Replies

You know, you would be well-advised to not brag to me about how you taught Republicans a lesson in 1992. President George Herbert Walker Bush wasn't the most conservative of Republicans, but people like you threw him out and in his place put the most corrupt, ineffective, traitorous person ever to occupy the Oval Office.

Don't brag to me about teaching a lesson...the lesson I have learned is that to prove a point you will throw out an honorable man who loved his country and replace him with someone who darn near destroyed it, and who is directly responsible for the war we are in now.

DO NOT EVER BRAG TO ME ABOUT THAT AGAIN!!!!

Thumbs up on post #136. It is as correct as correct gets, IMO.

DO NOT EVER BRAG TO ME ABOUT THAT AGAIN!!!!

When a republican president not only refuses to protect America's sovereignty as a nation but also undermines it with Amnesties for Illegals, I don't see much difference between him and the prior criminal. Oh and per above....

"I guess memories really are short in politics. 1992 seems like a forgotten lesson of what happens to RINOs when they burn their conservative base repeatedly. GUESS WHAT? We Stay Home On Election Day".

Don't brag to me about teaching a lesson...the lesson I have learned is that to prove a point you will throw out an honorable man who loved his country and replace him with someone who darn near destroyed it, and who is directly responsible for the war we are in now.

No excuses for Clinton, but who let Saddam off the hook in '91?
While I voted for Bush the Elder in '92, I understand why many votes he thought were his by right went elsewhere. He ran a lackluster campaign and never took off the gloves against Clinton.
When a candidate loses votes and thus elections, it's always, always his fault.
I believe Ross Perot put Clinton into office, but only because George HW Bush frittered away votes and political capital so foolishly that Perot was able to scoop up many of his disenchanted voters.
Will Dubya repeat the mistake? That remains to be seen.
But I don't believe that Bush Loyalists help their cause any with the "we can win without you" and "don't let the door hit you in the a**" comments. And doubting whether those who've soured on Bush ever voted for him in the first place strikes me as wishful thinking. The President's numbers look good now, but we have to keep in mind that he starts from a hole in the popular vote and it wouldn't take much of a swing in a few other states to make things very difficult for him.
So let me ask you...
If some of the President's "outreach" plans compromise principles so much that they cost more votes than they gain, who's responsible if the Dems take back the White House in 2004?

Don't brag to me about teaching a lesson...the lesson I have learned is that to prove a point you will throw out an honorable man who loved his country and replace him with someone who darn near destroyed it, and who is directly responsible for the war we are in now. DO NOT EVER BRAG TO ME ABOUT THAT AGAIN!!!

Miss Marple you are an absolute gem! I too am impressed with people who while a small majority will just withdraw if everybody doesn't see it their way.