Replies

Again, pandering doesn't produce results. We've seen it over and over. Some of us even learn from it.

I recall many Brits said they voted for Maragret Thatcher because she was a woman. I don't personally agree with voting for this reason, but it got us a great ally for Reagan.

I thought you said you wanted her because she wears a skirt?

I want her, or I would support Cruz, because they are Conservatives. The fact that she wears a skirt might help her with the middle.

You're not reading correctly. I said a Freeper described the REACTION---general reaction---to her speech. She came off as bland and boring, and the speech was more mouthed platitudes that anything else.

Here is what you posted here.

"As one Freeper said, the reaction to her bland post-SOTU address seemed to be different versions of, "Bless her heart, she did fine.""

The reaction noted by the Freeper was that the general response was that she did fine. The "bland" was either from you or the other Freeper.

Also, I have a feeling she would run that damned bread bags thing into the ground pretty quickly.

So here we go again. In 2012, Freepers spent as much time attacking the Conservative choices they ditn't support. Now you attack her based on what you think will happen, and she hasn't even thrown her name into the ring yet. We can see who hasn't learned from history.

Maybe this and maybe that. Maybe a cow will jump over the moon, but we'd do much better to stick to precedence and to facts. Pandering doesn't work.

What a weak non-reply. You were the one who pointed out that Romney won the independants while millions of Conservatives stayed home. I accept those are the facts.

Why did the independants desert Obama if they were satisfied with his performance. You want to stick with facts, offer facts to explain this instead of evasions.

They were mocked, reviled, practically spit upon by their fellow blacks because of their conservatism.

I never said they weren't as this is a favorite tactic by the left against all Conservatives, but this isn't why neither got the Republican nomination.

Is that right? You've been pushing a woman candidate for a while now.

Oh how horrible. I have said I would support the candidate you support, but I prefer a Conservative female candidate, so you're going to fire post after post at me because I you think I want a moderate or some other idea that you just have to keep posting over and over again.

I think having a woman candidate is our best hope for getting a Conservative into the White House. If you don't agree with me, that's OK. I'll gladly support your choice, Cruz, too.

Nominate a conservative woman for her sex alone, expect other women to flock to her like yourself, and watch her get slapped in the face and dragged through the mud.

The left will drag any of our Conservative choices through the mud, including Cruz. Avoiding nominating a woman won't prevent that. For someone who keeps telling me to learn from history, you're sure willing to disregard it when it serves your purposes.

But then, it's not even easy to tell what your purpose is. You've spent the past several days attacking me because of my expressed opinion that a woman might have the best chance of beating the Democrats at their own game. Stating that I support a Conservative, and I have posted comments elsewhere promoting the positive qualities of other potential Conservative candidates, have gone right past you.

Did the Catherine part tip you off?

Not that I would accuse you of lying, but people some times use screen names that don't actually describe them.

You might think that if you can't tell the difference between identity politics and a personal preference.

You can spin it as a personal preference, but it's still based on identity.