Here’s the clue, Titan. You find it ok to speak positively of OBVIOUS Rino Scot Brown winning in Massachusetts, but you attack a conservative who is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-God, and pro-fiscal sanity.
Vetting a record for George Bush, you would have come up with the same stuff.
I’m betting you voted for GW. Did you?
x, First of all, quit bustin on ‘gov’. You can’t diss on him based on him supporting the NON-RAT in any election. I don’t care if it was Scott Brown in drag against those commies in MA.
Here’s the deal - In the general I’ve voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain - and as long as there is a Democrat Party on the other side of the ballot, it’s highly unlikely that this trend will change.
What does that prove in terms of vetting in the primaries?
In 2008 primaries I campaigned against McCain (and for no one in particular), and called him every name in the book. Probably like a few others around here.
It’s 12 light years before AUGUST 2012, we’re going to be fighting for who is going to be the BIG ENCHILADA for our side, and you’d better get used to it because it’s going to be a WAR in the primaries. Just like the RATs had their war in 2008 (and that didn’t seem to keep them from winning in NOV).
There was a vicious war in 1980 primaries. The guy that called Reagan’s economic plan “Voodoo Economics” wound up being chosen by Reagan to be his VP (and ‘Eastern Establishment’ dude), and that didn’t seem to keep Republicans from winning in NOV.
So, what’s the deal? Lighten up. Take the hits, or respond with something back that will make one understand better on how the issue of Perry’s action served to advance the conservative cause.