Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Please, Romney is nothing like Reagan!
Craig Shirley ^ | 03/08/2012 | Craig Shirley

Posted on 03/08/2012 6:24:52 AM PST by Brices Crossroads

Wall Street Journal editor William McGurn, a former Bush White House speechwriter, argued in an article Tuesday that Mitt Romney is no worse off now than Ronald Reagan was at this stage of his historic 1980 campaign. He compared these two races and also tried to show that President Barack Obama is the heir to Jimmy Carter.

The Romney camp would probably welcome these comparisons — but it’s more a theory in search of facts. There are indeed some similarities, but the differences are far more striking.

Both Reagan and Romney did begin as frontrunners, both stumbled. Romney’s outcome is still unknown. But other than the fact that Carter was a tougher politician than Obama, that is where the similarities end.

Reagan was fervently opposed by corporate America, Wall Street and, yes, The Wall Street Journal, in the lead up to the 1980 campaign. As much as Romney is fervently supported by them now. In 1980, Corporate America preferred former Texas Gov. John Connolly and Amb. George H. W. Bush to Reagan, the maverick populist.

Indeed, when Reagan announced his candidacy in late 1979, the Journal asserted “for political packaging, we do not need to turn to a 69-year-old man.”

The words “populist” and “Romney” don’t often collide in the same sentence.

The issues in 1980 were far more consequential than today, just as the differences between Carter and Reagan were greater and more divisive than the differences today. Romney and Obama, as well as Carter, have a far greater belief than Reagan in the state’s power, goodness and redistributive powers. Even after he was head of the federal government for eight years in Washington, no one ever thought Reagan was part of the establishment — the manor to which Romney was born.

From a cultural standpoint as well, Romney and Reagan stand poles apart. One born rich, a son of the Ivy League, the other born in poverty, a son of the Prairie League.

The issue of Soviet communism loomed over the 1980 debate, though the struggling economy and rampant inflation ranked as most important to the American people. The world is a far less dangerous place today than 31 years ago, and the economy is in far better shape.

Reagan understood acutely the connection between the spiritual America, the economic America and the defense of America. The vitality of the people has to be restored so they could again believe in the future — and so begin rebuilding America’s defenses and resolve. With this muscular foreign policy, Washington could face down Moscow.

Today, we worry about the potential for one Iranian nuclear device. In 1980, Reagan had to worry about 10,000 Soviet nuclear devices.

Romney is championing the federal marriage amendment — one of the most anti-conservative, harebrained notions ever cooked up by the borderline geniuses of the GOP. We don’t know how Reagan would have reacted to this proposal. But we do know he believed deeply in the dignity and the privacy of the individual.

Consider, in 1978, Reagan opposed Proposition 6 in California, which would have banned homosexuals from teaching in the state public schools. Voters turned it down — and its defeat was credited to Reagan’s opposition.

Reagan’s 1980 campaign produced few negative ads. Even when he was under assault in the primaries, most Reagan ads featured the Gipper talking into a camera about the benefit of his radical tax cuts for individuals. The tagline: “We have to move forward but we can’t leave anyone behind.”

The ads producers, Jeff Bell and Elliot Curzon, dubbed the commercial, “The Good Shepherd.”

Unlike Romney, Reagan had 30 years invested in the conservative movement and was beloved by most of the GOP base. Romney has no such wellspring of support. Even those conservatives who support him do so guardedly, defensively.

Romney seems largely a product if his consultants and handlers — doing and saying what they tell him. Reagan, however, had men around him who saw their job as amplifying his message, not submitting it to focus groups.

There is also a difference in the fundamental character of the two. Though I have never met Romney, I’ve worked with politicians going on 40 years now, and he seems like a man who is very unsure of himself.

But Reagan, whom I worked for and with, appeared to me — and millions of others – like a sunny man who was very sure of himself. So confident was he and other successful aspirants, they spent their time talking about and to the voters and not about themselves.

Perhaps most revealing, as the campaign has progressed, Romney has not “grown” as is often the case but is looking more opaque and ill defined. John F. Kennedy, Reagan and Obama all enlarged as men in their quests for the presidency. As they moved closer to the Oval Office, the more people thought about them, the more people thought of them.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obama; reagan; romney
This should fall squarely in the "Captain Obvious" category. Still, Shirley reminds us that this is not 1980 and Romney is most definitely not Ronald Reagan. The Article made me more nostalgic than ever for the Gipper, a man who had the courage to take on the Establishment and defeat it and then had the stamina and fortitude to re-orient our domestic and Foreign policy like no President in American history. I hate to see Romney even mentioned in the same paragraph with him.

THIS was a great man.

1 posted on 03/08/2012 6:24:54 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

“Nothing Like”?! How about exactly opposite?! Or world’s apart?! Or good vs evil?!


2 posted on 03/08/2012 6:28:19 AM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Two candidates, and their supporters, keep trying to compare their guy TO Reagan. A third simply says he worked WITH Reagan.

Now, some holes can be punched into all three stories, but it is telling the difference. And while we’re at it - Rush’s comparisons with Santorum to Reagan on social policies? Really? Now I’m not as old as Rush, but I remember Reagan Carter pretty well. I don’t remember much of anything about the social issues being an issue, even though we knew where Reagan stood.


3 posted on 03/08/2012 6:28:48 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Lost me by lumping Reagan with Obama at the end.

No question Reagan and Romney are very different. Likewise Carter and Obama.

I lived through Carter and there was a sense he was an embarrassment. I think people fear and dislike Obama much more.

Reagan started out with the conservative base and had to convince moderates he wasn’t a threatening right winger.

Romney starts with moderate respect and has to energize the conservatives.

I think the American people cannot wait to vote Obama out of office.


4 posted on 03/08/2012 6:34:17 AM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I am excited about none of the candidates but will gladly vote for “other” when facing Obama.
I know many Freepers have passionate feelings about their guy, but ANYONE who thinks that our worst choice will be as bad for the country as Obama is simply a fool, ESPECIALLY in light of the recent comments made by Leon Panetta.
The Left wants to destroy our country and if Obama wins, he will stack the court with radicals the likes of which our nation has never seen.
After the primaries, we MUST come together and support the guy not named Obama.


5 posted on 03/08/2012 6:37:49 AM PST by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Reagan’s positions on the issues throughout his political life were clear and unambiguous.

Romney, not so much.


6 posted on 03/08/2012 6:38:00 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

C’mon man!

He’s a populist through and through. How many other politicians know that Michigan trees are all the right height?


7 posted on 03/08/2012 6:44:04 AM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

I met Reagan never met Romney but he is still no Reagan !!!!!!!


8 posted on 03/08/2012 6:48:29 AM PST by al baby (Hi Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Given the homosexual push by the judiciary, I’m not sure Reagan would not support the marriage ammenment. He certainly had no qualms about an outright ban on them in the military: “We ask, DON’T join” worked quite well. Aside from that, this was an excellent article.


9 posted on 03/08/2012 6:49:29 AM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I think the American people cannot wait to vote Obama out of office.”

Oh, man, do I ever hope you are right!!!!! It looks likely that we will have to do so with Romney....not that I like him, but we have to oust obama! (I fear, however, that Romney can’t do it...he is that weak).


10 posted on 03/08/2012 6:50:38 AM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Romney has no shot....zip...zilch...nada.


11 posted on 03/08/2012 6:52:36 AM PST by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Well, they both have nice hair.


12 posted on 03/08/2012 6:53:57 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
“Rush’s comparisons with Santorum to Reagan on social policies? Really? Now I’m not as old as Rush, but I remember Reagan Carter pretty well. I don’t remember much of anything about the social issues being an issue, even though we knew where Reagan stood.”

Rush and I are about the same age. I share your recollection that social issues played no important role in the 1980 election. Reagan's campaign was primarily about two things: (1) challenging the Soviet Union by restoring US military strength; (2) restoring economic prosperity by lowering marginal tax rates and reducing the growth of the federal government.

13 posted on 03/08/2012 7:07:48 AM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg
Rush and I are about the same age. I share your recollection that social issues played no important role in the 1980 election. Reagan's campaign was primarily about two things: (1) challenging the Soviet Union by restoring US military strength; (2) restoring economic prosperity by lowering marginal tax rates and reducing the growth of the federal government.

Glad you shared that, and glad to know we remember the same campaign the same way. It is stunning to me, STUNNING, to see Rush make this false comparison. Correcting such falsehoods is what he has done for 23 years. This is tremendous slippage in my opinion, and with potentially dire consequences.

14 posted on 03/08/2012 7:12:57 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Yeah! What the hell is the reference to the height of trees? I know he said it but what do it mean?


15 posted on 03/08/2012 7:21:47 AM PST by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Romney’s not weak. Romney, I think, is an SOB. his conservative support is weak.


16 posted on 03/08/2012 7:30:13 AM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: old school

I think he’s trying to create nostalgia, where life was just perfect in Middle America in the 1950’s, where everybody lives in the suburbs with tree-lined streets.


17 posted on 03/08/2012 7:33:56 AM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: al baby

Agreed, I heard Reagan speak as president. He was absolutely golden and magical. No one compares.


18 posted on 03/08/2012 7:34:53 AM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I think Rush may be using again


19 posted on 03/08/2012 7:38:15 AM PST by al baby (Hi Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

So, the man, Romney, who has done the following:

1. Supported Gay Adoption
2. Supported Gay Marriage
3. Wholeheartedly supported Abortion.
4. Proclaimed he was not a Reagan Conservative.
5. Supports Global Warming
6. Implemented a form of Socialized Medicine with RomneyCare with it’s Individual Mandate
7. Doesn’t like nore understand the concept of limited Government.
8. Is a continual and serial liar.

This total creep is like Reagan?

TO arrive at that conclusion the writers of this drivel would have to throw out everything he did as Governor and 95% of everything else.


20 posted on 03/08/2012 7:52:39 AM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Romney’s not weak. Romney, I think, is an SOB. his conservative support is weak.

Oh, but I beg to differ with your assessment.

If, by some evil fate, he becomes the nominee, he will get steam-rolled by Obama and his MSM.

All the evilness and ugliness that is his Progressive Liberal record will be trotted out to completely demorilize the base.

Anybody thinking otherwise is just in Denial.
21 posted on 03/08/2012 7:55:11 AM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

You are incorrect. A centerpiece of Reagan’s campaign was his pro life stance. Prayer in school was another big issue as was school busing.

He was very much a social conservative, and was quite outspoken about it.

The economic and foreign policy issues were the main driver of the debate that election, but social issues did play heavily in it.

You can trust Rush’s memory....libs hated Reagan for his social stances.


22 posted on 03/08/2012 7:55:33 AM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

With due respect, any one who with a straight face compares the essence of Reagan’s campaign and the social issue’s place in it with the essence of Santrorum’s campaign is simply insulting the memory of Reagan.

If nothing else, Reagan was so much more like able than Santorum that the comparison fails epically right there. But Reagan did not lead with these issues, nope, no way.


23 posted on 03/08/2012 8:02:53 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg; C. Edmund Wright
You are correct in saying that Reagan's main issues were the free market economy and keeping America great (peace through strength).

However, you are forgetting Reagan ran on what he called the three legged stool, which included the leg of a strong moral foundation as well. He actively sought evangelical (and catholic) support on these issues, and was very up front about his pro-life stance.

I think a candidate who shorts any one of the three legs Reagan spoke of is missing the mark. Reagan always tied the three ideas together, and did so masterfully.

24 posted on 03/08/2012 8:05:15 AM PST by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

No, I am not forgetting the three legged stool at all. I am also not forgetting that while Reagan was honest and sincere about his beliefs in social conservatism, he was much more realistic about a President’s job.

You cannot separate Rick’s stool, which has two tiny legs and the doggoned social tree trunk - from his whole presentation. When you walk out with a sweater vest (and YES, optics DO MATTER) and then your family comes out and takes up the whole stage - and you make them a big issue - then you are making the social issues far greater a part of your entire image.

Reagan NEVER did that. His campaign had an entirely different feel, look, smell, essence than Santorums’ does. If Santorum was at all Reaganesque in any way, shape or form, I would likely support him.

He isn’t. I do not.


25 posted on 03/08/2012 8:11:55 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Reagan was demonized as much as Santorum for his pro life, pro family stances.

I agree that the social issues weren’t the driver that they are now...RvW was only 7 years old and our social fabric was still intact then.

However, social issues were a large part of Reagan’s campaign, and motivated many conservatives like myself to support him...along with his pro military and pro business stances.

That is my memory of that time, and I believe you can find enough supporting quotes and evidence to support it.

In the end, it probably is just a matter of opinion...


26 posted on 03/08/2012 8:20:29 AM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun
“Prayer in school was another big issue as was school busing.”

It is true that Reagan supported a Constitutional amendment to allow prayer in (public) schools. It is also true that the Reagan Justice Department fought court-ordered, forced school busing. But neither of these was a major campaign issue in the 1980 election. One of the key aspects of the political genius of Regan was that he picked his battles carefully, and focused his efforts (both before and after he was elected) on a very small number of the most important issues: defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold war and reversing the 50 year trend of higher taxes and the increasing growth rate of the federal government.

27 posted on 03/08/2012 8:21:19 AM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Rick is not a great communicator, nor does he have the great balance in all three legs that Reagan did. He is not my favorite candidate.

Unfortunately, the candidate I support is not catching fire and has a minuscule chance of winning at this point.

There are three solutions, or we get Romney. Either we go all in for Santorum, Newt and Santorum cut a deal, or Newt pulls off some kind of miracle.

It's what we're left with, I have grave doubts that Romney is a decent alternative, he is the farthest of all three from projecting the ideals Reagan stood for.

28 posted on 03/08/2012 8:24:02 AM PST by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Well your last post is more or less what I think too. I am hoping for a Newt miracle, and until I totally give up on that, I will resist joining the RS camp. I am not convinced he would actually accomplish more conservatism than Romney frankly, though he is more realiably so.

For years, this country worried too much about money and ability and neglected philosophy and character in a candidate. Now I fear we’ve gone too far the other way in our party with Santorum.

Ability, damnit, does matter. I see RS a distant third in the talent category of the four folks running. I see him as no better than tied for third in the accomplishment category. ( I also see flaws in his character, but for purposes of this thread, I won’t go there...)

These things matter, I’m telling you.


29 posted on 03/08/2012 8:32:20 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Well as you know, I think otherwise. Though folks like you certainly will help reelect Obama. And you know that, too.


30 posted on 03/08/2012 8:49:59 AM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

“THIS was a great man.”

Yes, and the GOP nomenklatura detested him, and set about to dismantle all he had accomplished beginning on January 20, 1989. Here we are. There is no option but to defeat the machine again, inch by bloody inch.


31 posted on 03/08/2012 8:56:55 AM PST by Psalm 144 (They promised me a White Horse and all I got was this whitewashed jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams; SoConPubbie

“Well as you know, I think otherwise. Though folks like you certainly will help reelect Obama. And you know that, too.”

Honey badger don’t care.


32 posted on 03/08/2012 8:59:04 AM PST by Psalm 144 (They promised me a White Horse and all I got was this whitewashed jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Reagan’s forte was American strength, the advance of freedom, and total victory in the Cold War. As you say though, we knew where he stood, and he was express in his disapproval of abortion, if only on the grounds of caution in dealing with an unknown.


33 posted on 03/08/2012 9:02:17 AM PST by Psalm 144 (They promised me a White Horse and all I got was this whitewashed jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Well as you know, I think otherwise. Though folks like you certainly will help reelect Obama. And you know that, too.

And folks like you will keep lying about that.

The only people that will be responsible for an Obama Re-Election are:

1. Democrats
2. RINOs voting for Romney Primaries
3. Independents voting for Romney in the Primaries
4. Uninformed, ignorant of Romney's Progressive Liberal Conservatives that vote for Romney
5. Those pretending to be conservatives and voting for Romney in the primaries.
6. GOP-E members that have kept open Primaries.
7. And Finally, Mitt Romney, whose Progressive Liberal record should make him so ashamed that he wouldn't dare to run and whose character assasination of both Santorum and Gringrich was deplorable.


34 posted on 03/08/2012 9:17:17 AM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Reagan’s positions on the issues throughout his political life were clear and unambiguous. Romney, not so much at all.

Fixed it for you.

When a man has a clear moral compass and political vision, it is easy to stay on course. That alone explains the difference between Reagan and Romney.

35 posted on 03/08/2012 9:46:57 AM PST by CommerceComet (If Mitt can leave the GOP to protest Reagan, why can't I do the same in protest of Romney?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
C’mon man!

He’s a populist poplar-ist through and through. How many other politicians know that Michigan trees are all the right height?

You misspelled poplar tree lover. I fixed for you.

36 posted on 03/08/2012 9:47:27 AM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, dangerous homosexualist and lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

Would it be preferential if he were a maplist?


37 posted on 03/08/2012 9:50:05 AM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You could add one more SoCon:

Romney tried to slander Reagan by equating his own pro abortion stand with Reagan’s pro-life stand.


38 posted on 03/08/2012 10:00:18 AM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, dangerous homosexualist and lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Williams
I totally agree with you SoCon. Anyone currently supporting Romney is working for Obama to win.
39 posted on 03/08/2012 10:05:12 AM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, dangerous homosexualist and lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads
The world is a far less dangerous place today than 31 years ago, and the economy is in far better shape.

Huh?


40 posted on 03/08/2012 10:08:09 AM PST by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
I have to say I am discouraged about the possibility of a miracle for Newt. There are a lot of reasons he would be our best choice, and likely a very good president, but I am a bit further along in deciding it's simply not going to happen. If it happens, I'll be ecstatic.

So I will hope for a Newt/Santorum alliance, that Santorum starts to pull votes from Romney, or that Romney implodes.

The smartest thing would be an alliance, I don't think Romney goes down without that.

If it's Romney, I'm going for the "drink half a fifth of good decent scotch before going in to the voting booth" affect.

41 posted on 03/08/2012 10:37:46 AM PST by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Yeah everybody but you will be responsible for an Obama victory, including me when I vote against Obama and you stay home. Go figure.


42 posted on 03/09/2012 1:27:20 AM PST by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Now I’m not as old as Rush, but I remember Reagan Carter pretty well. I don’t remember much of anything about the social issues being an issue...

I am nearly as old as Rush, and I can tell you that in 1980 the culture war was not nearly as loud as it is today, with the exception of abortion. But in 1980 there was no war on Christmas, or a big push for faggot "marriage", faggot Boy Scout leaders, faggot soldiers, "Fisting Basics for Third Graders" in the government schools, or concentrated efforts by the atheist Democrats to demean the traditional family unit and drive Christianity from public view, etc..

America has come a long way in the past 30 years.
Congratulations, Democrats.

43 posted on 03/09/2012 1:40:54 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Yeah everybody but you will be responsible for an Obama victory, including me when I vote against Obama and you stay home. Go figure.

Nice try with the blame game again, but no dice.

If you want more of the same, (Dole, or McCain) keep voting for the crap the RNC and the GOP-E foists on you through their manipulation of the Primary process and the use of money to assasinate the character of conservative candidates.

If you want more candidates that:

1. Support Gay Adoption
2. Support Gay Marriage
3. Support Abortion
4. Don't have a clue or care about Limited Government
5. Support Socialistic Healthcare (RomneyCare)
6. Support Global Warming 7. Support TARP

Then you go ahead and keep enabling the RNC and GOP-E in their efforts to do just that.

You keep letting the RNC and GOP-E manipulate you with the bogey-man of the current Demonrat President or the threat of a Demonrat President into accepting whatever horrible, or even evil (as Romney's record shows him to be) candidate, and you'll keep getting the same.

You can point fingers at me all day because I'll not play the game anymore, but the ones to blame, are those that:

1. Are too lazy to actually take the time to do their own investigation of the candidates.
2. Don't care, and just vote for the brand or the party
3. Don't care about conservatism
4. Are compromisers of their own principles
5. Willing believe whatever nonsens they here from the media


Whatever the case, I don't vote for people who lie like Romney and who support Gay Adoption, Gay Marriage, Abortion and who also have no desire to pursue a limited government.

IF the only choice I have left come the general election is:

1. Crypto Communist 2. Progressive Liberal

Then my family and I will find an actual conservative in a third party and vote for them.

You can stuff your blame game!
44 posted on 03/09/2012 6:50:47 AM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson