George Will Takes on Media’s ‘Ronald Reagan Couldn’t Win in Today’s GOP’ Mantra
“About twenty years after a conservative leaves the scene or dies, he becomes acceptable,” to the media-left, George Will observed on Sunday’s This Week. “They say, if only people were more like Ronald Reagan and that wonderful libertarian curmudgeon Barry Goldwater.” Will recalled: “I worked for Bill Buckley, voted for Barry Goldwater and knew Ronald Reagan and no one talked about them on the left that way at the time.”
Will was responding to Jeb Bush’s media-embraced scolding of the GOP, which George Stephanopoulos helpfully displayed on screen. “Since Ronald Reagan,” Will pointed out, “the Republican Party has given its presidential nomination four times to the Bush family. Other times to Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Where is the extremist in that lot?”
Will bore in: “Now, Jeb Bush’s father is celebrated today for a statesmanship that consisted of breaking the promise he made to the American people of not raising taxes.”
Audio: MP3 clip
ABC’s on-screen heading during the roundtable discussion: “Have Republicans Shifted Rightward?”
(Will echoed Charles Krauthammer, who on Inside Washington noted “every Republican nominee since Reagan has been more liberal than him,” zeroing in on how “the party has just nominated a guy who lives 15 miles to the left of Reagan.”)
Later, responding to some more yammering from panelist Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation, Tim Pawlenty zinged:
The discussion always turns to whether the Republican Party has become too extreme. Let’s apply that same analysis to, say, an iconic Democratic leader, John Kennedy -- tax cutting, pro-life, military interventionist. Would he be nominated in the Democratic Party today?
From the June 17 This Week on ABC:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s what Jeb Bush also said in his interview with Bloomberg. He said: “Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding me degree of common ground, as would my dad, they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party – and I don’t – as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground.” He’s saying basically they wouldn’t have a place in the modern Republican Party.
GEORGE WILL: Well, let’s look at the facts. Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has given its presidential nomination four times to the Bush family. Other times to Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Where is the extremist in that lot? Now, Jeb Bush’s father is celebrated today for a statesmanship that consisted of breaking the promise he made to the American people of not raising taxes. The budget deal of 1990, Austan [Goolsbee], because it goes back to something you said, and in the budget deal it was said for every $2 of -- every dollar of tax increase, there’d be $2 of spending cuts. The tax increases went into effect and spending increased.
We go through this all the time. About twenty years after a conservative leaves the scene or dies, he becomes acceptable. They say, if only people were more like Ronald Reagan and that wonderful libertarian curmudgeon Barry Goldwater. And that fine fellow Bill Buckley. I worked for Bill Buckley, voted for Barry Goldwater and knew Ronald Reagan and no one talked about them on the left that way at the time.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
An acceptable Republican?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:36pm.
One who does what liberals want, only not as quickly.
Think I'll just keep watching Portugal whip the Dutch!!
Renaldo amazing.
Last Chance
Submitted by Robersire on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:41pm.
This is the last chance I will give to the Republicans. If Romney weakens as a Conservative, than I'm gone. As our new citizens would have us say, adios.
Everyone says that...
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:49pm.
...until the next Democrat assumes the presidency. Then the new guy will be the single greatest threat to the country, blah, blah, blah, and staying at home is a vote for the Dem.
Conservatives stay on the GOP plantation for the same reason blacks stay on the Democrats': fear.
Wrong
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:56pm.
Conservatives stay in the GOP because we refuse to hand the party machinery to the sole control of RINOs
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I don't know about "everyone" else...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:08pm.
I don't know about "everyone" else, but I don't vote out of fear. I vote out of conviction. Of course, like a lot of Americans, I'm an Independent.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Romney is the GOP's version of John Kerry
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:34pm.
Out of every 1,000 conservative votes he gets, how many of those will be from people who genuinely feel he shares the same convictions and principles as they do? And how many of those will be people who are absolutely scared to death of Obama? Anybody anticipating a severely conservative response to Obama's one-man Dream Act from Thursday? My guess is if Romney has any objections at all, it'll be Obama running roughshod over Congress, not the policy itself. Something along the lines of his standard federalism response that allows him to side-step Romneycare every time it's brought up.
John Kerry?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:46pm.
You couldn't pick a least similar candidate than John Kerry!
As for the rest of you post, that's just conjecture. You really have no idea at to anyone's true motivation for how they vote. What you may be saying may be true for yourself, but it probably isn't true for anyone else. So, I don't know if any of the questions you are asking are rhetorical or not.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I'm comparing their ability to energize the base
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:56pm.
Kerry ran on "I'm not George Bush." And that's not necessarily a bad electoral strategy given how close he got to 270. But if Romney energized conservatives with his message in any meaningful way, he would have wrapped up the nomination in March. Besides primary results back when Ron Paul wasn't the only competition left and November exit polling I don't know what I can say to convince you either way.
How did that work out for him?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:05pm.
"Kerry ran on "I'm not George Bush.""
Abd how did that work out for him? Most people didn't fall for it, which is why Bush was reelected.
"Besides primary results back when Ron Paul wasn't the only competition left"
And their it is, your true motivation for projecting your hate onto the GOP. Ron Paul wasn't chosen. You must really hate the GOP for that.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Dude, you're killing me.
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:12pm.
I'm the furthest thing from a Paulbot pot-head as you will ever find. You really need to relax.
I need to reelax?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:23pm.
I'm not the one who's running around telling everyone that the GOP is voting for Romney simply out of hate. You're the one with that particular bee in your bonnet.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You are too, LSU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:31pm.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Too funny. Best laugh I've had all day.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That's what I was thinking.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:36pm.
"Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha."
That's what I was thinking too. I mean, really, it's obvious that he's a Ron Paul supporter, as he chose Ron Paul's name out of all the GOP contenders in the primary. That wasn't done by accident, although it may have been done subconsciously.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
~I thought this portion..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 7:42pm.
referred to the fact that Romney consistently trailed the pack for as long as there was a pack, only emerging as a consistent frontrunner when the only other choice was Paul. The implication of that would be that Romney isn't popular on his own merit.
Other than South Carolina
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:13am.
And the Feb. 7th massacre, he had it pretty much in the bag.
I didn't like it, (but then I didn't much care for any of them, save some early exuberance for Cain), but it is what it is. Mitt is the nominee, and I will support him, and vote for him.
Another four year of the 0 is not an option.
What is your problem, Cobra?
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 7:56pm.
You're acting foolish today, very foolish.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Where's a trollface emoticon
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:41pm.
Where's a trollface emoticon when I need one?
Whatever paulbot
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:11pm.
You've got two choices. Which one will you make?
Keep in mind, and Rush said, (the band, not the man), "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice).
You obviously have not heard Romney speak lately. He has taken it to the 0, and every shot at Mitt the 0 has fired has fallen miserably short.
Would I like Ronald Reagan to walk in an be the republican nominee? Of course, but that ain't happening. The time for bitching about Romney is over. The 0 must go.
You present a false dichotomy.
Submitted by poseA on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:35pm.
There are options beyond Republican and Democrat. As soon as people like you realize that fact and stop insisting Libertarians don't have a chance, a new day will dawn.
~A new day will dawn
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:49pm.
Also, the rise of the oceans will begin to slow and the planet will begin to heal!
Oh bullshit!!
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:13pm.
Have your party win one election of national consequence. Then your opinion will be relevant.
Until then, STFU!!!
So where will you go?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:00pm.
So where will you go? Is there some Conservative outpost that I'm not aware of?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're illustrating my point
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:42pm.
Conservatives aren't going to vote for Romney because he's the second coming of Reagan; it's because they are afraid of Obama. I'm simply stating a matter of political fact. We keep getting RINO nominees because conservatives keep splitting the primary vote, and the moneyed, influential RINO cabal running the party knows we have nowhere else to go. Like everyone else I'm staying on the plantation, but I'm not delusional about my sharecropper status.
Stop projecting
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:58pm.
Stop projecting hate onto other people. You have absolutely no idea why someone would or would not vote for someone else. You can't do it. It's impossible. You can't read anyone's mind. All you can do is to project your own motivations onto other people. Do you work for MSNBC or something?
Has it ever occurred to you that out of the two candidates, Romney and Obama, that most members of the GOP would choose Romney because he more closely matches their own convictions? I don't think it has. Nor has it occurred to you that the same principal actually applies to the GOP nomination process itself.
You seem to have forgotten that Romney was chosen, by the GOP, through a process of electoral elimination, to represent them in the upcoming election. Why do you think they would do that, if he didn't match most of their convictions? If he didn't, they would have chosen someone else.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hate? Seriously?
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:09pm.
A couple of things:
1. Find me a conservative voter who wouldn't prefer a toaster to Obama in the general.
2. The "conservative" media, including Will, Krauthammer, and the entire National Review gang, has been trying since last year to sell us on Romney being Mr. Electable, not Mr. Conservative, and that is a big difference. That and his war chest might have something to do with those primary wins.
Relax, I already told you I'm voting for Romney. But I'm not sticking my head in the sand pretending he would govern as something he's not.
Yes, hate, seriously
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:25pm.
Yes, hate, seriously. That's why you continually use the term when describing why members of the GOP will vote for Romney. Remember, you chose to use that term, I didn't choose it for you. Perhaps you should ask yourself as to why you chose it.
"Relax, I already told you I'm voting for Romney. But I'm not sticking my head in the sand pretending he would govern as something he's not.
Isn't that extremely hypocritical of you after ranting and raving as to how the GOP is going to vote for Romney simply because they hate Obama, that they're doing it, not of convictions, but out of spite? What happened to YOUR own convictions? Did they suddenly disappear in a cloud of righteous indignation? If you don't think he's worthy of a vote, WHY are you voting for him, anyways? You obvious think he's not worthy. Stick to your own conviction and vote for a third party candidate, one that more closely matches YOUR convictions, not Romeny's.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I said fear, not hate. Don't put words in my keyboard.
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:37pm.
The same way people fear a serious illness or an impending natural disaster. Call me a hypocrite all you want, nowhere have I said "don't vote for Romney b/c he isn't a conservative." I'm saying buyer beware. I honestly don't care what motivates people to pull the lever for Romney, as long as they do it. When the only viable choice is between "horrendously bad" and "bad, but considerably less so", then I go with the latter. But I'm doing so knowing that Romney is no Goldwater. And I'm not alone in that sentiment.
You said both
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:42pm.
You used both "fear" and "hate." But I'll concede the point and stick to "fear."
But, even still, you're still projecting YOUR motivations, YOUR fear, onto others. Do you think it's possible that many members of the GOP actually WANT Romney to represent them? You know, because his convictions more closely resembles theirs? That must be true for most Republicans, obviously, or Romney wouldn't be so far ahead of every other candidate.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Sure that's possible.
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:59pm.
Romney had a lot of supporters in the primaries in blue and swing states. Gingrich and Santorum claimed the anti-Romney mantle in the south. Again, you have to draw a distinction between conservative base voters (who I was talking about), and Republican voters in general. Different concentrations of conservatives in different states. Romney had a far superior funding and organization advantage over the other candidates nationally. He was seen as a big-government patrician iin the South, and therefore couldn't clinch the nomination earlier when, by all rights, he should have. My point about Paul was you can't use Romney primary wins in states after Gingrich and Santorum dropped out to bolster Romney support, when Paul was the last opponent standing.
Obama needs something to drive a wedge between Romney and the base, because he can't win on his current trajectory. HIs evolution on immigration last week fits that bill very nicely. Does Romney solidify conservative support with a strong stance, or will he pander to the Hispanics that the establishment GOP wants sooooo desperately? Color me extremely skeptical.
Convictions
Submitted by Clyde Gatton on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:38pm.
Sorry, Cobra.
Convictions are for primaries. At the end of that it becomes a simple matter of prevention. Third party votes are just a waste of a vote, no matter how many there are. No ideas espoused by a third party spoiler (see definition of Perot, for GOP, or Nader, for Dem) ever makes it beyond the wishful thinking stage in a national election. But then, I think third party primaries are a total waste of a vote, also - you could have been supporting the closest candidate to your convictions within the 'established' system, rather than drifting downstream with the current.
I know you're just venting, but a lot of us hold our noses every election; if more had done so in 2008, rather than standing on '(un)principle,' BO wouldn't be President, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Not with me
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 7:28pm.
"Convictions are for primaries. At the end of that it becomes a simple matter of prevention."
It is this attitude that has lead to the problems we face today. Convictions are mailable, prone to change for the sake of convenience. Boy, I'm sure our Founding Fathers never felt this way, for if they had, We'd all be singing God Save the Queen.
If you refuse to follow your convictions each and every time they're needed, if you're willing to jettison them for the sake of political "prevention," why bother having any at all?
You claim that a third party vote is a waste, but no vote based upon conviction is ever wasted. It's the votes that are based upon a lack of conviction that are truly wasted. For what are you changing when you jettison your conviction? What are you accomplishing? You're not accomplishing anything, other than insuring that things will never change. Don't forget, a vote for a third party candidate is also a vote against someone else. It doesn't matter which party you vote for, it still "counts" as a vote against the rest of the candidates.
Look at it this way, a vote for Romney is a vote against Obama, right? It's a vote Obama will not receive. That is what you're claiming, right? Well, so is a vote for any third party candidate. There is no difference between the two, none at all.
Romney isn't going to lose because some people vote for a third party. That vote doesn't reduce his chances at all. Nor does it help his chances. It doesn't affect Romney one way or another. The same is true for Obama, a vote for a third party candidate wouldn't hurt, or help, him in any way whatsoever. Its mathematically impossible. We don't count votes against a candidate, We count votes for them.
And, please, don't try to argue that if too many people vote Third Party, it will cost Romney the election, for if that many people are willing to vote third party instead of Romney, then he never really had a chance at all.
Do you know what I'm going to do this election? I'm going to vote for a write-in candidate, just like I did when Bush Sr. ran the first time. If Romney loses the election by one single vote, so be it. I'm not going to be at fault. After all I didn't vote for Obama, so that single vote which gave him the election can't possibly be mine.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No, a vote for Romney is not the same as for 3rd Party
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 7:29pm.
One Vote:
Romney 1
Obama 0
3rd Party 0
Romney has 1 vote, Obama has none
Romney 0
Obama 0
3rd Party 1
Romney has 0 votes, Obama has 0 votes
So voting 3rd party is not the same thing at all.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That;s not what I saying.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:02pm.
That's not what I''m saying. I'm saying that a third party vote affects both Romney and Obama equally. Some people think that it doesn't that it, somehow, affects one side more than the other. But it doesn't
Look at it this way:
Romney 0
Obama 0
3rd Party 1
Third Party wins.
Of course that sucks for both Romney and Obama, but there you have it. It sucks for both of them equally. So, if your plan is to vote against Obama, you may as well vote third party, for the effect on Obama will still be the same. He loses that vote ether way. Of course, it doesn't help Romney much, but that's not why you're voting, is it?
So, I'm casting a write in vote this year. Nether Romney nor Obama deserves my vote. I'm not going to do anything that gives ether man the edge.
By the way, my write-in canidate will be Herman Cain. He's the only one who deserves my vote, as far as I am concerned.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Suit yourself.
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:11pm.
There's NO WAY any write in or third party gets anywhere at all.....so you've basically just thrown your vote down the toilet.
If Obama is re-elected by a small margin, I'll know who to thank.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm not tossing my convictions down the toilet
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:16pm.
I'm not tossing my convictions down the toilet. I'm not doing anything that will benefit anyone who I feel isn't the right man for the job. You make think that's a waste of a vote, but that's where you and I differ. And don't blame me of Romney loses, even if by a single vote. for I didn't vote for Obama. That winning vote is not mine. I refuse to be blamed for something I didn't do. Are you any different?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Look Cobra
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:24pm.
You know I'm no big Romney fan. But at THIS POINT, he is the best opportunity to begin to rid ourselves of this fiscal insanity we've found ourselves in. So I will vote for him, and while I'm not thrilled about it, I'm happier voting for him (today) than I was voting for McCain.
The real problem is that we don't have a real conservative who is nationally prominent enough to lead the way this year, who hasn't been damaged beyond repair (Palin) by the shill media. Thompson had the smarts and the brains in 2008, but he didn't have the stamina nor the burning desire to do it. This year, we had the Establishment Candidate, the DINO (Huntsman), a couple of imperfect conservatives, a libertarian, and the perennial Ron Paul.
Your vote is your vote. But I would never throw my vote away like that, either by going 3rd party, write in, or staying home.
Now....your accusation that LSU is a PaulBot is just waaaaay over the top. Seriously, are you having a bad day or something?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You know, it's funny
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:36pm.
You know, it's funny. Time and time again I have heard people here complain about politicians who refuse to stay true to their convictions, who compromise, who give in, but, when push comes to shove, many of these same people who have complained are ready to do the exact same thing, refuse to be true to their convictions. You even belittle others, like myself, for doing what you expect our elected officials to do, remain true to their convictions, and you do this only because they run counter YOUR goals, YOUR desires. You go as far as try to guilt others into surrendering their convictions just to help you accomplish your goals.
How are you any different from the RINO's you complain about? How are you any different from LIBERALS you complain about? You're not any different. You're just the same as they are. You're all to willing to sacrifice your own convictions, and try to get others to reject their own convictions, while claiming that you are doing it for the sake for, what, Humanity? How many times have I heard that before?
As far as LSU being a Paul Bot, I was wrong and I apologize about that. But I will never, ever, EVER, apologize for refusing to surrender my convictions. Not to you, not to LSU, not to anyone.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No apology needed
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:04pm.
I won't condemn or belittle someone for voting their conscience or principles. I would just encourage people to recognize that sometimes their realistic options aren't between good and bad, but between bad and worse. And we all have to live with the consequences of those choices, for good or ill.
Cobra
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:26pm.
I don't even know where to begin here.
So I'll just bid you adieu. I have no idea what has you so wrapped around the axle that you're attacking your fellow NB conservatives....whatever it is, I hope you get it worked out.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Given up aint an option
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:38pm.
We stand to gain many Conservative House and Senate seats. Do you honestly think Mitt will ignore that? Because I promise Obama will!
Please, get a grip!
Pound him, Blonde!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:40pm.
I've said it once, and I'll say it a thousand more times; if Elmer Fudd were the only candidate running against the RBFSOB, I'd vote for Elmer Fudd!!
Besides, I heard that Obama is recruiting Buckwheat of Little Rascal fame to do a commercial for him. Since he had converted to Islam, and changed his name to Kareem a'Wheat, it will target the Nation of Islam vote.
I'm going with Elmer or Romney, whichever one is running.
Pound me?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:47pm.
You want me to be "pounded" for staying true to my convictions? Why is that? I though that was the goal. It's what we expect of our Conservative politicians, right?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I won't pound you, but I'm
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:53pm.
I won't pound you, but I'm disappointed that for lack of a perfect candidate you will settle for the disaster we have in the WH now.
Would you really rather keep poison in your stomach because Ipecac tastes bad?
Here's what you're missing
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:12pm.
Here's what you're missing: I'm not "settling" for ether one of them. But, depending upon who wins the general election, I don't have much of a choice in the matter, outside of the one, single vote I have to cast. Since I'm not "settling" for ether candidate, I'm not casting a vote for ether candidate. It's the only real way I have of saying NO to both.
In other words, I don't think anything is going to change much whether Obama or Romeny become POTUS. Both of them are far to liberal for my tastes. Because of that, nether man gets my vote. Period. My convictions will not allow it. Period.
By the way, there's no such thing as a "perfect" candidate. I understand that. But I'm not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm not going to vote for any evil, lesser or greater. I'm going to vote for the candidate I think most closely follows my convictions. In this case, Herman Cain. I don't care if he's "officially" on the ballot or not. I can write-in him as a candidate and vote for him. It's a perfectly legal thing to do. And that's just what I plan to do. Now, what's wrong with that? Nothing. Nothing at all.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes you are
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:25pm.
Being from Texas, I've had no real say so in my nominee since, well, ever. I'm stuck with Romney.
I have no choice but to believe in my conservative brethren that voted before me that this is the choice. If you feel so strongly that he will wilt to the left, then make damn sure every conservative running for senate or Congress in your neck of the woods gets your vote. And your neighbor's, and your neighbor's neighbor's...
Too many of you seem hellbent on making the same mistake you make 2008.
McCain sucked, but if he were president, we wouldn't have obamacare, we wouldn't be pissing off our allies, we wouldn't have supported the muslim spring...you get my drift?
We worked our fannies off
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:44pm.
And helped give Rick our Nomination
I'm all in favor all primaries
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:54pm.
on one day. I'm tired of the decision being made before I get a say. But it is what it is.
Actually, this year, I believe that Texas put Mitt over the top, but the decision was not in doubt. Our elections gurus screwed the pooch big time, so much so that we didn't know when our primaries would be until late in the game, so turnout sucked too.
4 days
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:56pm.
1 month apart
Like I said
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:01am.
One primary, one day, with no crossing party lines.
In February!!!
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:03am.
Just cuz I like February.
Ditto, Bubba.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:48pm.
My conviction is that Baracka will be the death of the United States. So, I will vote for Romney. If that's an anti- vote, so be it. A write-in or staying home will end up being a vote for continuing down the road we're on now, and I won't be a party to that.
If I could stomach voting for
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:54pm.
If I could stomach voting for Dole and McCain, I can manage Romney.
Hell, I'd vote for my Yorkie over Obama!
That worked great, didn't it?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:29pm.
"If I could stomach voting for Dole and McCain, I can manage Romney"
So, you held you nose, settled that squeamish stomach, and voted for both. And how well did that work out for you? You could have voted third party and it wouldn't have made any difference. But, no you went against your instincts, you're own "gut feelings," as it were, and you still failed. Tell me again why I should follow in your footsteps?
By the way, that's just what I did for McCain. He still lost. So did I. I surrendered my convictions for nothing. So, that's the last time I'll ever surrender my convictions again. It actually doesn't work.
I did just he opposite for Bush Sr, I voted write-in. He won. But so did I, for I didn't surrender my convictions. I should have learned from that.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
How do yuo figure that?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:59pm.
"A write-in or staying home will end up being a vote for continuing down the road we're on now, and I won't be a party to that."
How do you figure that? It's not a vote for Obama. That's like claiming that not watching MSNBC counts as viewership.
Her's the thing that is bother people here: it's not a vote for Romney. But I don't want to vote for Romney, nor Obama, So, nether man is getting my vote. Nether man is benefiting. Obama can't benefit from a vote he never received, no matter how hard you try to convince people otherwise. It doesn't work that way. It's never worked that way. And it will never work that way.
Let''s say Romney doesn't get as many votes as Obama does. How is that the fault of people who didn't vote for ether one of them? It can't be. It's illogical. You may as well blame Romeny's loss on all the people who voted for Obama. After all, they're at "fault" too, aren't they?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Because most of those voting for neither one
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:29pm.
Are against Obama. You get it yet? The other side is not cancelling out their votes. If we do, then we lose.
Madison WI
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:41pm.
Had 119% voter turn-out. So never mind, we dont need your vote!
Eh, shoulda been
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:59pm.
those staying home or voting third party would otherwise be votes against the 0. The left will not throw their votes away.
The 0 must go!!
I'm not "canceling out" anything. That's the point
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:11pm.
I'm not "canceling out" anything. That's the point.
First of all, I'm not a Republcian. I never have been and I've never will be. There's no "brand loyalty" in my decisions.
Second of all, I live in Minnesota, a State that hasn't elected a Republican president since Reagan. So my conservative vote, no matter who it's fore, has very little effect on the outcome.
Third of all, a vote for someone isn't cancelling a vote for someone else. It doesn't work that way. How many of you voted for McCain as a means to "cancel" out votes for Obama, and how well did that actually work for you? It didn't, did it? Nor did it work when you tried if for, say, Dole, or Bush Sr in his relelection attempt. But you want me, and everyone else, to keep trying it anyways? Maybe someday it'll work? Jeeze, where have I heard that before?
So please, stop trying to convince me to vote for a candidate I don't like just because I like him slightly less than another candidate. I don't vote that way. Romney and Obama aren't the only candidates. I'll pick which one I like the best, not the one YOU like the best. Don't like it? Well, that's your problem. Learn to deal with it. I don't tell you who to vote for. That's inconsiderate. I would appreciate it if you treated me the same.
I'm not the bad guy here. I would think that Conservatives would actually appreciate the fact that I refuse to surrender my convictions for any reason whatsoever. That is supposed to be a prime Conservative value, remember? But, not any more, apparently. Staying true to my conservative values is actually a threat to the entire country! When did that happen?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The problem there, Cobra,
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:21pm.
is that the only people who'll vote third party are from the right. A vote for a write-in is a vote not given to the GOP. That benefits Obama as we're counting on turnout.
Hey Bk*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:37pm.
You are right. It's not just write ins. It will be ballots found in the trunk of cars, dead people, illegals, and repeat voters who will be the biggest "turnout" that will scare me.
I cheated?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:44pm.
"It's not just write ins."
It's not the write-in's at "fault," as long as they were done legally . It's the fraudulent ballots that has a big effect, far more than any write-in vote ever cast. Al Franken did';t become Senator because of write-in votes, or third party votes.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
cobra*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:00pm.
Was your reply to me? I never said write ins were cheating. My point was that we can have a strong turn out, write ins, third party, anyone voting their "convictions". But if we are not united and strong turn out in our votes, this administration will steal this election. Since 2008, 18 states have shown massive voter fraud. There has already been evidence of voter fraud in Wisconsin in the recent recall election. The corruption and thuggery in this administration bothers me a lot more than a third party.
cobra FYI
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:28am.
http://voteyourheart.us/
I have read other studies that say that Perot took as many votes from Clinton as he did from Bush.
I do not think Romney will win unless he comes out with some strong position that is understandable by the Illiterati-- or--selects a strong VP with good intelligence who will stand out , like a man or woman with cojones.
NALEO predicts in excess of 12 mill Hispanic voters (I'm not sure how many legal?)
Black citizens 27 million
About 24% both groups.
Then look at the crowd that surrounds the Messiah--almost all white faces, at least, in every photo op. They are the death of America. Still licking his boots.
Finally, remember 47% pay no taxes and most collect tax credits and a Social Security check for dependent children.
The GOP has to convince these people that they can have more prosperous lives in a stronger economy.
But--since we have already arrived in the time of the Eloi--it will be a very hard sell.
I will vote for any Obama opponent, but that is because wiser heads than mine have convinced me, long ago, that a sound economy with a strong private sector and a reduced public sector will weather the bust cycles in much better shape.
Huh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 9:37pm.
Only those who vote third part are right wing? I bet Ralph Nader would be surprised to learn that. As well as The Communist Party of America.
Be honest, third party groups cover the entire spectrum of political idealism.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not in all of history Cobra.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:39pm.
Try not to take all of this personally.
Democrats and liberals will all be voting Obama or staying home in 2012. Even those disaffected by Obama not being "progressive enough" will vote Obama, because the alternative for them is much less progressive in Romney. And a Mormon. Which might be even more scary to the nutty left.
However, there certainly will be a sizable coalition on the right that will be writing-in, or voting libertarian in lieu of Romney. Every one of these votes hurts Romney's chances of overthrowing the Obama regime.
You're free to vote your conscience, of course, but just don't fool yourself into thinking your vote has no effect on who wins the race. (Electoral college aspects, notwithstanding.) My only caution would be that cutting off one's nose to spite his face has never really been a wise decision.
No one in my circle of friends, neighbors, or ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:57pm.
acquaintances, with whom I speak regarding the abysmal state of this country today because of politics and politicians, is going to vote FOR Romney; they are voting AGAINST the SCOAMF PLRBFSOBPOS grifter who occasionally visits the Oval Office in between golf outings and vacations - and it just happens that Romney will be the beneficiary of those votes.
ABO.
MD
It's entirely possible, md,
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:04am.
that just like in 2008, many of us will be voting for the VP this time around. His selection will be a strong indicator of what he's thinking relative to how conservative he'll be. If he selects a strong, forceful conservative VP -like an Alan West- then we'll no Romney's not as like to vacillate too far; his VP won't allow it and will give him cover to fight from the right. On the other hand, a Chris Christie or Jeb Bush will indicate his desire to work with democrats.
In either case, Congress must get redder. And we must keep vigilant with pressure on Romney to put real conservative on the high court and the Federal bench at every level.
Good points, bk, though it must really be hard to ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:10am.
put " not as likely to vacillate" any any sentence mentioning a politician. :o)
MD
Jeb Bush
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:17am.
Would guarantee four more years of the 0.
Mitt can't possibly be that stupid.
VP
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 12:33am.
There are a number of good candidates. I will mention some I consider to be bad ones, Bush(dynasty of open borders), Rubio,(DREAM, a synonym for amnesty). There are others who may not be bad, but have little or no name recognition.
Somebody mentioned West, then there is Ryan. I think there are a few that could stimulate conservative voters.
Selection of the VP is what will make Romney a winner.
But who?????????
I know it has an effect
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 3:37pm.
I know my vote has an affect. That's why I'm voting for a write-in. I don't want my vote to give an advantage to ether Obama nor Romney. I think that's what has so many people upset with me. I'm choosing the "wrong" candidate, by their point of view. Well, that's not how I look at it. I look at it from my own point of view. Both Obama and Romney are the wrong candidates. I'm going to vote for the right one, Cain. It's impossible for him to win, but what difference does that make? It doesn't make any difference to me.
Do any of you actually understand what you're asking me to do? You're asking me to stop acting like a Conservative, stop asserting my individuality, my independence, for the "collective good." You're asking me to act like a liberal, just to defeat a liberal. Why should I act like a liberal? I don't like liberalism. I'm a conservative. I want to keep my independence, thank you. I'm not going it surrender for any reason, especially just to keep a liberal from being elected. That would be hypocritical of me.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
~Irony
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 4:36pm.
Refusing to "surrender your independence just to keep a liberal from being elected", and then having your independence stripped from you by those elected liberals.
I'm sure your lack of hypocrisy will be a great comfort to you as you die a slow death waiting to be approved for treatment under ObamaCare.
That said, I refuse to accept your false premise that voting for a candidate you don't 100% agree with, in lieu of having a better option, qualifies as hypocrisy. Voting for someone in the knowledge that said person doesn't stand a chance of winning is just an exercise in personal vanity.
The Bush's
Submitted by mmilesll on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:41pm.
For starters, Katrina is nuts and numbingly stupid, why she is allowed out of the basement is beyond me. Second and most important, the Bush's have done more to destroy the Republican Party than anyone else. When Bush Senior went into office he fired all the Reagan people, Bush Jr. spent money like a drunken sailor and gave us nobama and finally Jeb needs to learn to keep his fat mouth shut. Oh, and lest I forget, Barbara Bush made remarks about Palin that were imperial at best. This whole family would be better off running a golf course on a desert island.
Jeb Bush seems woefully uninformed and dense if he
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:20pm.
believes you can reach across the aisle and compromise with today's Democrats. This is not John F. Kennedy's or Bill Clinton's Democrat Party. Far Left Socialist have taken control of the Democrat Party. Rush Limbaugh stated it well:
Jeb's a moron after that statement he made.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:42pm.
He's on my Shiite list for keeps.
He's on there with Ann Coulter for me
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:45pm.
I'll vote for Romney, but I'm still ticked off at her behavior in the primaries.
Must be something in the Bush DNA
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:47pm.
that makes them cockeyed optimists who think the Democrats can be "worked with."
The way I remember it
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:02pm.
The way I remember it, Reagan couldn't win the "way" the GOP was back then, ether. He was far too radical, far too, dare I say it, liberal, especially when it came to "social issues." At least that how he was portrayed in the liberal press during the Primary season.
Of course, one the Primaries were over, he suddenly became far too conservative, far to "right wing," far too radical for America in general.
By the way, that same scenario played out during W's first campaign. First he was too liberal for the GOP, then he was too conservative for the rest of America. And his father was the same way, come to think of it.
They changed tactics for McCain, though, He was far too old, far to weak, health-wise, to become President. I mean, really, he was just one heartbeat away from the grave. That was the mantra they used start to finnish.
It seems that the liberal press is going back to the same tactics, first too liberal, and then too conservative, that they used so many times before. I wonder if they'll have the same "success" they had previously? I can only hope so.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
the informed and the clueless
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:46pm.
Who are the moderates? They are the people who fall for catchy slogans like "Hope and Change", "Yes We Can', Bridge to the 21st Century" Compassionate Conservativitism, and even "It's Morning in America". These catch phrases are for squishy political middle dwellers who have no real concepts of their own but merely look for the next shiny object to capture their fancy.
The "extremists"? These are the people who know what they want their leaders to do and expect them to follow through after they are elected.
So if you were a politician which would you rather your voters to be like, simple folk who like razzle dazzle or informed citizens who expect results of a definite kind?
When will this country realize...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 4:53pm.
that the closer we approach the catastrophic financial collapse that is evident to anyone willing to look at the CBO's future debt numbers, the louder those who do see it, mostly conservatives have to shout and get more adamant about the changes needed to be done to prevent it from happening.
Honestly, I think Reagan
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:13pm.
Honestly, I think Reagan would be called too liberal in the primaries because of what he did as governor and so have problems winning.
But nobody asks why things have changed. Part of the problem is that the moderates of the Republican party have poisoned the idea of moderation by not always acting out of principle or giving in too much to the culture war rhetoric on the left and patronizing more conservative members of the party.
So if people want to blame people for the hostility towards moderates in today's Republican Party, they partly have the moderates to blame.
Will might as well save his breath
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:17pm.
Liberals know the truth. The facts are a conspiracy.
Will nailed it
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:20pm.
After having spent decades demonizing Reagan as a dangerous right-wing loon, they now set him as the benchmark from which they define the contemporary GOP as being even further right. It may energize Leftists, but it's not likely to alarm Reagan fans, because they remember how the Democrats despised him.
Will is exactly right. Look at all the GOP Presidential candidates since Reagan, and they are not right-wingers.
Oh for crying out loud!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:24pm.
That's exactly what I was thinking
John McCain....farther to the right than Reagan? Bob Dole? Both Bushes? Surely you jest! (not you, Gal!)
Goldilocks and the Three Political Bears
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:30pm.
If one went by the press accounts over the last three months (or last three decades, for that matter), one could only conclude that they are applying what I like to call the Goldilocks paradox to Republican political candidates.
Mamma Bear, Romney (or any other GOP candidate), during the primaries, is too soft, too liberal, especially for the GOP
Papa Bear, Romney (or any other GOP candidate) in the general election, is too hard, too conservative, even for the GOP
Baby Bear, Obama (or any other DNC candidate), is just right, even though he's not even in the GOP
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
jeb bush
Submitted by theyjustcantstop on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 5:49pm.
i don't know if jeb going to be running for any political office soon, but he picked a terrible time so start off a campaign like this.
theres a two prong attack going on in america right now,the occupiers going after the big banks,tea-partiers,and conservatives going after politics as usual,before election time theres going to be a revelation,the occupiers are going to come to the realization that (big banks and big government are joined at the hip), their headed the same place as the tea-party,(the head of the snake),washington dc.
i wish the occupiers would become more independent (grass-roots),as the tea-party,it would give them a lot more crediblity, a group funded and organized by unions,and special interest groups,really hurts them,they are seen as a group thats part of the problem,and not the solution.
look over your shoulder,is the person in charge a union,or special interest group organizer,at the tea-party gatherings i look over my shoulder and i see my neighbors and friends.
Reagan Couldn't What?
Submitted by stanmo42 on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:02pm.
Can someone give me the name of the present day republican candidate that would beat Ronald Reagan in a primary? I need a laugh.
don't be like Jimmuh
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:32pm.
The Bushes have respect within the Republican Party but they don't have clout. If they are wise they will take their well earned respect and retire from intra-party squabbles. If they don't they will lose the respect they've earned and still have no clout.
the Gipper and the finger flipper
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:46pm.
Sometimes the measure of a President is what he CAN accomplish in spite of his congress and the prevailing mood of the people. A true leader can change history not be a prisoner of it. Reagan was certainly more conservative than either his record as governor or President but he had to play from the hand he was dealt. In our opinion he was truly able to lead and history was changed by him. Contrast that with our current 'President' who constantly finds excuses and points accusing fingers at others to explain why he is unable to make any changes we can believe in..
Wonder if Jeb Bush will open his mouth again this cycle
Submitted by OhioHistorian on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 6:50pm.
George Will is not what I would cal a conservative, nor is Rick Santorum. But both have sort of shoved up Jeb Bush's posterior and broken it off today. The only thing that would please me more is to focus on Lindsay Graham and John McCain and shame them out of their moderation.
Thomas Alva Edison
Reagan
Submitted by fadeinlight on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 8:09pm.
First of all, why is the media asking Jeb Bush's opinion on Reagan when Jeb's father, Reagan's formerVice President for crying out loud, is still kicking?
Secondly, if Reagan were indeed in his prime today, the only reason he might be rejected by Conservatives would be because he would want to cut too much, not because he was too Liberal. Reagan was essentially a Libertarian in his early years, much in the same vein as Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. The evidence is plainly available for all to see on youtube: simply google "reagan" and you'll find a wonderful mix of his best speeches and moments.
Which brings me to my third point: Reagan would have won no matter what era he was in. A person with that level of charisma, charm, and vision could only be anointed by God on High.
Reagan was the devil
Submitted by stunned on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 10:04pm.
I do not know how anyone old enough to have been able to vote for Reagan can forget how he was portrayed by the LSM and the Dems. He was going to BLOW UP THE WORLD!! Walking out of the Oct. 12, 1986 meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland with Gorbachev on the eve of signing the arm reduction treaty was THE ACT OF A MADMAN!! LOL as a liberal college student totally indoctrinated by my profs I detested the man as did all liberals at that time. He is too liberal for today's Republicans???? hahahahahha
It was only when the Dems and LSM sided with the marxist Sandinistas against Reagan that I started questioning what I had been spoon fed. My next door while I was growing up had given me a real education on what living under communism in Poland had been like and the stories he told about escaping were thrilling then and now, I didn't understand why standing up to Communism was such a bad thing. I didn't realize it then but I was beginning to grow up.
I never voted for Reagan because he was a hard line Conservative at a time I was a no-nukes protester. Any compromises with a Democrat House under the tight rule of Tip O'Neill in regards to spending were made in order to expand our military in order to bring down the old Soviet Union for the long term good of the nation, not to be popular or pander to a constituancy unlike what Obama does regularly. It was the Democrats fear of going against Reagan on military spending that they didn't block the military build up but they drive a high price. The fact there was no alternative media and the LSM relentlessly attacked him and Nancy makes his acheivements more remarkable.
tired of liberal lies
Hulk
Submitted by Hulk on Mon, 06/18/2012 - 2:09am.
Liberalism is an ilness