Posted on 12/12/2007 12:34:05 AM PST by lesser_satan
ping!
“Interesting.”
And telling. Dems are gleeful that if Huckabee gets the nomination, whoever wins, a liberal will be in office. They know, even if a lot of Republicans haven’t figured it out, that the President has very little real power with regard to abortion, and aside from that and a few other issues, Huckabee is virtually indistinguishable from mainstream Democrats. Now if the early Republican primary voters would only get a clue.
Ah, sigh, probably true...but likewise is the fact that Romney is virtually indistinguishable from Bill Clinton.
“Ah, sigh, probably true...but likewise is the fact that Romney is virtually indistinguishable from Bill Clinton.”
Can’t argue with that, except I give Romney points for keeping his weenie in his pants. Not that I’ll vote for him, though.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“The labor market was sluggish in 1992, as the economy struggled to regain ground lost during the 1990-91 recession.”
In spite of this, one of Bill Clinton’s first acts was to raise taxes.
Huckabee will raise taxes regardless of economic conditions, so he can express his compassion with other peoples’ money. It’s what liberals do.
Great. The guy's essentially a Democrat.
Huckabee is a friggin animal. I think I would prefer Giuliani to Huckabee.
Of all the GOP candidates in the race, only Hunter and McCain have sons currently in the military. Romney's five sons are campaigning, in the belief that they are doing the same for their country as they would if they were in the 120-degree dessert heat of Iraq. Indeed, the Romulan's entire family heritage is one of disservice to the country in time of war. And the Huckster is little better.
Sounds like the situation here in Calif, where our “Republican” Governor has switched in all but name to the Dem Party. Thus the Dem/Liberal dream of elections ala the old USSR can come true. Voters get a choice of candidates, of one Party.
In the next election where Calif Gov Arnold S. runs against a Dem candidate, the voters will have a choice to vote for the Dem, or to vote for the Dem.
“but likewise is the fact that Romney is virtually indistinguishable from Bill Clinton”
Are you freaking kidding me?
Comparing Romney to a morally bankrupt crook does not paint one in a positive light. I question your judgement, to say the least.
Romney’s record speaks to as much. As do his business and mangerial successes and his personal life on top of that. I find it incomprehensible that so many people pass by Romney’s success in business as if it was nothing. Romney has more real world success than anyone in this race.
People seem to have major issues with a guy who actually has a resume, and I’m not sure where that comes from.
Yeah, I’m biased. I support Romney and Thompson in this race. But I’d like to think I came to that bias through logical reasoning as opposed to smears that demean a man’s well-earned character.
That ought to scare the heck out of Americans. What's next - reparations for blacks and hispanics?
I thought that Ernest Dumas was a Democrat and one of Clinton’s pals. I might be mistaken.
I thought though, if this is true, I think Republicans are better off listening to themselves than being directed by a democrat. You know they would pile it on no matter who is top runner for the Republicans. Frankly, I’m not thrilled about any of our top guys but the worse of them are by far a lot better than the Democrat alternative.
Good or bad, at least Huckabee has a record to look at as do most of the Republicans. The Democrats are running on nothing but theory only. Their two top candidates are on top because they want to make the Presidency of the United States into a social experiment. They want to see what would happen if you stick the first black man or first woman in the White House and their lack of experience or qualifications are meaningless.
Maybe that would OK if we weren’t in a war but now is not the time to put any of those lames excuses in line for such a position.... without looking at the crap they’ve come up with in the past and still coming up with now.
It wasn’t all that all that long ago that Clinton the same as called the commanding general in Iraq fighting a war, the same as called him a liar in front of the nation and SHE wants to be commander in chief? That just have to be a joke right?
So no..... I wont listen to what the Democrats have to say nor should any honest republican.
They say on the news that this time around, Iraq won’t be as much of an issue. (for example) I say why not? Because it is looking a whole lot better now? Because what all the little Democrats have said in the past couple years? What the Democrats are still saying about it and about our soldiers, smearing our soldiers that is doing the fighting there? I think all the crap they’ve been throwing should be thrown right back in their faces and not let them change the subject. I don;t think we should let any one of them or their media dictate who we think or about vote for any candidate.
For myself, I’d rather do my own research and find these thing out my own. I don’t trust a word they have to say.
very true. The most dangerous person is someone who is "driven" to do so called good with other people's hard earned money. Our Republic can't survive such evil. Their own egos drive them to trample on the Constitution if it makes them "fell better." Huck would do tremendous damage to our Liberties and push us further towards a socialist hell.
LLS
LLS
LLS
“I don’t trust a word they have to say.”
Smart move.
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.