Consider it done.
However, you and other Hunter supporters won't do the same for any other GOP candidate.
Not true. But the string has been run out. Our patience is at an end. Hence the implosion of Bush II. We supported Bush I, Bob Dole, and Bush II. And were betrayed. We're tired of it.
It's our turn. Now, more than ever.
It's politically hypocritical and borders on being a bunch of Sore-Duncanman.
Actually, the biggest sore-losers and malcontents are...and have always been... the RINOs. They, and the self-proclaimed "mavericks"....who "reach across the aisle" etc.
They have proved their ideological inconstancy...and anti-conservative enmity... over and over and over.
And you should know that.
They want to be the "leaders" even though they show again and again, when given the bully pulpit, they don't actually lead, certainly not from conservative precepts, but that all they do is FOLLOW the demonRATS!
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Here is some accurately-reported history from 1990John Sullivan in National Review that I commend to your attention:
Now more than ever -I especially like this bitingly accurate observation of Team Bush's contemptuous attitudes:
Ronald Reagan's presidency reevaluated - editorial
National Review, Nov 19, 1990
by John O'Sullivan* One beneficiary of the present discontents in Washington is former President Reagan. A favorable reputation in history has been secured for him by the errors of his successor. The political wisdom of his tax cuts has been confirmed by the electoral disasters that are following their abandonment. And to cap it all, the old boy has his memoirs in the bookshops. What timing! How did he persuade George Bush to do it?
Yet, only six months ago, the cognoscenti were writing off the Gipper as a failed peddler of illusions that had now vanished to disclose a world in rags. He was responsible for the deficit-prompted recession (which had not occurred)-though not for the collapse of Communism (which had). He had been idle, ignorant, and ideological.
All in all, his performance offered a sad contrast to that of the "professionals" now running the show, "hands-on" pragmatists who understood "the process" of government. Wow. Members of the Bush Administration did not discourage this contrast since it flattered them. Look, Mom, no gaffes.
How are the mediocre fallen. The "process" of governing in Washington today is a joke-a series of botched compromises achieved through late nights and exhaustion. President Bush and his savvy pragmatists have split the Republican Party, handed the Democrats the fairness" issue, gained no important concessions, and in the name of bipartisanship ensured the election of a far-left spendthrift Congress at the very time the main obstacle to federal spending, namely the no new taxes" pledge, has been removed.
And so unpopular is the budget package, for which these sacrifices have been made, that President Bush is campaigning on the theme that the Democrats forced him to do it. He himself is an innocent outsider, shocked by the Beltway's excesses, just like ... Ronald Reagan.
* Which compels us to re-evaluate the past. According to well-informed leaks, Bush, Baker, and Darman were the boys who kept the Reagan Administration on the road. They restrained the old boy's follies and applied the brake of "reality" to Reaganite dreams. With Reagan no longer there to throw grit in their smooth-running machine, the nation would surely return to good government.
It now turns out that Reagan contributed something, after all. He had clear principles so that people trusted him even in bad times. He had a clear sense of priorities, pushing through the key policies-tax cuts, the defense build-up-that changed the world. And he had political shrewdness so that opponents found themselves playing by his rules (e.g., no new taxes), and subordinates thought that they were really running things.
He made governing look easy. Too easy. Even Richard Darman thought he could do it.
* The revival in President Reagan's reputation is even spreading to darkest Europe. At a recent dinner party of international civil servants in Rome, I ventured that he had caused Communism to collapse. This was greeted tolerantly as a sort of parochial stateside eccentricity. Then a French diplomat spoke up in my defense.
"That's exactly what they argue in Eastern Europe," he said. They believe that Reagan, not Gorbachev, won their freedom and ended the cold war." (Cries of Zut, alors," Caramba," "Mamma mia," etc.)
Most of the guests might have preferred not to believe this. But President Reagan's triumphal tour of the East, where he received an outpouring of gratitude from both ordinary people and the new democratic leaders, makes such skepticism untenable.
What? You didn't know that President Reagan had been greeted with such affection and regard on his trip? You watch too much television.
"Look, Mom, no gaffes."
We know how that turned out.
Fortunately for us, Reagan simply transcended these "moderates"...and triumphed for us all:
