You're dong great PJ. Don't change a thing. The circus will be on the road thru the summer ;o)
Posted on 01/20/2008 6:03:26 AM PST by PJ-Comix
Not quite yet, PJ. It may come to that, but not yet. If Fred stays in, I'm sticking with him and voting for him here in Missouri. I'm a FRederalist!
We have a long way to go yet....
Watch as PJ-Comix, your Border Collie political sheepdog, goes into a crouch and growls menacingly until you get back into the herd for your own good.
“Romney was once a “moderate” but is now solid conservative.”
So he says.
Yes but Reagan stayed conservative, Mitt says whatever it takes, adjusts his message to his audience, makes whatever promises necessary. That was NOT Reagan at all. You want buy Mitt’s road to ames conversion, fine, I don’t. When Mitt has shown years of conservatism, and has stayed conservative despite pressure to go liberal, then he will have earned his conservative credentials with me. Until then, forget it.
NO, I will not vote for a rino. When are we going to EVER learn? We have this SAME argument every election. It's time to put an end to it NOW!!!
If the majority of repubs want to be useless, and just vote to keep Hillary out of the WH, then they will end up getting her voted INTO the WH by electing a rino/moderate. This Election is about "change." People are sick of MODERATE Bush, and they don't care about voting to keep the dem canidate out just to elect another version of Bush. If you "Any Repub" people haven't learned the lesson of '06, which was electing conservatives in the primaries and kicking these moderate prix out, then this party is doomed for this election.
I warned in '06, I will never again vote for another rino/moderate just to prevent a dem win, and I venture to predict the majority of Conservatives, Indepedents, Libert, BD Dems, fense sitters, will not vote for one either. I think a vote for a rino as the repub canidate, not only gives us a further decline of conservatism, but ensures a dem victory.
Thus ensuring the definition of insanity! What I think you're doing is allowing more moderation, and helping to forward the decline of conservatism.
First off there is a substantial amount of propaganda out there regarding Mitt Romney stating that he is somehow not conservative.
I understand your guy is out, but get with the program man.
We started out with 6 of us.
Now there are going on 15 million.
Media hype or no media hype, we will continue to plow straight through it.
There are several types of 'conservatives'... and too many people in my opinion have gotten used to the Tom DeLay type.
If someone isn't a loudmouth outspoken jerk who will get 'in your face' then he must not be conservative enough.
In Mitt's case he is much more conservative on principle than many people give him credit for.
I never thought I would ever hear Mitt Romney and conservative in the same sentence on FR. The establishment what’s Romney but he’s no conservative. Actually, he’s well to the left of President Gerald Ford.
I’ll vote for him if he gets the nomination to keep Hillary out of office, but isn’t it funny the folks on here that are trying to sell the Romney conservative label.
Rush only likes the establishment candidates. Always remember, Rush is an entertainer first of all.
“In Mitt’s case he is much more conservative on principle than many people give him credit for.”
Perhaps the phrase I am looking for is “lacking in consistency.”
That would be awesome...except for one major flaw in your analysis. Mitt Romney is in no way, shape, or form a conservative. Not even a moderate. He is a flaming liberal. His record betrays his true nature. U.S. Army Retired |
Mitt is still a Northeastern Republican and having lived in the Northeast, I know that Republicans here are nothing more than Democrat Lite and lose big elections to Socialists, ask Bob Elirich and Michael Steele sometime.
Just geographically saying that isn't going to make it so.
PM on the way to you...
Mitt is going to lose big time, the press will smear him as a Mormon and as a shifty eyed cult leader who’s religion did not allow minorities into their church until the 1970’s and were was his leadership?
Trust me I know these people and that is how they are going to play it.
And if they say that we will have truth on our side.
Poke around there for a while...it should be of personal interest to you possibly.
For the first 18 years of the LDS Church's existence none of the congregations were segregated and blacks were both baptised and given the priesthood---and were in leadership positions....
In 1848 Brigham Young was the one who said-- that they would not be allowed to hold the Priesthood (still many were baptised and went to Church with white folks in the mid 1800s none the less)...
There is more to the story than what most people are telling you.
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.