Quayle Predicts Romney

Race42008 ^ | 3/19/07

[areafiftyone]

Quayle Predicts Romney

From the NY Post:

DAN Quayle, who flies into New York one week a month from Indianapolis for his work with Cerberus, at San Pietro, predicting to Nancy and Bill O’Shaughnessy that Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination for president…

[jatopilot99]

I'm the same way. I like what I'm hearing about Hunter and Thompson has a Reagan-esk sense about him, but I still need to learn more about them.

I agree that we should all take a cautious approach with whom we decide to support. Jury's still out on many of these guys.

[TAdams8591]

EV, it is a shame. You only see the negatives, which in your mind loom far larger than what actually exists in reality.

[EternalVigilance]

You've said that about Fred Thompson, so why should I believe what you say?

Actually, I haven't. There are parts of Fred's record that aren't so great. He even knows it. But, he's no Romney. Mitt is in a class all by himself.

It's a shame that all you ever do is tear down every candidate in the field.

It's a shame you don't have any principles that matter to you enough to properly vet these men who want the most powerful office in the world.

[EternalVigilance]

Just great. In one evening you've sided with the Miami Herald and a troll. Be sure to take an extra-long shower before bed this evening.

What the newbie said was true, so I agreed with him...and I never mentioned the Miami Herald. You did. My personal hygiene is none of your business.

[onyx]

I'm going to bed...have a nice evening.

You said you were going to bed....LOL.

[EternalVigilance]

EV, it is a shame. You only see the negatives, which in your mind loom far larger than what actually exists in reality.

The negatives loom large to any honest observer. He just finished a term that implemented gay marriage, an assault weapons ban, and socialized medicine. He appointed more Dems than Republicans to the bench, including radical gay activists. His administration was marked by radical gay activism throughout its ranks, including the force-feeding of gay propaganda to school kids. One of his agencies declared a gay couple "adoptive 'parents' of the year."

Why wouldn't any conservative be highly suspicious, especially when he continues to show that he still doesn't get it on a number of important issues, no matter how hard he overhauls 37 years worth of liberal rhetoric?

And, one last thing: Even if he were truthful, it makes no sense to hand him the reins of power before he's even had a chance to prove himself. Who occupies the Oval Office for the next four to eight years is too important to take that kind of foolish risk.

Good night.

[Howlin]

That's why his supporters are still having to explain his remarks on numerous subjects days after the fact...

You mean like you have had to do for YEARS with regard to Alan Keyes?

Oh, the irony!

[Howlin]

Some folks, unlike certain people on this thread, actually listen to facts about politicians' words and record.

Most people listen to every candidates' words and look at their records and deeds.

But nobody takes YOUR word for anything anymore.

We all know why you're here. I hope the $$$ is good; it's shameful.

[nowandlater]

[onyx]

LOL!

[Miss Marple]

Quayle was my senator. He is a really nice man and a true conservative. He is also good at campaigning,

However, he is also easily manipulated. I woner if he got his take on the campaign from his former chief of staff, Bill Kristol. In his biography, Standing Firm, Quayle says that James Baker kept Kristol out of campaign meetings because he was intimidated by Kristol's intellect.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think Baker is intimidated by anyone short of Jesus Christ, and that smelled to me like a line that Kristol fed him which Quayle swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Since Kristol was well-known for leaking to the press, I think that the much more likely reason.

I still have the book in my library, and I am not mistaken about this statement. I reread the book when Quayle ran in 2000, and although I supported him, after I read the book (and certainly after 9/11) I wasn't so sorry he dropped out of the race.

[PDR]

yes - the irony. at least there was no mosh pit involved.

[SDGOP]

I disagree, i think most of our candidates can win. I think as of now rudy likely has the best shot. Once you win the primary, you more or less have a 50% shot of winning the presidency. Unless you nominate a complete looser(read:brownback) your not guaranteed to loose.

[George W. Bush]

No kidding - and the hatred of Dan Quayle on a conservative board is amazing. ... And now to learn that so many Free Republic posters really agreed with their counterparts on Democratic Underground. Amazing - wonder what else we'll discover they admire about DU in the future?

It is remarkable that over the years, FR seems to manage to trash every hero they once had. The list is too long to type in. But you can see them turn on Newt, DeLay, David Hackworth, Andrew Sullivan, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, and now even Bush himself. Or Rumsfeld to some extent.

Hackworth and Sullivan were always liberal Doppelgangers but they wouldn't listen when we tried to tell them. But Newt and DeLay, while flawed, made possible the entire GOP dominance of government that failed us in the '06 election. But that wasn't their fault. People like Noonan and Coulter have been trashed for a few missteps but they have done tremendous service to the Republican cause. And Bush and Rove and the rest have many flaws but some of these criticisms are way way over the top. Rumsfeld is a special case and, while he refused to reconsider a failing strategy, he still didn't deserve some of the attacks here. There is a big difference between being wrong about strategy and refusing to correct your course in a timely way and simply being a villainous outcast (in the sense of a failed operative of policy).

It was once characteristic of the GOP that they still honored and respected their failed or defeated leaders. And the Dims had nothing but scorn for them (e.g. Carter never being seen at a Dim convention for 20 years after he lost to Reagan). But Republicans always made a place for their own. Now, it seems those roles have reversed and Carter and Xlinton are prominent in public Dim gatherings and the GOP is eating its own.

It's not a healthy sign for the GOP.