| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 10/26/2007 8:16:52 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 10/26/2007 6:50:39 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?
Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.
The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent. And to argue that in 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the past century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security; and a former senator with impeccable conservative credentials.
So why all the angst? If you'd like to share just a bit of my serenity, have a look at Sunday's Republican debate in Orlando. It was a feisty affair, the candidates lustily bashing each other's ideological deficiencies -- Mike Huckabee called it a "demolition derby" -- and yet strangely enough, the entire field did well.
McCain won the night by acclamation with a brilliant attack on Hillary Clinton that not so subtly highlighted his own unique qualification for the presidency. Citing his record on controlling spending, he ridiculed Clinton's proposed $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum. He didn't make it to Woodstock, McCain explained. He was "tied up at the time."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Face it, too many conservatives are not going to vote for the country club Republicans.
Rooty needs to bow out.
Dragging Reagan down to make the RINO brigade seem palatable doesn’t sound like the action of a party on the rise.
The Country Club Rooty Toots drag Reagan down to make their liberal candidate look better.
Nothing can make Turdiani palatable to me.
He will not get my vote because he is a schnook compared to Ronald Reagan. He is a party destroyer.
The country club, martini sipping, harpies and fops, can up their liquor intake while Hillary robs their coffers. They will have asked for it.
Why are consevatives grumbling?
Duncan Hunter is just about everything for which they are looking!!
“Reagan wasn’t really Reagan until he ran for President.”
Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
“Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.” snip
This article is optimistic about our candidates. Thats it.
Is it your job to go through and find people to disagree with?
Buzz off.
Will do, wackjob.
buh bye
What conspiracy? Rooty Toots is a LIBERAL, he's not trying to hide it.
Of course Krauthammer is "opimistic," he would love to see a liberal RINO elected.
Bingo. The Girlie Man rooters, think we don’t know that the FOX ALL STARS are for Rooty.
They always make the mistake of getting it wrong.
Same big mistake they are making by supporting a liberal RINO for the GOP nomination.
- They believe in unlimited and even taxpayer-funded abortions.
- They believe in militant homosexual rights, including the right to marry (though they will call it by a different name).
- They believe that the federal, state and local governments can and should restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
- They believe in ignoring the illegal alien crisis by enacting "sanctuary" policies and they do not believe in securing the border.
Would your normal conclusion be that this candidate is a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican?
Well wagglebee, it seems the country clubbers no longer care about principles.
They actually believe they are going to be relevant as a party that is open borders, pro corperations, and pro war(as long as the soldiers are not their kids), is going to be a winner. Thats about all they stand for.
What incentive does anyone have to support a party such as this?
They seem determined to do the same thing to the Republican party that the British did to the Tory party — reduce it to nothing.
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.