Posted on 03/13/2010 6:02:46 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Republicans, on the other hand, claim (for example) to be anti-abortion, having it on their stated list of planks; yet, during the six-years they were the majority (with Bush in office) they didn’t even so much as propose federally illegalizing abortion...
the accomplishments of George W Bush
Banned Partial Birth Abortion - by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.And the best chance to overturn RvW in decades now that we have young and smart Chief Justice of the United States Roberts and Justice Alito. I'm happy I could help educate you.By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.
I will never again vote for a politician who cant demonstrate an ability to Represent at least the majority of my conservative Christian principles, either by former record, or by sworn & written promises [fwiw if they have no record]...
beyond that, Ill pull the lever of the closest match, regarless of their prefix, or simply write in the Lord Jesus Christ and trust that He will Represent and Work for me and my family...
all the rest is whistlin past the graveyard anyways...my .02...
>You seem angry...I've been around the block enough times to know that FR is not a representative sample of GOP voters or even conservative voters. In 2000 everybody at FR was sure Keyes was going to be the next Prez. In 2008 we couldn't decide on a standard bearer but we knew it couldn't be McCain.Why aren’t you?
Conservative justification for defending the rats is not new. Conservatives abandoned George HW Bush in 92 saying "Bush is so bad the rat couldn't be worse. Then they voted in Clinton. I don't know how anybody can look at 0 today and say he isn't the worst Prez in history but it doesn't suprise me that they post on FR.
When is the last time the country elected a 76 year old, pudgy and balding man? I am sure even McCain knows he has no chance in 2012.
I am looking for a fresh candidate in 2012, ala Paul Ryan, Pence, DeMint, some one like that. Please no has beens and also ran’s.
How is that significant? Partial birth abortions ARE murder; and how is “executive order” being credited to the party?
>It is hard for me to believe I got you to say rats “honestly” don’t care what you think, and you find that refreshing.
It is refreshing to the back-stabbing lies... IE better to be stabbed in the back by your mugger than betrayed by your ‘friend.’
The unwillingness to argue/debate, or even recognize ‘non-personal’ (ie non-positional) authority is a different matter.
What REALLY burns me though, is inconstancy in law. Either something IS legal, or it is NOT legal. That one can have a state constitution forbidding a class of laws, and state statutes making those infringements is, in a word: OUTRAGEOUS. (See: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%27nmc%20artii-6%27%5D & http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2730-7-2.4%27%5D )
That the state ISN’T ‘called’ on it, and it hasn’t been challenged in the ~20 years it’s been law, is preposterous.
And we have EXACTLY the same thing with our Congress, Executive Office, and [to some degree] Supreme Court regarding our Federal Constitution and the Federal Laws.
Pelosi is on-record with responding “Are you serious?” to questions regarding the Constitutional authorization for health-care reform. Detestable the disregard for the highest law of the land, and a detestable contradiction of her oath to that Constitution. In all though that’s far more honest a reply than the balless-wonders we have in Congress called Republicans. (Hell, DeMint is pretty much the singular guy “taking the attack” to the other side form what I’ve seen.)
>That is their superior selling point for a conservative like you.
Who said I was buying? {I made a comparison that I would rather vote for Obama than McCain; that doesn’t mean that I _REALLY_REALLY_ want to vote for Obama; it says I REALLY REALLY DON’T want to vote for McCain.}
I’m only saying that it’s better to have poison labeled as such than as “Life Giving Refreshment!”
Or do you think that is acceptable and desirable to mislabel your product?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's silly, but remember that it's called the Stupid Party for a reason.
Also remember that Zero will likely run unopposed, leaving DemonRat voters in many states free to cross over and vote in Republican primaries. They would love for the Republicans to nominate a weak 76-year old.
The only way to prevent such a nightmare scenario is for the national Republican Party to require that only Republicans can vote in Republican primaries. That might mean that several states would have to change to a caucus system. Liberal Rats should not pick our nominee.
Some people call them the President party since they are the undisputed champion of Presidential elections.
McCain is not running in 2012.
Other than that, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you posted, except to say it doesn't matter that we agree on the Constitution. As Pelosi said "Are you serious?” Millions of voters are completely ignorant of the constitution or indoctrinated by the school system and media. Arguements that persuade conservatives don't work on moderates and rats. If they did they would be conservatives.
I believe the 2 parties rarely agree on anything except that the American political system should have 2 major parties. They have made it very hard for a 3rd party to succeed. My team is the GOP. rat is never the solution.
Virtual McCain to run again as Mit Romney in 2012
JMHO, but I suspect that Sarah’s consideration of a presidential run is based on what she observed of McCain’s campaign. In other words, she saw the all the mistakes, errors, and misjudgments and now probably believes that she can do it better.
“VANITY: A Conservative Nightmare in 2012: will McCain run again?”
No. There is a God.
If that happens I will vote third party, just like last time.
JD 2010
Jim DeMint 2012
He was thumped by Bush back in the 2000 primary so there's no reason he can't get thumped again. And there will be even more reason to thump him this time.
If he should get the nomination tho, I'll vote for Nader then leave the country..........
With that being said, if he loses his senate bid then his political career will finally end......
Scabbers,
If you would listen to the news instead of yourself all the time, you would know that McCain has repeatedly said that he has no desire to run for president again.
Boy! You need some meds for that serious case of McCain Derangement Syndrome
“So, my question for my fellow FReepers is, McCain’s 2010 re-election race with J.D. aside, what happens if McCain wins in 2010...”
Let’s do ourselves and Sarah Palin a favor, and get McCain out of there this year, then no one has to worry what the old fool is up to.
“If anything, McCain SHOULD have resigned his seat in the US Senate in 2008, and run full-time for the office of President. So should have Obama, too, but we aren’t going to get any do-overs now.”
And Biden, HIllary, and the rest of the senate who ran for president, while ignoring their senate job. Duncan Hunter was the only one not clinging to his present seat while running for president.
Bump!
If nothing else it would leave a better taste in your mouth!
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.