Posted on 02/16/2007 6:52:46 PM PST by EternalVigilance
But I see no reason to give up on it. Our goals and ideas are sound, we damn well should contest it everywhere we can. The 'Rats surely don't give up in Republican areas, for if they did, you think they'd have Governors in Wyoming, Arizona, Kansas, Montana, et al ? They ruthlessly went and took over what were premier areas of the country (did you know San Francisco and the entire Bay Area was once heavily GOP ?). It's time to pull off the gloves and go charging into rodent territory...
I'm reminded of that line from that Star Trek movie where Picard talks about the Borg...
"I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. Weve made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And *I* will make them pay for what they've done."
I think of the rodents like the Borg. We should think of this nation like Picard did the Enterprise and the worlds as our states and cities. All these people are doing are paving the way for outside forces to destroy this nation after they've done the job of destroying it from within.
"Tsongas was pretty good for a Democrat. He would have been a much better president than the Clinton dual-monarchy."
When I saw a list of the political gains of the republican party in the Mayors, governorships, state legislatures, the congress and the senate under the Clintons I came to truly believe that in the long run they were one of the best things that ever happened to modern America.
When you look at the parallel destruction they did to leftist groups like the NOW and NAACP organizations, and on and on, they destroyed everything that embraced them, thank God that they won instead of Tsongas, or even George Herbert Bush.
That's okay, 32% of the people here will still vote for him.
I will not vote for a faux-conservative ever again, GOP nod or no.
Me either.
Well, I wish the rest of the people on this board who feel the same would get together with us and decide who the hell we're going to vote for come primary-time, so we aren't still squabbling over Hunter or Gingrich or whoever. I'd prefer to have a unified conservative block going into Iowa instead of this divided crap. Otherwise we'll end up with a candidate only the 32 percenters can support.
It's hard to unite behind a candidate when virtually none of these people have "it", that quality you know when you think of someone who could or should be of Presidential timber. I am still holding out hope for that magic candidate, there is such a vacuum for that candidate.
I agree. There's still a little time yet, though. The RINOs busted out early, trying to stampede everybody to death. But, all they've really done is to give us more time to expose them.
But you don't need for the nominee to have the spark, when your competition wilts under the spotlight. Every time you turn the light on people like Hillary and Obama, their zits pop out and their magic goes away. That's why they lose national races--the spotlight's all the way on.
I can't imagine who on the right would be 'magical' at this point. Maybe Tom Coburn. I thought it'd be Walter Williams, then I heard him intentionally put himself out of a draft status by maligning his own wife on Rush today. "She was the lucky one, I'm quite a catch," etc. Women might vote for him if he's a traditional man, but they'll never vote for a man whose opinion of his wife is that she's not good enough for him. And he is too damn smart not to know that. He wants Mallard Fillmore off his back. 8)
lol...
I think we make a serious error in underestimating the enemy. I can picture Hillary winning (after all, she already WAS President) and even the ultraleft Smiley. I, and a few others, made the mistake of thinking Obama's nomination for the Senate was pure gold for the Republican candidate, and it was anything but (mind you, Alan Keyes, whom I've previously supported, shouldn't have been in that Senate race, but still...).
Dr. Coburn is interesting, but you and I know he is far too honest a candidate to win. Professor Williams is intriguing, but his age is a bit of a hindrance (he'd be 73 in '09) and not having prior experience at running for office is a liability. I'm thinking somewhere along the lines of SC Gov. Mark Sanford, a Social Conservative and Fiscal Libertarian or even Herman Cain (though his health is a concern, he just beat his cancer into remission).
I don't know about that. Clinton was just about the worst possible person to win the presidency. He weakened the national defense, helped the Islamists in Yugoslavia, he got his pick of activist judges, 10 years of that "assault weapons" ban, and what is perhaps the most damaging -- he really lowered the bar as to what misconduct will be tolerated in an elected official. Now we have one political party that is completely controlled by moonbats and the other party is weak and rather clueless.
"I don't know about that. Clinton was just about the worst possible person to win the presidency."
It was easier to explain before the 2006 election shattered our confidence, but I do know that I never dreamed that America would become a Republican nation like it did during the 90s.
To understand my point just look at the gun issue, I was freaked at the attacks on the 2nd amend., and in the media we were being routed, but underneath all the hoopla on the surface, gun rights moved forward at a rate and strength, not seen since the Bill of Rights.
Paul Tsongas was a fiscal conservative.
Reasons to agree:
1. "I have been referred to as a pro business liberal. I have always been referred to that way. That is what I am... in terms of energy policy and in particularly in terms of economic policy I am a realist. I may sound like a Republican but if it works, I am for it. I am not locked in to the ideology, sort of the class warfare, corporate bashing that Democrats find attractive. That is not me it has never been me."
2. Paul was also a co-founder of this foundation: http://www.concordcoalition.org/
Romney's explanation of why he voted for Tsongas shows that he is a flip-flopper
Reasons to disagree
1. There is nothing contradictory. We have a report from two Boston Globe employees as to why Romney voted for someone 15 years ago. There is no direct quote.
2. I bet if you asked Scott Lehigh, Frank Phillips, or Mitt Romney that those weren’t the only reasons why Romney voted for Tsongas (the fact that Tsongas was from Massachusetts, and that he was better than Bill Clinton). Do you vote for someone because of only two issues? You might only give two issues, when you have limited time, but no one votes for a candidate because of only two issues.
3. Why don’t we take Romney at his word. He voted for Paul Tsongas because he liked him better than Clinton, and that he didn’t think that he would win the general election against Bush? Are these somehow mutually exclusive.
4. The democrats and MSM is going to take everything Romney ever said 10 years ago, tell us it, and then say "however today he says..." blank. They are going to use this tactic weather it contradicted the previous statement or not. They will use this tactic every time Mitt Romney does not repeat his previous statement verbatim.
Analysis from Mike
Mitt Romney should learn from this that he should not over simplify things. People didn’t like John Kerry because he made things more complicated than they had to be. People won’t like Mitt Romny if his explanations are over simplistic. If someone from the media asks you why you voted for Paul Tsongas, you might want to give him a quick answer and get onto the next issue. But you should totally explain all your reasons, because if you just give one reason, the media will search to see if you ever gave one of the other reasons why you voted for the guy. If they are not the exact same explanation they will accuse you of changing you mind.
It is the same stupid thing that the Democrats and the Media have done to George Bush. Bush gave lots of Reasons why we went to war with Iraq. They were a destabilizing force in the world, they invaded two of their neighbors in the last 50 years. All right democrats. Give us one other example besides Iraq of a large country invading it’s neighbor? Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran. But the only justification you hear the media bring up is WMDs.
George W. Bush needs to keep talking about the other non-WMD reasons to go to war with Iraq. Romney also needs to give a more thorough explanation of his decision making. In fact, I think he should use my format of Reasons to agree and Disagree with everything.
Every time Romney discusses the same issue more than once he better say the exact same thing verbatim, or the Democrats and the MSM will accuse him of changing, even when the two statements are not mutually exclusive.
Romney is not a true Republican because he voted for Paul Tsongas.
Reasons to agree
1. A good republican would never vote for a Democrat.
2. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the Devil himself. D is for Devil. Even if it is the just the primary and you vote for George H. Bush (like Romney) in the General election.
Reasons to disagree
1. Romney was a good republican because he was very practical. In 1992 there was no Republican primary. He had two options. He could sit on the side lines and not vote (like me this last election cycle) or he could vote for the best candidate who would not likely beat Bush in the General election. Romney chose the latter. This does not make him a bad republican.
2. Paul Tsongas was a fiscal conservative.
3. Paul Tsongas was a good guy.
4. I wish every Republican would have registered as independents in 1992 and voted for Paul Tsongus. Bush would have lost anyways, but we would have had Tsongus instead of Clinton. And now Hillary Clinton. Maybe George H. Bush would have one against Paul Tsongus. Two descent guys, that had nothing to do with Hollywood instead of Bill going against H. Bush in 1992.
5. Maybe Republicans should all claim independent, so that we can vote for Hillary in the Primaries and our guys in the General election.
6. There was no GOP primary contest in 92. In 1992 Mitt Romney voted against Bill Clinton twice.
7. I am a Romney fan, but not even I think Romney was smart enough to see that Bill Clinton was a bigger liability than George H. Bush was an asset for our Country. I am not going to attribute Mitt Romney of difficult political calculus. This was very basic addition. Vote once for the guy you like best, or vote twice? Hmm, let me see…
Romney seems like a decent guy. However, he is devoid of principles. He goes from one side to the other depending what's good for him at the time. He's got a lot to overcome.
This reminded me of back in 1994 when then-mayor Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo for re-election to Governor of NY over the then-challenger George Pataki and remembering the lambasting he took by the conservatives over that decision. Fortunately for Rudy, many people quickly got over that, especially since Pataki won and ended up serving 12 years as NY Governor.
Yours is a good analysis. Tsongas was an ok guy, and if I were in a state with no GOP primary I would have voted for him, too. However, Romney's dumb explanation is worse than the crime.
You make an interesting point. But I suspect that most conservatives from Massachusetts have either moved away or died.
I don't see anything wrong here.
As an Independent in the primaries he voted for Paul Tsongas against Bill Clinton.
In the General election he voted for George H. Bush against Bill Clinton.
So he votes against Bill Clinton TWICE in the same election cycle and he is getting slammed here on freerepublic. I think he should get credit for this, not ridicule.
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.