Replies

This was already posted.

My apologies. The search did not yield it as a result.

The point of the article was that anybody who is normal and self confident enough to not need to have unbridled power and do anything to get it...is exactly the kind of person we need as POTUS.

The system doesn’t work that way. You have to lie through your teeth, pander and promise crap you can’t deliver. Fred couldn’t and wouldn’t do that. It’s America’s loss, not his.

I think I understood the point of the article. I agree with it, to a point. But don't you think it's a rather convenient excuse, too? And a little naive? My point is, there are extremes: The soul-selling (Hillary) candidate types, and then there's Fred. Someone in the middle who has a message that resonates will catch fire. Think Reagan. The fire in the belly is needed - not to get the job for its own sake. That's not the kind of fire I'm talking about. The kind of fire that burns for freedom.

I’m not sure how the words “Reagan” and “middle” ended up in the same sentence, but I digress....

Fred was personally passionate about conservatism, he just wasn’t willing to lay it on the line for it and go to the matt so to speak to defend it.

If there is any consolation prize to be taken from this election cycle it is this...

1. An inarticulate libertarian like Ron Paul has managed to work young American citizens into a frenzy with the message of extremely limited Gubmint

2. Baby killing, smoker banning, PC agenda candidates like Mitt, Rudy felt the need to either convert or pander to Conservatives to gain power....

Conservatism and libertarianism is not dead. It just needs a passionate articulate candidate to explain the principles to the sheeple. They are willing to listen. Any young future right wing potential candidate who wants to be POTUS should listen and take heed. The world is yours for the taking!

I’d run for President myself but I wasn’t born in the USA. My parents just came here for the opportunity. I was born 18 months too late.