Posted on 06/30/2012 11:41:54 PM PDT by tsomer
I saw he is on Vacation?
Anybody running with an "R" after his name is in the same boat.
To the Dem mind there are three kinds of Republicans:
1. So called moderates, millionaire country club tycoons,the back room dealers. They never see them working, but whenever they see them they seem to have plenty. Liberals tolerate this kind; they serve good liquor and plenty of it, with food their own government salary rarely allows. They're the perfect host and that's how they should stay.
2.Conservative and middle class 'pubs typically gather around bible thumping collection-plate con artists. These drovers live off their flock, which would otherwise be a rabble, so libs are grateful they have an outlet to keep this volatile demographic under control. And they're happier still that it's someone else doing it. The fact is, they abhor these people-- they're moralistic, stingy, acquisitive drones. They eat mediocre food and pray just before; they don't get high and party, and seem to disapprove whenever anyone else does. Libs believe conservatives want all science teachers tried for heresy. They're drearily non--intellectual beasts of burdens; the fact that these people are so competent enrages the lib.
3.Finally there's the rabid conservative. These guys are scary -- violent, paranoid and misanthropic. Their entire wardrobe is either camo or white. They've got basements bigger than their house and full of canned goods and guns. But they're kind of interesting too, and great wellspring of inspiration for writers of the paper-back literature found in airport newsstands. But they're also form the primordial ooze that all Republican principals arise from. This subset is the source, and all Republicans are but a few steps from reverting to this state.
This is, in a nutshell, the Lib mythology of Republicans. Note the parallels to the human mind, you have the reptile brain (group 3), the mammalian brain (group 2) and finally, the neo-cortex, (group 1.) Or, you have the id (3), the super-ego (2), and the ego (1).
I'm sure literary types formulated this code, and over the past century journalists have codified and hammered it home. It's entirely fabricated, prejudiced, deliberately destructive and plainly shows their contempt for people; it insults the collective intelligence of everyone.
It has become has become what you might call the "Cliff Notes Guide to Reporting; take the narrative framework and plug in your characters-- instant lit! I now doubt there's a 'journalist' alive who could write so much as a sentence without this ideological meme for a crutch. Romney's got his work cut out for him. To them, he's a combination of 1&2, so the contempt level is squared.
He can only beat this the way Reagan did-- on camara, speaking directly to our people, promising better things and invoking the "shining city on the hill."
Mitt Romney has grown up and in doing so, has become more conservative. Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKtXjiHV090
Expecting every politician to imitate Reagan’s 1980 campaign is absurd. Every election cycle is different and each politician needs to win on their own strengths - not by being a pale imitation of three decade old history. Besides, we’ve already seen how Romney’s campaign is going to operate; it’s the same mode he’s been operating in for the last four years. He won’t make bold promises, he won’t emphasize the distinguishing marks of his potential presidency. He’ll just attack Obama with the goal of making the election solely a referendum. For the next four months just expect to hear nothing beyond “Obamacare is bad medicine” - whatever that means.
Incidentally, isn’t it about time to announce the VP nomination?
That’s true, only the ones that win are the ones who make promises. Even Obama’s crew understood that, though it was conveyed through pictures and icons and catch words. But the message was there.
The whole point is, if Romney stays on the current track, he will probably lose.
I’m not crazy about him, but if he loses we’re done.
There isn’t anything true in that video except that it reveals Mitt Romney, for instance besides leaving out his efforts to defeat republicans and elect democrats, even doing democrat fund raising, he uses his family (and him) as being republican, yet the question is ‘why did Reagan drive you from the GOP’? Why did you leave the GOP in 1979 during the Reagan campaign? etc., etc. Why did you despise Reagan, Jesse Helms, conservatism, the “Contract with America”, guns, life, normalcy, etc, etc, etc?
Good questions. I am sure the Dems will use to their advantage similar questions and some we didn’t think of.
Yes, you liberal republicans have a lot to answer for in having maneuvered that failed Massachusetts Governor into being the GOP candidate for the presidency and to lead your party.
I wanted to be a state delegate, hoping to go on to the National Convention. When I announced my support for Newt, I was voted out. I did not even make it as an alternate. The Romneybots moved their delegates on to state at our Legislative Caucus. I was told that few of them showed up at the State Convention and they had to use all of the alternates that showed up.
The Ron Paul people were so mad the held their own Legislative Caucus. I was elected a delegate on the first round. Trouble was, the GOP called the caucus illegal and that was how it was. By the way, I am not even a Romney supporter. I still like Newt but dream of Sarah Palin.
Only a Romney supporter would make every effort to promote him and defend him and then claim to not even be for Romney, all on the same thread.
It is bizarre, but we see that a lot.
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.