Called it on yourself...
Posted on 03/07/2012 9:20:15 PM PST by Sick of Lefties
William McGurn is his usual magnificent self today.
[quote] Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family—prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children—than is now presented to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, however, haven't figured this out. This is their basic problem. They have no strategy for defeating an Obama administration that is highly vulnerable on both domestic and foreign policy. [end quote]
Those words were written by Scotty Reston in a New York Times column published on February 29, 1980 about President Jimmy Carter's good fortune, rather than President Obama's, to be facing such a pack stumblebums. We all know how Reston's prognostications turned out.
Nothing has changed. To listen to the media, the Republicans are always stupid and confused, bumbling and inept, obtuse and unelectable.
It's funny how only Republicans palatable to the New York Times lose Presidential elections. You'd think the public would wise up to the ruse.
[quote] Then as now, the chattering classes wondered aloud whether a candidate who could win the Republican nomination could prevail against President Carter in November. On March 1, former President Gerald Ford amplified that view when he told a New York Times reporter, "Every place I go and everything I hear, there is the growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election." [end quote]
Can it be long before John McCain, the New York Times preferred Republican candidate in 2008, presents himself for nomination at the convention? Too bad for the Times that Gerald Ford is no longer available to provide sound bites.
Especially of note is what McGurn implies about the standard for Republican candidates: perfection.
[quote] Nor was candidate Reagan without baggage. As governor, Reagan had pushed through the largest tax hike in California's history, had signed one of the nation's most liberal abortion laws, and—as George H.W. Bush pointed out—presided over the doubling of the state budget over his eight-year tenure, to $10.2 billion when he left office from $4.6 billion when he entered. [end quote]
Mitt, Rick, Newt and Ron are imperfect, too, just like Dutch. Get over it.
They can grow. And, unlike our current President, they won't unilaterally pass any trillion dollar entitlements; balloon the size and scope of government; redistribute red state tax revenues to fill blue state budget holes; disarm the nation; abandon space to America's rivals; kill off feasible energy projects that would make America independent of hostile forces; shackle the economy with taxes and regulation; trample on American's religious liberties in the name of women's health and other shibboleths, etc.
[quote] [Reagan] would face Santorum-like fears about his social message, especially after appearing at a mass gathering of Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals. A minister with whom he'd shared a stage was taped saying "we're being attacked by satanic forces," which Times columnist Anthony Lewis declared "the scariest piece of television" he'd seen in some time.
Yes, the parallels to 1980 take you only so far, and Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Still, at this same point in his campaign for the GOP nomination, neither was Reagan. The President Reagan we rightly admire for bringing down the Berlin Wall, reviving the U.S. economy, and attracting into the GOP millions of disaffected Democrats was still to come.
And he got there by transcending the conventional wisdom rather than allowing himself or his message to be limited by it. [end quote]
That just about says it all. Whoever the eventual candidate is, as President he will have to surmount daily attacks from the mainstream media, just as Reagan did, and probably die before garnering any recognition for saving America from bankruptcy and national decline.
It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. Any of the Republican candidates are sufficiently suited to the task of saving the nation from today's vulnerable administration.
I would like to see the source, I want to see if I can make a short verified description of it for posting.
I am so sick of THE GOP - the most inept, impotent bunch of losers I have ever in my life seen.
Any opposition group that cannot stand up to OBAMA, and all the atrocities he has fomented, is truly worthless. If these sad sacks cannot defeat the socialist-in-chief they no longer deserve to exist.
The GOP was handed a big club in November, 2010 - but instantly set about subjugating the new faces into obscurity and promoting their proven failures into leadership positions. And now we have Boehner, who can’t call Obama out when he tells us up is down.
No sympathy, GOP. I have already girded myself to another 4 years of OBastard; the fate of the country notwithstanding. Is the fault all his? Nah.
From Wiki, other sources at bottom.
In most denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, a high priest is a member of the priesthood within the Melchizedek priesthood order. High priests are typically older and more seasoned leaders within the priesthood. The term derives in part from the Epistle to the Hebrews which describes Jesus as “a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” (5:10; see also 6:20). Movement founder Joseph Smith, Jr. ordained the first high priests on June 3, 1831.[1]
All Bishops are “High Priests” in the Melchizidek priesthood. Scripture states that office only belongs to Christ.
I can give you more LDS sources but here are a few...
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/high-priest?lang=eng
Here is LDS justification for it...http://ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com/2008/05/great-high-priest.html
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/High_Priest
Let me know if you need more.
Christians know there is only ONE High Priest not thousands.
All Bishops are “High Priests” in the Melchizidek priesthood. Scripture states that office only belongs to Christ.
This statement is mine not from the wiki (LDS) article. Just to clarify
Thanks, that seems like a real conversation stopper that even uninterested people of either party would be shocked to learn about a candidate running for the highest office.
I remember that, and was steaming about Cantor and them, this is the constant war within the GOP, right versus left.
That’s both beautiful and eye-wrenching. The fractal you put up, I mean. The Romney booster was just wrenching.
I don’t agree that he is a decent man. He is a liar who regularly trashes decent men. He is a socialist. He is a gun grabber. He is a greenie. He is a supporter of gay marriage and the gay agenda. He has said that a woman has the right to murder her children and says that right should be protected.
If you are still here, you may soon know that supporting liberal scum like him is not allowed here.
See ya boy!
Well now, that’s a pretty fine looking cat there!
What does Mitt Romney stand for?Dogs should ride on top of the car.
Called it on yourself...
Ditch the blog. Write on FR. Don't re-direct traffic offsite. What the hell is the re-direct for? People are reading HERE.Bravo. Well said.
Nice fractal... :-)
Sick of Lefties: “Oh! Oops! Tough crowd.”
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.