Posted on 05/03/2009 12:32:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
You can go door to door..Not a problem...go for it.
Bush made many mistakes, and those have been alluded to and discussed here on FR from the top down. But on fundamentals (life, guns, God, etc.)he was and has been consistent.
Now how logical would it be that if Bush, whom we trusted to at least some extent, let us down in some areas that we in turn then move our support to a man who has PROVEN to be untrustworthy on not just the fundamentals, but on such issues as universal health care as well.
I understand what parallels you are trying to draw and why, but it is the ultimate non-sequitir really, apples and oranges. Mitt has a record the lets us know we can't trust him BEFORE we even give him a shot. If Bush had the same record leading into 2000 he would have never gotten the nod from conservatives.
Keep swinging, this is fun...
Thanks for the ping!
I never condemned you and your work. I just state the fact that you are “glued”. Whatever you want to preach is up to you. We allow all men the right to worship who, what..etc and we do the same. Not a problem. Go for it.
How do you know I don’t? And I can reach a whole lot more folks on FR. Thanks for the permission slip, though.
“Don't start none, won't be none”
-Agent “J” MIB
Seems that the patronizing tone, the attacks and such on Thompson, Hunter and others, as well as their supporters, the calling of “idiot” “Moron” etc. as well as such gems as calling Thompson's wife a whore and a stripper all emanated from the “Wholesome Team Romney” from the get go.
So yes, it is ironic to hear it's lead members in turn cry foul...
At least to this "ignorant hillbilly"...
Jim, thank you for the clarification.
I hope you will either post this explanation as part of FR’s home page or put a link to it.
FR is not for everyone, but it’s for me!
Who is "we"? I voted against President Bush in both primaries. I knew he was a chip off the old east coast block.
As far as Romney being untrustworthy I think it is important to acknowledge you work with what you have. Working within the confines of the Massachusetts government is much different than devising a plan to save the Winter Olympics in Utah or to turn around a failing company. One of the things I like best about Mitt is the decisive way he evaluates a problem and then takes bold steps to resolve the problem. I trust Mitt to always take a reasoned and intelligent approach when facing a challenge. Ronald Reagan had the same political practicality. I met Reagan when he was first running for Governor of California and closely followed his political career. He change his policies many times. What never changed was Reagan's willingness to address tough issues in an optimistic manner.
“Never mind, it was a mistake to think someone would be nice enough to point me in the right direction.”
Being the nice guy that I am...
WAnkerville is thataway——————>
Go join the Ghouliani bots and take you Mittwit WAnker list with you.
Not from me. Ever.
I am not calling you an ignorant hillbilly. I said certain rhetoric would only reinforce the ugly stereotype of the right being made up of hate-filled hillbillies.
There is your “we”...
And that “work with what you have” meme is getting really long in the tooth. For example with Mitt still defending his plan well after he left office and it was, how was it put to me once, “beset upon by liberals”, well that says it all right there.
And you guys dragging Reagan into it is getting way old.
Buying the MSM line...
Well...
Bump and amen!
Actually, it sounds goofy... I’m sorry. It’s my perception. Don’t go by me. Do a focus group.
Does he have a middle name?
You said "we" didn't know Bush couldn't be trusted. I said I did know that before the election. My vote for Bush doesn't mean I trusted him to be conservative; just like I voted for McCain last fall, it was simply a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.
The reason you may not like me bringing up Reagan is because he is a perfect example of a conservative who sometimes supported liberal ideas. Reagan's support of the Brady Bill is an excellent example of a big important issue Reagan chose to side with liberals. Who knows what would have happened if FR would have been around in 1980...maybe Reagan would have been seen as a left wing California Republican. He had reversed his position on abortion, favored some gun control and he had been divorced.
“The TEA Partiers are mostly grassroots people so Im sure there are lots of people with divergent ideas, however, the main concept is to oppose out of control, big spending, big taxing, overreaching, big government.”
The Tea Party Movement, is the best shot we have had in 20 years, of reassembling the Reagan Coalition imho. I have not always been politically astute and in years past, have fallen victim to the ‘GOP Threat’, that if you don’t vote for their ‘liberal lite’..you will get the democrats ‘leftist heavy’. The RINOS have been able to hold way too much power in this party with that type of ‘scare tactic’ formula. It’s been going on for years and they are at it yet again.
The leftists know that this is how republicans lose...so we are seeing ‘stories’ everyday about ‘moderate conservatives’..’moderate republicans’, etc. The usual suspects like McCain, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Specter and the corrupt American media are shaking the conservative foundation once again.
Thanks for your post. It is a great reminder that the best way not to wind up twisting yourself into a political pretzel, is to stand on a bedrock of founding principles and a foundation of faith.
I have learned so much reading and posting on Free Republic.
Thanks again for this forum.
Can we focus on the issues and candidates and not on their respective religion?
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.