Posted on 02/04/2007 5:09:09 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
I don't have the transcript to use as reference, but he was basically saying the things on Iraq, the economy, fiscal responsibility, and bipartisanship that should have been said all along. What he says NOW and what he's done in the past mismatch. I saw it as insincere pandering and I'm sure I am not alone in that assessment.
I agree. He has manly good looks. (I liked Gramm too.)
Though I agree with you on the Republican part .. I have to disagree with you on the Hellary or another Dem part
The Dems are playing for keeps and they will not go back to things as usual
I had not heard that info but it makes sense. They are certainly in tune and they are always smiling when they are together. It is too bad we cannot run Lynn as VP, those two great minds would be utilized again. I think they will be ready for Peace and Quiet and having fun with the Grandkids after January 2009.
Post 497
Samantha Every time I see Duncan Hunter I think of Joe Mannix from 1974 or thereabouts
It is a direct reference to Hunter's looks. It would suggest looks do matter (not to YOU on a personal level) but to what you consider defines "Electability".
We cannot afford to lose in 2008, and Duncan Hunter is too easy for his Rivals to beat up let alone the rotten DBM biased Pukes
That a circular argument. ANY of the Candidates up for 2008 are "too easy to beat up". You want a guaranteed winner. There are no such things. Honestly, it feels sounds like 1976 all over again. "Reagan is too old, he looks funny, he to radical, he will not appeal to the middle, the Press will eat him alive. etc etc etc." So we will put up a nice bland squish non-enity who will fold like a cheap suit under the pressure of trying to be everything to everyone just like Ford did in 1976.
Ronald Reagan won 2 of the biggest election landslides in US History by LEADING. He went out that an battled every day to convince people HIS vision for the future was the right one. He took on his foes and beat them, he did not try to "moderate" and "move to the center". The Republicans of 1994 LEAD. They did NOT try to moderate or run focus group. The said "Here is what WE will do" and then did it.
"Electability" is one of these diversionary tactics. "He is not electable so don't listen to him, only listen to this guy I want to win". It is thrown out there to keep the base from considering anyone except the Party Leadership's chosen candidates from getting a fair hearing.
It a complete unquantifiable, emotion based term. Short of having an election, you cannot quanifie electablity. Hunter is electable. He has won 14 of them. "Electablity" simply is the party leadership saying "trust us, we know better then you people, this guy cannot win." It simply a way to avoid and stifle, rather then engage, in the debate Sorry but that does not convince me. Frankly it makes me wonder what people are afraid of?
If Hunter has no chance why waste time talking him down? Trying to predefine who can win an election 21 months in advance is pure conjecture. It comes down to simply a matter of personal preference not anything fact based or quantifiable. If Hunter "has no chance" why are the Republican faithful trying so hard to talk him down without bothering to actually hear him?
I not only remember them, but I've forgotten them.
How about refining that? "Fatuous fops" works for me! :-)
It's not going to happen, but I'd love to see Lynne Cheney run for president in '08. I think she'd make everyone else look silly in comparison.
The Dems are playing for keeps and they will not go back to things as usual
I know that, and you know that, but the "Republican Leadership" doesn't know, or believe that. I was describing what they think, not what I or you think.
You and I are not in disagreement on that.
The fact is, the Democrats are already busily about making rule changes, ramming through new legislation, etc. to insure that they are never again the minority. They are going to "school" the Republicans on the effective use of power.
Governor Rutabaga has time to lose 70 pounds, have lots of cosmetic surgery and even pile on 5 pounds of super glue and silly putty. He could do all that and he would still be ugly, because he is ugly inside. You are right.
Ok again for the third and final time. PURE diversion. Total failure to address even one of my points. SO I will make it REAL simple.
Is Newt playing kissy face with Hillary on Global Warming "betraying Conservative Principals"? Or should I ignore that, compromise MY principals and accept that I am not going to agree 100% with anyone ever and 70% of something is going to be a whole lot better then 100% of nothing?
So let try this the OTHER way around. WHAT are your NON compromising position on issue? The point where once they cross that they are SO compromised they cannot possible ever be trusted by you? See along with a willingness to compromise must be a set of values as to where to STOP compromising? So what is your "line of death" the absolute minimum the GOP must do to win your support?
Boy are you right, but you may get slammed...
Sorry for misunderstanding your point
Johnnie
BULL! JUST BULL!
YOU are the one diverting attention from the REAL issues and you damn well know it.
I use to respect you.. but now you are nothing but a GOP talking point tool-- damned be the troops, and damned be the nation...you refuse to call the GOP Leadership out on the BULL they have sold us...
You refuse to deal with the facts.. it is all about a 2 party system and you have to defend your party no matter what they do.
You know as well as I do that the GOP elected prostitutes in DC are no different than the Dem ones.
You want to talk about appetizers and dessert and accuse ME of diverting from the real issue..
you aren't conservative- you are a party tool...you use the troops for your political rhetoric just as the damn libs do.
This President has been more worried about world opinion and media than our troops and you DAMN well know it.
He sent them there. I support that decision. I will fight tooth and nail for that- but EVERY FRICKING ACTION SINCE THEN has been ALL POLITICS!
if you want to continue this conversation ONLINE- fine with me.. but be prepared- you may want to take this to FREEPMAIL....
I don't come on here swaying my contacts around like an insecure child needing attention.. in fact- the deeper I get, the more I have been quiet..
I try and just give heads up and analysis... I try to give FREEPERs the tools to counter what I know and see coming....you have no idea the risks I have taken and the battle have I have fought behind the scenes...NONE!
If all you can do is attack me to try and make you look and feel better- have at it. I'll tell you the same thing I told another FREEPER whom I thought was my friend.
I could care less about who looks right or who looks wrong.
I could care less about radio ratings... I am only there because of already being who I am- I have never had to adjust or pretend. I was ME..and it was being the honest ME that got me there.
Since then- along with the years before that of being just who I am- all the people I have met, and know are a result.
WE- THE FREEPERS- are the ALTERNATIVE media... start acting like that actually MEANS something and has power instead of bragging about it, and then buckling at every challenge the MSM gives us.
which one is it Johnnie?
Can we change things? Are we the anitthesis of the MSM? For truth?
or are we just the GOP internet media spin machine?
You want the facts on President Bush and the border? Or is your head in the damn sand?
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.