Posted on 11/10/2006 6:59:08 AM PST by Pokey78
Whether or not Newt is a hypocrite has zero relevance to the argument he makes about GOP strategy. Back to Logical Fallacies 101 for you.
Clinton/Giuliani (and Rice for Secretary of Defense) 2008
...to make man hater and Caligula "conservatives" happy. [g]
But if this country contains enough decency and common sense, Newt will be our president after '08.
How old was Newt when he married his teacher? Is she one of those who would be on TV today for having sex with a minor?
and Meyers
It wasn't that GWB was trying to hurt the Republican candidates. But he thought it was more important to make himself look good.
He is getting a lot of good publicity in the main stream media from his moves the last few days.
Well, OK . . . in which case Rumsfeld should have "fired" the administration a long time ago.
Maybe the fault is with the person they never blame.
And who would that be?
Reagan pounded Bush's policies but NEVER the man.
I only wish the Newt basher's would do the same
Romney used Massachusetts as a stepping stone for his political ambitions. After three years, he abandoned the state and Kerry Healey in her gubernatorial bid while he flew around the country. I always liked him, now I feel used.
the bad advice of consultants —
led to Tuesday's defeat.
It didn't help that the pundits, consultants, "experts" and current crop of CONgresscritters, were too busy publicly finding fault with the administration, pandering to terrorists and ILLEGALS while hiding and protecting the REAL CORRUPTION of the demonRATS and constantly apologizing for breathing.
> Newt is a decent guy, but any man who has 2 ex wives shows he is lacking in commitment and responsbility, therefore I would never vote for him.
Rush Limbaugh has 3 ex wives, yet many people here worship the ground he walks on, which is the moral equivalent of voting for him.
Reagan wasn't, uh, "courting" his second wife when he anddivorced Ms. Wyman were divorced. I believe the Newtster , like Rudy, was.
You tell me. Which very high ranking Bush Administration offical is never attacked by Democrats or the media.
That offical is said to bring "calm" and "reason" and all the other stuff the New York Times just loves in foreign policy. A "global test" to decisions, one might say.
I hope so, but the "team" that seems to follow a member of the Bush family around seems to be stuck around them.
We'll see if Jeb ever runs and if he can maintain his independence from their likes.
I don't think it would have made a hill of beans worth of difference. If Rummy had resigned two weeks before the election, the MSM and the Dems would have just spent that final two weeks crowing about it, and the outcome would have been the same.
The bottom line is that the dems are NOT our friends, never have been and never will be. The goal always should be to defeat them and not to bow to them.
Good post! Thanks!
Why would anyone marry a guy who looks like Lurch, acts like Lurch, and can't get out of his own way? Bad taste, lady.
I dunno -- Colin Bowel has been gone for a while now.
Nah, I put that responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the members of Congress themselves. They got too full of themselves and too greedy; folks just got tired of it.
I am not advocating criticizing a person (esp a Republican) on a personal level, that is below the belt. If you look through my posts on FR, I don't think you'll find any personal animus from myself to anyone, politician or otherwise.
However, if a person is completely tied to a policy (ala CFR + McCain) then I have no qualms about criticizing that person directly. I also have no problems criticizing Bush for his double speak about Rumsfeld.
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.