Indeed. Same old, same old. These freepers pushing false conservative saviors are no different than the RATs memerized by Obama's "hope n' change" message when the only thing he brought to Illinois during his years in the state Senate and U.S. Senate were more corruption and higher taxes.
Perry spends a decade as Texas governor growing state government and rewarding illegals, but somehow as President he'll "take a sledgehammer to Washington" and seal the border. The Al Gore & Rudy Giuliani endorsing former Democrat was ALWAYS a good Reagan conservative, dontsa know. And the fact he wins by plurality against laughable opponents in a safe Republican state makes him "electable" in the other 49 states, of course.
Newt gets his @$$ handed to him on a silver platter by Clinton when we put him in charge of the legislative branch and embarrasses us on a regular basis with his scandals and sucking up to liberals, but if we put him in charge of the executive branch he'll crush the Dems, restore America and govern with honor and integrity. The philandering Georgia Bapist is REALLY a good Catholic boy from "Virginia" now. And the fact the number of Americans that have a unfavorable view of Gingrich is sky high means he will somehow "destroy Obama" in a general election.
Ah, but freepers can ignore their careeer record and engage in blissful fantasies. Well, sorry guys, these GOP establishment types ain't gonna turn this nation around. Or, as Al Gore once put it, " a zebra cannot change its spots"
Heck, one pro-Newt poster told me the other day that anything he said or did before 2009 is "irrelevant" and it it's all OK now because he's changed his positions, which is perfectly all right since all politicians do it. Seriously.
So much for the sacred process of vetting our candidates.
Really? Please explain.
Could it be that a lot of Newt's legendary "negatives" are based on the lies opponents tell about him?