Posted on 09/15/2009 6:57:27 AM PDT by RobinMasters
BTTT!
This one is for the books. Note it.
Indeed. Now that there is no denying there is a "movement" again, we will probably see some lame denials and attacks on the messenger...
What is interesting to note that the whole time Bush was denying there was a movement, he was meticulously positioning himself to present the false image to the easily-duped that he was in fact somehow 'conservative'...albeit a self-styled 'compassionate' one.
Compared to McCain, he was conservative.
Yes, except for one little problem...W was, ‘behind the scenes’ fully behind McCain...and helped him win the nomination.
Paul, I agree with your premise, but look, we can’t fault folks for supporting Bush in the face of today’s leftists. I believe they went to too great of lengths to do it, but I do believe their hearts were in the right place.
For that reason, I’m not into the labeling. I say that as a person who took Bush to task on a number of issues.
Where certain policies are addressed and poor aspects still supported, then I do think it’s okay to label those policies for what they are, and let the chips fall where they will for those who support them.
It’s important that we frame the issues for what they are, and try to come together to support sound policy down the road. Alienating people isn’t going to help. If it comes to continued support for leftist policy though, that may be unavoidable.
Who the hell else was W to get behind?
The dogcrap RNC had four years to put a solid conservative up against 0, and did not.
Bush has never liked Mccain, so I don’t buy that.
Of course they can.
Herbert Hoover wasn't really a conservative -- at least not when he was President -- but he made Republicans look so bad that Democrats never missed a chance to portray him as a model conservative.
If Bush makes conservatives look bad, liberals will call him a conservative.
excellent summary
Bush set the table and prepared the menu.
000bama is just serving the meal.
We would be better off today if Kerry had won in 2004.
If McCain had won, we wouldn’t be looking at 50%+ tax rates that will soon be hoisted on the great “making more than $250,000” crowd, patriots, all, apparently, for being willing to take one for the ‘Bama and his socialist trillions.
2010 will be an interesting year, indeed. If it goes bad, 2011 will be a very, very interesting year.
You are too easy on us. Didn't we alos vote for Republicans that spent more that Clinton's Democrats? Didn't we tolerate that not one of them REALLY insisted on the closure of the borders?
Who says he has to like him to agree to support him in the smoky back-rooms?
Take note of these developments from Feb. 18, 2008:
Bush Senior endorses McCain's bid
And then the overly hasty response to Super-Tuesday...when it really was not over...
March 6th, 2008: Bush anoints McCain's bid
Yessiree
Oooops!
With a stream of RNC Chairs more or less directly appointed by W. What would you expect? W was not a solid conservative. He got Mit Romney, and Tommy Thompson the ex-Governor of Wisconsin to run, and he also got several other nobodies to flood the race...and then all of them were instructed to take a dim view of the illegal alien amnesty he and McCain were for...so that they could siphon away all the support for the legitimate candidates for our laws...such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo.
The division of too many candidates on that issue submerged Hunter who had the only sensible position on national economic restoration of the fundamentals to America.
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.