Posted on 01/30/2012 5:15:21 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The 2012 Republican primary race has passed well beyond the rabbit hole into some extra-dimensional bizarro world where up is down, black is white and the allies of the candidate who disavowed Reaganism would have us believe that the leader of the “second stage of the Reagan Revolution” is somehow insufficiently Reaganesque.
It’s no secret that the GOP establishment backs Mitt Romney. The same folks who gave us John McCain and Bob Dole have picked their winner. When Mr. Romney is down, their panic shows. They start floating desperate ideas like late-entry candidates or a brokered convention. They also pull out the long knives for Newt Gingrich. After the former speaker’s decisive victory in South Carolina, insiders launched an all-out assault upon him. Unmasked and panicked, the GOP establishment unleashed the tactics of the left upon the right.
GOP insiders first dredged up 2-decade-old debunked partisan ethics charges that damaged Mr. Gingrich’s reputation until the Internal Revenue Service finally exonerated him. Mr. Romney couldn’t resist seeking cheap points by joining the discredited Democrats who started the whole sordid mess. Mr. Romney featured, of all people, Nancy Pelosi with her innuendo of Mr. Gingrich’s supposed wrongdoing, ironically blasting out an email slur just as Mrs. Pelosi was backing away from it. Then came something even worse: the salacious insinuation that Mr. Gingrich somehow betrayed former President Ronald Reagan.
The anti-Gingrich onslaught reached an apogee on the Drudge Report as Romney allies fed one negative story after another, amassing an impressive 10 pieces on the influential website at one point. A screaming headline claimed that Mr. Gingrich had repeatedly insulted Reagan. The unseemly issue of Mr. Gingrich’s second marriage managed to resurface. To cap it off, Ann Coulter, the surprising new head cheerleader for the moderate movement, enjoyed seeing her latest anti-Gingrich...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Speak for yourself.
Which definitely blows 4runners theory to shreds. His contention was that ALL women vote like that.
I wouldn't be surprised either to find out that he also thinks women should not have the vote.
I think he always has hated us really.
I think stupid sexist men shouldn’t vote...
I understand his point — there is a certain percentage of women who judge male candidates primarily by their appearance, just as there is a certain percentage of men who judge female candidates primarily by their appearance. That's indisputable fact, and we can legitimately debate the percentages of people who make judgments based on irrelevant criteria.
But 4Runner went too far with comments like “That’s the way women are wired, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.”
Fifty years ago, most Americans would have agreed with 4Runner. Thirty or forty years ago, many if not most conservative Americans would have agreed. And a hundred years ago, men were using such arguments to say women shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
That was wrong then, it's wrong now, and it needs to stop.
46 posted on Monday, January 30, 2012 8:05:34 PM by 4Runner; “Drudge just posted a most unflattering photo of Gingrich on the front page. This is all so incredibly underhanded and deliberate. Because they know so many women will vote for a candidate based solely upon appearances. That’s the way women are wired, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. It’s what gave America Obama. The female vote. Oooh they thought he was sooooooo cute. Like they think Romney is very presidential looking. It’s all they really care about. Women don’t vote issues or philosophy. They vote appearance.”
Good for you!
It does matter. A LOT.
Slime storm ?
Romney reminded me of Lahey the trailer park supervisor :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4iDurCE3Yk
Many vote appearance, both women AND men.
Too many.
Personally, I just like Newt for his dreamy, thick white hair. “;^)
You are so freaking stupid and not worth pulling out my flame gun.
Oh, and you’re fugly.
Actually the energy crisis had been running since 1973.
Reagan lost to Ford, who then lost to Carter, in 1976. Reagan then crushed Carter in 1980. Romney's no Reagan, but the historical example stands.
Bump!
Dude.
Are you comparing Romney to Reagan?
What is your point?
Romney lost to that moron McCain, if he wins the nomination he will be slaughtered by BHO.
LOL! Me, too. Replaced my copy of "Endocrine Control Diet" today with Skanky's "Godless." felt kinda good.
I don’t think Drudge is a puppet. Everyone attacks him for just linking. It’s not like he’s writing it all.
Drudge has linked to the anti-Newt as well at the pro-Newt stuff.
There are already two good posts to your question so I’d like to offer an example.
It was the norm in the old days to have the nominee be picked at the convention instead of primaries. In 1860 it took many, many ballots before all the wheeling and dealing settled on Lincoln.
This type of process also led to the term “smoke filled rooms” where the establishment would sit around at the convention and barter and trade to see who would win the votes needed to be the nominee.
Was actually quite fun!
“I have never seen this side of the republican party...”
Not since 1964 has this side of the party been on such public display, but you may not be old enough to have witnessed that. Still, all of it has been simmering under the surface for the last 48 years.
“This type of process also led to the term “smoke filled rooms” where the establishment would sit around at the convention and barter and trade to see who would win the votes needed to be the nominee.”
Would you agree that the term may have been invented to discredit the convention system whereby delegates are selected and sent to a convention where they actually have the authority to select the nominee as elected representatives of their districts? - as opposed to a primary system where an amorphous electorate, in a mixture of open and closed primaries with dates and rules manipulated by select party committees, and subject to sway by mass-media buys of advertising, pre-determines the outcome of the convention?
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.