Wrong here, also. I was railing against Bush even before he got the nomination the first time. He did not fool me then, and his actions have proven me to be correct in my evaluation of him.
(my post) How about the Republican nominating a conservative once in a while?
SB: Republicans nominating a conservative.
In my state (Iowa) we conservatives have tried for years to get the more conservative nominated to state and national candidacy, only to have the Republican state machine say something stupid like: We must nominate someone ELECTABLE! Meaning; someone like another RINO.
This has happeded so many times, Governor, Senator, U.S. Representative, and of course, U.S. president, that those of us who are tired of trying are going to try something else for a change.
Seems I should try to calm down and proofread for spelling errors!
You haven't shown me to be wrong anywhere yet, leave alone "also". You were the one who said he was "kicked in the teeth" after the election. I will ask again, what has Bush done since the election of '04 that you consider kicking in your teeth? IOW, you knew exactly what you were getting when you voted for him in '04!
We must nominate someone ELECTABLE! Meaning; someone like another RINO.
What it means is that the presidential elections depend more and more on that 30 percent of swing voters who just have a moderate streak among their otherwise conservative principles and will simply not vote for the Roy Moore types any longer. It means that the demographics are changing and the Party would like not to lose out. It means that the Republican Party while still the party of conservatives, must be a big-tent party, or it will drift into the fringes of American politics.
Continuing to elect traditional conservatives to Congress makes more sense because they can impact legislation, assuming they are truly conservative.