Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: italianquaker

I agree, it looks like we have a kook here.

As was noted in the first response, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.

The real disappointment was Bush losing touch with the base.

And what is the alternative, elect another conservative who, almost-certainly, would also yield to a future Republican President...or elect a Democrat?

Let me guess, we need Ron Paul.


16 posted on 02/01/2009 9:50:24 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: BobL
As was noted in the first response, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.

So you're saying that party loyalty is more important than doing the right thing.

That's the difference. You want to elect Republicans who will mindlessly vote with the party. I want to elect Republicans who will cut taxes decrease entitlement spending, and make inroads towards paying down the debt so that our children can have a better life.

Bush decided he wanted to run up the credit cards and give the bills to our kids.
18 posted on 02/01/2009 9:54:15 AM PST by wartman (http://www.jeffwartman.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson