To: Oceander
Yes, in fact I do believe it more possible that Mitt would yield to pressure from the Tea Parties than that Obama would. It stinks to have to be in a clamoring contest for control of a silly putty president. But that beats a rigid dogmatic Marxist any day.
96 posted on
09/07/2012 8:09:37 PM PDT by
HiTech RedNeck
(let me ABOs run loose, lew (or is that lou?))
To: HiTech RedNeck
Yes, in fact I do believe it more possible that Mitt would yield to pressure from the Tea Parties than that Obama would. It stinks to have to be in a clamoring contest for control of a silly putty president. But that beats a rigid dogmatic Marxist any day.
Most definitely
106 posted on
09/07/2012 8:22:53 PM PDT by
Oceander
(TINSTAAFL - Mother Nature Abhors a Free Lunch almost as much as She Abhors a Vacuum)
To: HiTech RedNeck
“Yes, in fact I do believe it more possible that Mitt would yield to pressure from the Tea Parties than that Obama would.”
What leads you to that conclusion? I assume that willard will do everything he can to consolidate power if he is elected, and the TEA party is a threat. Why would he not act to marginalize them? Afterall, he will have demonstrated that he can win an election without them.
515 posted on
09/08/2012 8:30:23 PM PDT by
RKBA Democrat
(Vote for willard - he doesn't need to earn your vote, he's entitled to it.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson