You also made this ridiculous unsupportable statement. It looks for all the world like an attempt to marginalize JD's supporters while minimizing McCain's negatives with a statement so milquetoast that it makes him seem normal in comparison to the former.
“I don’t know how Hayworth became the 2nd coming of Reagan for this group.
____________________
Looks like? An attempt to marginalize us and a better candidate is exactly what it is. That duck is walking the walk. Such retorts are typical of those who have fought all of us who have wanted to see illegal immigration and the border controlled and dared disagree with John McCain or George Bush.
That sad tune has been playing for 10 years around here.
What interested ME was how everybody was talking like Hayworth was the 2nd coming of Reagan, and how Fred Thompson was wrong for not seeing that.
So my focus was on reasons why Fred Thompson might not be as willing to endorse Hayward as others here want him to be. And why Sarah Palin may not have been so willing to endorse Hayward as others here want her to be.
Obviously anything I say that makes Haywood look less than perfect would improve the comparison between Haywood and McCain. But I'm not going to let that stop me from responding to those who are attacking Thompson.
From your comment: You also made this ridiculous unsupportable statement I take it that you agree with me that Haywood isn't really Reagan. But that you don't think people here were treating him as if he had no flaws. But if that is ttue, why are you so upset that I pointed out the flaws that you seem to think everybody else is NOT ignoring?
Or do you actually think Haywood is the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan? That's not how I read your comment, but maybe you do. In which case my attempt to convince you otherwise has provoked a predictable response.