Personally, I think he went below 50% in 2007.
Posted on 03/05/2008 10:14:20 PM PST by RussP
...
If there's a single thread that runs through the e-mails I receive from peevish Republicans, it's that none of the current candidates possesses the conservative purity of Ronald Reagan. One could almost get the idea that Dutch was betrayed by Pontius Pilate and crucified on Calvary. But that wasn't exactly the case. The fact of the matter is that Gov. Reagan gave Gov. Jerry Brown a run for his money – or should I say our money? – when it came to raising taxes here in California. But, in spite of the additional revenue, he was responsible in large part for the streets of our cities being turned into public latrines by the unwashed, the unwanted and the insane when, to save a few bucks, he oversaw the closing of California's mental hospitals. He also signed the nation's most liberal abortion bill. Although he had a change of heart a scant six months later, one never hears him condemned for flip-flopping ...
...
What truly confounds me are those cuckoos who would prefer to see such socialists as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election than to sully themselves by voting for a Republican who was only their second or third or even fourth choice. To them I say, before proving that you place your own ego gratification above what's best for America, keep in mind that most of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s or even, in the case of John Paul Stevens, fast approaching 90. Do you really want one of those two Democrats stacking the Court for the foreseeable future? Presidents come and go, but justices go on seemingly forever. Kennedy and Scalia have been on the bench since Reagan put them there. Stevens, for heaven's sake, was appointed during the ...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Where were you several nights ago, while I was attempting to educate one particularly obdurate, slow-on-the-draw McCain troll that ballots -- unlike, say, loose piles of dollar bills -- are NOT fungible, for heaven's sake...?!? ;)
“65% is still an F.”
And what is 4%?
An F. They both fail. They both do not have the minimum requirements necessary to be a conservative Presidential Candidate. I have never heard of anyone saying. Well you got a higher F so you are ok. In my book, an F is an F no matter where you fall on the scale.
I understand now why you are liberal...I just opened your page and you are from California. That explains a lot.
Say, TigersEye—
Why not post SOME MORE McCreep links?? Jeez!! I’ve never seen so many links posted on one creep!!
You can write in Bullwinkle...I’ll write in Boris Badenoff!
Bush already did, sort of, “destroy” the conservative movement, although Gingrinch started it by destroying (along with scumbag Haley Barbour’s assistance as RNC Chair) the Contract with America he founded. Remember how many young conservative House members got disallusioned with Gingrich who was cozying up with Clinton on NAFTA, etc.?
The conservative movement NATIONALLY is thriving, alive and doing quite well, even without a party. A gazillion conservatives left the GOP since ‘96 and haven’t returned. With The Constitution Party a joke and a mess (they’re only on the ballot in 15 states), and with the only conservatives that were running out of the race, it’s “limboville” or many of us. We’re ripe for a new conservative-only party.
Bush already did, sort of, “destroy” the conservative movement, although Gingrinch started it by destroying (along with scumbag Haley Barbour’s assistance as RNC Chair) the Contract with America he founded. Remember how many young conservative House members got disallusioned with Gingrich who was cozying up with Clinton on NAFTA, etc.?
The conservative movement NATIONALLY is thriving, alive and doing quite well, even without a party. A gazillion conservatives left the GOP since ‘96 and haven’t returned. With The Constitution Party a joke and a mess (they’re only on the ballot in 15 states), and with the only conservatives that were running out of the race, it’s “limboville” or many of us. We’re ripe for a new conservative-only party.
Standing Ovation!!!!
Thank you for your brave service overseas, and that much-needed splash of cold, hard reality today as well, sir! ;)
From post #114:
>>It is inconceivable Team McCain could be discounting any part of the conservative constitency.<<
I really have been looking for some sign from McCain that he would do anything to compromise with people like me. People who find McCain’s loyalty to Mexico rather than his own country despicable. Please show me what I have missed.
How dense are you? I don't agree with this author about anything, but knew that you enjoy defending President Reagan.
And here I was, thinking I was doing something nice for a fellow FReeper...
Just as a point of information, I’m told that the CP will be able to manage ballot access in about 40 states.
And how is voting for RINOs like McCain going to help?
So what?
The problem is that the 18% where he isn't conservative just happen to be the major contentions with the conservative base: immigration, global warming, McCain-Feingold.
Doesn't that bother you?
Personally, I think he went below 50% in 2007.
So let’s see, the way to address the concerns of people who don’t want to have McCain is by calling them names and insulting them. Glad to know someone else comes from the John McCain school of politics.
McCain is probably more conservative than someone like Jerry Ford, but that will not satisfy the purists. He’s not my first pick either, but he’s a darn sight better than Hillary or Obama.
I’m sure he is more conservative than either Dem. The problem is that he’d get a pass on any moonbat idea he’d push because he has an “r” after his name. A more liberal Dem would at least be opposed by even the moderate Republicans.
What is the point of these continuous hit pieces? If people want to vote for him, they will. If they don’t, they won’t.
McCain is understandably not popular with conservatives. All of this constant vitriol isn’t going to change a thing.
Many say they will vote for him now, many have to think about it, some just won’t.
I know I don’t attack people who do want to vote for him. I expect that many of us are tired of being attacked if we do not wish to vote for him.
Expecting people to walk like ducks to the pond is totally absurd.
With McCain as the candidate, anything goes, and the outcome remains to be seen.
Bullcarp. That was the ACLU that did that. The ACLU argued successfully that these mental patients could not be held against their will unless they posed an imminent danger to themselves or others. So they all left the hospitals and many of those Hospitals closed their doors.
You are missing the point. Reagan would not live up to the standards that many here are demanding. Reagan WAS a liberal who became conservative. (recall how all the posts that rejected Mitt for that reason.) Reagan did offer amnesty, he did raise taxes. Reagan was great but not perfect.
What's disturbing about so many posts at free republic, is how many people don't care about what happens to our country. They wont vote unless it is for their "perfect" candidate (of course they would expect everyone else to support their candidate had he won). But Winning the War, Courts that respect our constitutional rights, our national honor, none of this is important to those that demand their way or else.
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.