Posted on 02/14/2006 12:01:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Who is your favorite Republican for President in 2008?
George Allen
Bill Frist
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mike Pence
Condoleezza Rice
Rick Santorum
Tom Tancredo
Undecided/Other
Bush was the most conservative governor in the nation at the time of nomination. His policies are almost identical with Reagan's: strong defense of the nation, tax cuts, Pro-life, even practical steps to defuse II, refusal to allow foreign disapproval to affect US foreign policy. Bush clearly did not have the long history before the public eye that Reagan did.
There is no revisionism at all in my statement.
Reagan's administration saw an explosion of the deficit at least as large proportionally as that under Bush and without the extenuating circumstances justifying that of the latter.
You can keep attacking conservatives if you like but no one is fooled by your agenda. The simple FACT is no candidate MORE conservative than Bush can be elected (now) except in your dreams. Your view of the ideology of the electorate is simply delusional as a view of the House clearly shows. Those grasping at straws like Pence, Tancred or Paul for a hero are equally out to lunch.
Franklin's admonition is so overused and inappropriately dragged out that it has no meaning anymore. It is as pointless as calling people "nazis" or "commies" and valueless for support of a lost argument. This stupid chestnut is used with complete oblivion to the fact that we have lost NO essential liberties under Bush. Inconveniences are not "lost liberties."
Your evaluation of me is equally valueless and incorrect.
BTTT
Badray: I have no doubt that you are a loyal Republican, but I doubt that you'd know a conservative value if it bit you. If you were, you wouldn't toss out the words that you do in describing conservatives.Well FWIW, my impression is that "justshutupandtakeit" seldom rises to the level of RINO. More likely a true liberal that beligerantly and consistantly defends Dubya's liberal tendencies to the consternation of true conservatives.
justshutupandtakeit: Your evaluation of me is equally valueless and incorrect.
JMHO... please carry on.
Since I must examine anything good you say about someone or something to see why it is bad I am still secure in my self-confidence thanks to your slander.
BTTT
I guess you missed the fact that Reagan had to contend (for the most part) with an overwhelmingly Democrat and openly hostile Congress while Bush has had Republican controlled Congresses. Just a detail to you, I presume.
Franklin's admonition is as appropriate today as it was then, if not more so. The Founders rebelled over much less than that with which we contend today.
Likewise, Adams advised us to react at the first attempt at our liberties so that these attempts not be strengthened by prescedent and experience.
You would do well to pay heed to them. They were much wiser than you.
Since most Republicans are fairly liberal, I saw no need to further distinquish the two, but I suppose that you are right.
It is a misleading detail since the RATS of Reagan's day were still fairly pro-American whereas now they are almost completely anti-American. A majority does not matter unless the Senate majority is filabuster proof. Only within the last year has the RAT minority been unable to derail Bush's initiatives. They only stopped after realizing that they were hurting themselves more than Bush.
Not true about Franklin's chestnut nor the Founders. The government we have today comes directly from the representative government they fought and died to achieve.
Why don't you tell us of the liberties the dastardly Bush has cost us? And spare me the CFR idiocy since that obviously stops no one from doing anything they want which anyone who has read the thing will tell you. And I am sure you are not one who has actually read it.
So you are saying that the people you have been calling "RINO" are not but are just ordinary Republicans. I told you that many posts ago. If 5% of the party are "true" Republicans then your label is completely wrong.
The smartest one will never get the nomination.
He'd get my vote if he actually got the nomination, though.
So 'their' majority doesn't matter so let's blame Reagan and 'our' majority doesn't matter so let's not blame Bush.
Yep, it's nice when you can have it both ways.
BS. The government we have today is the result of ignoring the Constitution and the warnings of our Founders. They wouldn't recognize what transpires in Washington today and would be aghast that we have let it happen. Laws cannot change the Constitution. Federal court rulings cannot change the Constitution. But we have let it happen. If you want to change the rules, follow the rules. Don't just make it up as we go as you seem to advocate.
What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." don't you understand. NO LAW! The fact that a law exists is an infringement, otherwise why is there a law. We weren't intended to jump through bureaucratic hoops to exercise our rights.
Unlike what one of your pack dogs call me and others here, you are NOT an unappeasable. You are quite easily placated and bought off with cheap rhetoric and false promises. You will ignore the warnings as your recent posts prove as you cede your liberty without even realizing it. If you do realize, you are prepared to lie to yourself and others in an effort to deny that you ceded anything.
May your chains rest lightly and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Ooops. There I go again with an old bromide.
Excuse me for misspeaking.
Many, not most, Republicans are liberal.
The fact that they are liberal -- as you now seem ready to admit that you are -- are not really Republican when you look at the stated principles of the Party. Despite being ignored, the Party has stood for small, limited government, low taxes, with individual liberty and personal responsibility.
By definition, you and many of your ilk are RINOs, but that really isn't something that you should be proud of.
BTTT
Fools who cannot recognize what a great country we are fortunate to live in do not concern me in the least. I don't need to wade through their slop here when it is freely available on America-hating sites like DU. What is your screen name there?
Your babble illustrates a fantasy-based view of the Founding and the Founders and is of no consequence to those who actually do know about those things. Few things were more important to them than keeping the People in control of elections and not allow them to be dominated by the powerful and rich. They had seen more than enough of such control in the Old Country.
If you had actually read and UNDERSTOOD the Constitution you would know that federal elections are regulated by Congress under authority explicitly referred to within the document. And, if even slightly sentient, would also be aware that this last election clearly showed that the only people "infringed" were idiots. Every other group managed to get every message they wished out from the most lunatic left to the craziest right. Just what the hell do you think was stopped? Of course, you have not read the law so you have no idea what it actually says.
You think more cheap rhetoric convinces anyone?
I never said that most Republicans are liberal only fools believe that. Pointing out the contradictory nature of your analysis was the whole point.
The primary aim of the Republican Party is the preservation of the Union. This primary aim at times requires the overriding of other aims. For example, during war government needs to grow and needs more money. Does that mean the GOP no longer believes in low taxes and small government? Those without much discernment or desirous of spreading falsehoods might claim that but aware people don't fall for such crap.
Simple views are only held by simpletons.
"Reagan was no further right than Bush ..."
That's an amusing claim that most Freepers would vehemently disagree with, including me. On budget policy alone, Reagan managed to be more conservative with a Tip ONeill Congress than Bush has been with a Tom Delay Congress.
....
"Plus his opposition was in complete disarray led by the incompetent Carter and the idiotic Mondale."
Gore and Kerry were no better, but the elections were closer. Your analysis underestimates Reagan's conservatism and his skill.
"Pence is not and will not be a serious candidate."
Pence is the leader of 100 of the most conservative Congressional reps in the House. He is in the top 5 of most important Republican leaders in the US. Simply because he's not a media gadfly like McCain doesnt mean he's not serious.
Indeed, I do think a Mormon can be elected. He took 55 percent of the vote in MA! Having lived in Acton, MA for 31 years, I can tell you that MA is passionately secular. If he can win there, he can take the country.
Romney really comes off “un-holy-roller-ish”, if you know what I mean; not at all like an evangelist. I’m a staunch libertarian (small “l”) and I’m confident that he will not attack my liberty with his faith. He manages to appeal to conservatives without offending social liberals (most American’s). Best of all; he does this with out having to talk out of both sides of his mouth (McCain). He just states what he intends to do and then does it. What you see is what you get. No flip-flops. No vague, rambling, sentences that end up saying nothing (Kerry). He never has to grasp for a word (Bush), but doesn’t seem like a sleazy used car salesman (Clinton).
Only the left-most voices will decry Romney based on his faith, and swing voters are listening to them less than ever. He won’t appeal to socialists (more than half of Dems). But then, no republican can, except perhaps McCain. As the Democrats become more and more socialist, their party hemorrhages moderate voters. Some of those people could be persuaded to vote for a guy like Romney.
If you have a bit of time, here is an excellent article by Terry Eastland from The Weekly Standard. It is a careful and in-depth analysis of Romney’s chances in 2008. A substantial portion of the article discusses the Mormon issue.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp?pg=1
Also, A retraction: I said earlier that Romney wasn’t seeking a third term. Oops. He’s actually not seeking a second term.
George Allen
Hope So!
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.