Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedomfiter2

Freedomfitter2: There are other people in the country who share their concerns, if not their bitterness.

So the author is saying that we should choose leaders from the groups that are causing most of our problems. Maybe the elitists that are involved in crony capitalism should select tea partiers as their leaders.

____________________________________

I brought your comment over here as I think this is the thread that will remain (from the multiple-posts).


4 posted on 02/22/2012 4:14:24 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Cincinatus' Wife

Thanks. I didn’t see this until I had already posted.


5 posted on 02/22/2012 4:17:01 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; freedomfiter2
There are other people in the country who share their concerns, if not their bitterness.
So the author is saying that we should choose leaders from the groups that are causing most of our problems. Maybe the elitists that are involved in crony capitalism should select tea partiers as their leaders.
When the alliance of labor unions, urban Catholics, and Southern rednecks combined to take over this country in 1932, they didn't do it by nominating Huey Long or Al Smith for president. They did it by choosing a Hudson River aristocrat who had so much blue blood in his veins that he didn't mind becoming a "traitor to his class" and trashing a few Wall Street plutocrats along the way. They chose someone outside of their class who was willing to speak for them, yet someone prominent and successful enough to become a national hero. And it worked.
Yes. But the key difference is that whereas FDR was a “progressive” (until the “progressives” wore out the welcome of the word) and a “liberal” (after the 1920s when “progressives” had coopted that word which had previously stood for exactly what they actually opposed), Romney has no track record of believing in anything Reagan ever stood for. We aren’t wanting a king who would say, “Paris is worth a Mass.” A little lip service is not what it’s about. And Romney is incapable of projecting anything else.

Although Reagan had humble roots, you wouldn’t have been able to just walk up and talk to him on the street; he was a star long before he was a politician. It was the patriotism and love of economic freedom which made Reagan a governor, a president, and an exemplar of what a president should be.


34 posted on 02/22/2012 6:39:31 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson