Replies

I kindly disagree

I do appreciate that. Look, I've got the task of explaining how I see this like a Dutch Uncle would. I'm not angry with you. I just don't know any other way to lay it out there, than like this.

. . . . .

IMO there are GOP boys club RINO’s in the senate and house. I agree with that, and I also think their fellow travelers infiltrate every Republican administration. When we do get a good guy in there like Reagan, it's tough for them to completely short-circuit what those fellow travelers want to do. They exhert influence. Sometimes that influence affects decisions to a greater or lesser degree.

I kindly disagree on Bush he was a better President than what the MSM want you to think. He was indeed Alinskyized and did NOTHING to counter that but his interviews with his book erased all of the media garbage about him. I don't care what the media thinks of him. The media is the media and they are going to aid those who try to Alinskyize Republican leaders. That goes with the territory. It's dismissed by most Repulbican. Perhaps his book did erase all the media hype about him. What it couldn't erase was his record.

I don’t blame Bush I blame the government gone wild RINO club. THEY have to go. The RINO club, as you call it, is an evident problem. While they do have to go, Bush was the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world. I'm not going to dismiss the RINO club's impact on his terms in office, but that can't explain away why Bush failed to utilize his six full years with majority control to fix a myriad of Leftist legislation.

I refer to him as a RINO, because at his core Bush did not even grasp the fact that there was a myriad of Leftist legislation that needed to be fixed. He also didn't grasp that it had been 45 years since we had held the White House with a Republican Leadership in the House and Senate. This was a six year period when we could have righted wrongs. A once in two generation chance comes, and we did didley squat with it.

Does that evidence a Conservative at the core individual to you? Of course not.

So instead of us rolling back the Leftist cloud that hung over our nation getting worse for 45 years, we merely maintained the status quo, and then the Left took over right where it left off. Do you begin to see why I see Bush in the terms I do. Was this some concoction of the Leftist MSM? No, it was and still is Bush's record.

Historical Record (the last 100 years), Republican Control of White Hosue, U. S. House of Representatives, and the U. S. Senate...

2001 06 years 3 Congressional terms
1953 02 years 1 Congressional term
1921 12 years 6 Congressional terms

Presidential History Data Source
Congressional History Data Source

It had been eighty years since we had more than a two year window of full Republican control. The last time we had more than a two year window, the Republican President, the Republican U. S. Senate, and the Republican U. S. House of Representatives led us into the deepest parts of the Great Depression. (None the less a certain candidate's supporters here try to game Reagan because he cast his first presidential vote for FDR, 1932, and continued to do so. I guess these same people see quite a bit of similarity between 1988 and 1932. They also think they've got a Conservative by the tail too.)

Bush is history and will go down in history well favored, I believe. And a lot of people in the general public will like the guy and think he did a great job. Yet we as Conservatives are held to a higher standard. We are tasked with turning this nation back from the brink. We are not blessed with the shroud of cluelessness, that would allow someone to view Bush in a blissful manner, not realizing what was at stake from January 21st, 2001, until December 31st, 2006.

I'm not saying this to put you down. I am saying this with the full understanding that you will see the truth of what I am addressing here.

You are letting McDemocrat freak you out too much. I honestly don't know what person or entity you're talking about here. Okay down below you talk about Perry in correlation with McDemocrat.

Look, we have Democrats, Republicans, and Conservatives. Sadly, we have folks who are perfectly comfortable with being "a run of the mill Republican", until they get the bright idea that they would make a great president. Then they claim they've always been a Conservative. Here we have a guy whose team claims he was even a Conservative when he backed Al Gore for President in 1988. That's his and their grasp of what being a Conservative truly is. That's the standard for them. To me that just destroys what the concept of Conservatism actually means, if even Al Gore can be claimed to have been one in 1988, registered as a Democrat in Reagan's day.

Palin endorsed Perry and said you betcha to Romney VP in 2012 and that does not bother you when you are so freaked out about Bush? Where did you get the idea this didn't bother me?

Freaked out about Bush? You really do need to back off here. Either we are Conservatives and want to see Conservatism fluorish, or we are someone who can watch Bush and not grasp anything that went wrong when we had the White House, the Senate, and the House under our control? Is iy freaking out to mearly point out that Bush didn't undo any of the leftist agenda, and actually introduced more of his own? No. It's merely stating the reality of it.

No candidate is perfect.Look at Paw Paw endorsing Romney WTH! I wasn't a Pawlendy supporter. It was my take that this guy was flawed from his debate performaces alone. His endorsement of Romney confirmed it for me. Why are you using this lout to defend Bush?

And I don’t think we will get a hero and TRUE big gov reform. Well, if you support folks like Bush and Perry, I can understand why you see it this way. If we continue to support people like this, yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy. No politician will do this I think Jesus will come first.

The elites freak out at Perry calling SS a ponzi scheme do you really think some one will get in there and dismantle the EPA,DOEduc,DoEnergy, and so on and so on, and disavow the UN? You know, it's one thing to talk down about Social Security, and it's another to present a fully worked out repalcement for the American Public to digest. I don't necessarily disagree with the Ponzi Scheme label, but Ponzi schemes do count on the public participating by choice. There's no choice with Social Security. It's foced on people when they could do better. It's talked about as if it were a separate fund. It's talked about as if it was something that we should defend in it's present form rather than fix it so people's later years would be spent with a much higher standard of living.

I will get on a horse and ride beside you if this can happen. I don’t see Palin being the frontrunner any more than Bachmnn can be,sorry. You've mentioned Palin as some sort of standard several times now. Evidently you are operating from some sort of misperception. I'm not a Palin supporter. Why would I judge others based on her actions?

Like you said then all’s we have is Cain. I don’t think Perry is McDemocrat PERIOD. It would be interesting to know what your description of a Democrat would be, if you don't think they are large government project supporters, land rights abusers, dictatorial by nature, implementing parts of the Dream Act... These are Conservative traits in your mind? I dont' belive that for a minute.

I think the same way about West as you do Palin at this stage. I'm not convinced at all that you know what my thought on Palin truly are.

But he is not running I face that reality and move on. I like West, but I do not think he has been around long enough to loft him for President. He was sworn into Congress this year. This is his first year in that body. As far as I know, he hasn't held any other elcted office. He hasn't been a star in the private sector either. It takes more for me to back someone than this. When he's been around for a while and we know him better, perhaps he'll flesh out to be a good leader.

I laud his military service. I still don't think that alone qualifies him to be President.

If he did he would be the frontrunner over all. But I am not in denial. I don't share your enthusiasm over this guy, specifically that he is ready right now to be President. I do like his views, but you have to have more behind you than what this guy does to become the President of the United States.

While I GET and understand your McDemocratMcCain dilemma I also snap out of that long enough to realize Obama CANNOT be re-elected PERIOD. Like Bachmann said ObamaCare will be LAW and not able to be touched just like SS. Obama’s current horrific so called jobs plan with a government bank snuck in will be law. We will have to agree to disagree. Obama's approval ratings are in the tank. He is not re-electable. He has lost the independents, and he has even lost some Democrats. We have the best chance we have had since Reagan, to place a real Conservative in the White House, hopefully with a Republican Senate, as well as the House.

Settling on Perry, is like settling on Bush. Here we go again, with nothing being undone, and plenty more being done. Why are you falling for this? You know better. He has tipped his hand as governor, and now we're supposed to act like we don't know it?

When did I compare Perry to McCain? I may have, but I generally don't think of him like I do McCain. None the less, I don't think either of them are a Conservative. Neither of them should be our next presdient.

This guy is not a Conservative at his core. We both know that. You just have to come to grips with it.

If a Republican is all you want, then heaven help us, because folks who continue to see this like you do, will not help us.'

You don't think the Lefitst agenda will ever be rolled back, so you're not even going to try to place someone in there who will. No, you most certainly are not ridding your horse next me, but I like you and I sure wish you were.