Posted on 01/20/2008 1:18:25 AM PST by TexasMatty
Not a bit. ;-)
He is campaigning on appointing constructionist judges. I believe him.
If that’s wishful thinking, at least I’m happy with it and will take it all the way to the polls on election day. Sure beats sitting home nursing a grudge and “teaching America a lesson”.
“Hey, it’s now 5:15 a.m. time to go to bed!”
I get up daily ay 4 A.M.
Nonsense. These are accomplished men with enough money, fame and support to run for President. There's no mythical establishment cabal feeding you candidates; just the same old horse race that's been standard American fare since President Washington's time. They're elite only in that they're able to credibly make a run for the office.
The majority of Americans are decidedly not more conservative than any of these guys. The majority of FReepers are, but we're just a small, vocal subset of conservatives, to say nothing of the general American Idol watching electorate itself.
The problem is that Congress controls spending, and with Republicans controlling Congress, you can't blame excessive spending on Democrats.
Better to be the minority party.
Bull-feathers. Care to explain why 99% of them come from Harvard or Yale? OH...just a coincidence I guess.
ROTFL!
McCain's not going to be nominated. He's a roadside attraction. He, like Huckabee, Edwards and Thompson, are amusing diversions the media will annihilate when it's time for the main event. McCain will win a few states, like all the rest, but the GOP nominee will either be Romney or Giuliani. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Hillary won't pick Obama, or anyone else she can't control, so that point is moot as well. This nomination is getting personal, and she's not one to forgive. For a VP, she'll round up Wesley Clark or some other Clintonite sycophant with foreign policy creds.
After the conventions, when we get a no-nonsense lineup, that'll be when Joe Six Pack takes notice, and we get numbers worth looking at. I suspect that either Romney or Giuliani will do well against Hillary. They're just more likeable people. Hillary is not a likeable person. The last genuinely unlikeable person America put in the Oval Office was 40 years ago. This late in the media age, once we get into the general election, her odds are a lot worse than most people think.
99%'s a bit high, but your basic point is still invalid. Voters like seeing certain things on a candidate's resume. (Higher education, being governor, military service, etc, etc.) Not having these things make you less competative against someone who has them. Having them increases your odds.
Natural selection in action, like any other job market.
Not even remotely close, my friend.
A few pandering PC comments from Romney, most of which were said nearly 15 years old in the heat of a campaign vs Ted Kennedy, and you have conjured up in your mind this uber-lib Hillary clone.
That is pure fantasy. Hillary, if in power, would withdraw our military from the WOT, cave to the UN jihadists, kiss Jesse Jackson butt, raise taxes while demonizing the wealthy, she would demonize and attack the faithful Christians, she would launch the Dept. of Quota's .....
Romney's message and record has NONE of those tendancies --- no matter how much you hate him.
He got good marks from many ProLife watchdog groups. He got good marks from many Tax watchdog and fiscally responsible watchdog groups.
He was constantly demonized by the homo now crowd because he refused to implement their demands.
Did he make some dumb pandering statements over the years?? You bet.
But his record of governance is really fairly good -- and lastly, the Massachusetts health plan is based on getting private insurance companies to offer low cost catastrophic plans -- similar to mandated auto insurance.
It is NOT a government run system like proposed by Hillary in 1993.
Uh uh.../s... no Vanderbilt...no Cornell...no Brown.
Come on. This is a very exclusive club. But how can this be...unless....
Oh just forget it. Some facts are just like pearls thrown to swine.
I sure hope you are right. Maybe I’m just feeling discouraged today. I was really hoping for a break-thru in South Carolina. Talk to me tomorrow, and I may be back in full blown Fred-Head mode. But right now I am just going to pop a brew and watch the game.
Go Giants.
(Don’t make my weekend a total loss...)
Nonsense.
Thompson and Hunter are both main-stream conservative Republicans of the '80's and '90's. The GOP and the country have lurched HARD left this decade as the Greatest Generation aged out of the electorate and Boomers consolidated power in both parties.
The Mittbots are the same ones that fractured the base in the first place by pushing Rudy. They think we were just put-off by Rudy's lack of morality. They don't realize a gun-grabbing totalitarian socialist is unacceptable to a good many no matter how pretty the wrapper. Mitt/Rudy: 'the trains will run on time.'
Enjoy the game and the beer, trust me, after working campaigns for 2 decades the best thing you can do is take a few days off from politics.
Thompson and Hunter are both main-stream conservative Republicans of the '80's and '90's. The GOP and the country have lurched HARD left this decade as the Greatest Generation aged out of the electorate and Boomers consolidated power in both parties.
But you're missing the irony of following it up with this.
The Mittbots are the same ones that fractured the base in the first place by pushing Rudy. They think we were just put-off by Rudy's lack of morality. They don't realize a gun-grabbing totalitarian socialist is unacceptable to a good many no matter how pretty the wrapper. Mitt/Rudy: 'the trains will run on time.'
Blame the "Mittbots" all you want. It's America that's different. It has changed a lot. You pointed that out yourself. You can't blame the Republican party for going where the votes are, and where the interest of the voters lies. They're running a business, and that's to win elections.
There's no room in that line of work for ironclad moral conviction. Expecting that out of them is unrealistic. There's no tangible benefit to falling on your sword for principles your constituents aren't really in favor of. It's the job of conservatives to sell conservatism as the best option. The Republican party is merely chasing opinion blocks large enough to keep it in power.
And I do not “hate” Mitt.
I will not vote for him, and neither will a whole lot of republicans and conservatives, but I do not “hate” him
Perhaps.
But they had best get those chapter 13 papers ready, because a good chunk of their “customers” aren’t buying, and without them the GOP is going to slide into irrelevance.
I’m not even remotely interested in the Democrat lite flavor.
And pimping for Mitt? Why would a Libertarian pimp for a statist like Mitt? Secularist free-trader maybe, but not a Libertarian. And for that matter, why would anyone craving free-trade carry water for someone who has no qualms interfering with financial freedom when it comes to health care?
Use your head. Look at what that did to insurance premiums.
They tripled overnight, and we still have nearly the same number of uninsured drivers on the road before it went into effect.
Romneycare isn't based on 'offering' low-cost catastrophic plans. It's based on compulsory insurance that costs nearly three-hundred dollars per month and cripples small businesses. Not only that; they can and will come after you if you refuse coverage even if you're young, healthy and don't need it.
The man's a hard-line socialist.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14651
I can make a choice of not driving to avoid mandated auto insurance, what can I do to avoid mandated health insurance?????suicide?
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.