-was-a-useful-idiot crowd and it was really Bush who ran things?
Silence both or neither?
Would you like to separate out your loaded questions and try again?
No, I don't beat my wife.
Oh, and unload your questions, too -- I don't do those.
It's just do you - or don't you?
I used double standard in my first response and it appears to be that;
something we spend a good deal of time accusing democrats of.
I'm out of this now, lest I become tempted to resort to tools of debate like 'sparky' or 'hotshot'...
You're not serious about the issue, you're just brawling on behalf of a RiNO you like.
Go away, punk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.