Let's Honor, Not Stretch, the Buckley Rule
In the intense heat of the present, it is easy to forget even the relatively recent past, but it seems to me that this GOP primary season is more acrimonious than the past few, probably because the stakes are so high.
When I've noted that this is the most important presidential election of our lifetimes, a few excitability-resistant conservative friends have said, "They have been saying that about every election for more than a generation." My response to that is:
"Yes, and it's probably been true every time. As we march inexorably toward socialism by incremental steps, the need to elect political leaders to take steps to reverse it increases on a linear plane. But with President Obama, we're advancing not by incremental steps, but by giant leaps, hurtling toward statism with alarming alacrity. Every day that passes before we implement entitlement reform, for example, the geometric accumulation of vested benefits makes reform more imperative — and more difficult. So yes, every national election of the past generation or so has probably been more important than the immediately preceding one, but 2012 is dramatically more urgent. Based on the cavalier manner with which Obama is lawlessly thwarting the Constitution and the people's will, it is hard to imagine what kind of tyrannical executive power grabs he'd try (and accomplish) if re-elected, even with an opposing Congress. We are already on autopilot to national bankruptcy, and if we don't ram it into reverse soon, America as we have known it could be gone, at least for many years."
Conservatives are fighting among themselves about not just who the best candidate would be but also who is most electable. Sure, electability has always been an issue, but now some are saying that to support someone, it's essential not only that we show he is electable but also that he is the most electable. This amounts to replacing the "Buckley rule" — that "we should support the most conservative candidate who is electable" — with "we should support the most electable candidate, provided he is at least marginally conservative."
We saw a similar political calculus at work during the debt ceiling negotiations. Some argued that we couldn't buck Obama on his specious smoke-and-mirrors cuts, because to draw a line in the sand, even though correct in principle, could have been interpreted by the electorate as uncompromising and enhanced Obama's re-election efforts. Everything had to be focused on 2012.
Now many of the same people are telling us that we have to compromise on 2012, as well, that we can't support a candidate who is more conservative, even during the primary, because it would reduce our chances of defeating Obama.
I appreciate the concern, but the logical extension of this kind of thinking is that we all have to become mini political operatives, always engaging first in strategic political calculations and never voting our hearts. Such is the formula for sacrificing one's dreams and aspirations; such is the avenue toward fatalistic resignation, compromise and settling for less without even trying to push for your real goals; such is the formula for guaranteeing that we never elect another Ronald Reagan conservative.
I am the first to say that once the GOP nominee is chosen, we must unite around the candidate to defeat Barack Obama. Until then, I refuse to surrender to pressure to abandon my passion for true, reliable conservatism, especially from those whose idea of electability is highly debatable and from others whose assessment is hopelessly skewed by their own preferences.
In this volatile season, dark horses have skyrocketed to lead the field, and some might have remained there but for alleged scandals or other factors. I don't believe that the science of electability is as certain as those promoting it would have us believe. We can't even agree on whether the key is wooing the center or igniting the base. It is complex and fluid and largely unknowable. Even current polls hypothetically matching Obama against different candidates tell us very little, because the Democratic attack machine has yet to unleash its $1 billion assault on, say, Mitt Romney.
I reject the conventional wisdom that Rick Santorum could not win the general election, because I believe he represents the best contrast to Obama and is the least vulnerable to attack, among other reasons. I have varying concerns about the other candidates, but I respect their respective supporters and realize that some of them even believe their candidate is the most conservative of the group, though I disagree. I will support whoever emerges as the Republican nominee, but I do not apologize for supporting Rick Santorum.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com
- David Limbaugh's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
David come to the realization
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 7:32am.
David come to the realization that Santorum is limp rags and Gingrich will pull ahead and win. I don't know if any of the candidates are any good ... just choose the lesser of the evils.
I disagree, Dan...why should
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 7:54am.
I disagree, Dan...why should Santorum supporters give up the fight now? Until someone actually has the nomination, everyone should support their preferred candidate to win it.
Limbaugh has a point: the Republican candidate's appeal will be a whole lot different when the only choices are him or Obama.
I agree that everyone should
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 10:06am.
I agree that everyone should be in the race, but Santorum is limp rags and has little chance. This contest will come down to super Tuesday.
The republican party makes me want to puke.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 7:54am.
Conservatives are constantly offered the choice in the general election between communist and communist-light. After the RNC and the MSM decide who will be the sacrificial lamb against the RBFSOBMN, we get to trot off, dutifully, to the polls and vote for the piece of crap they offer up so Obama can win again.
Either way, we are headed toward the USSA. All we get to decide is the speed the train will be going when it wrecks.
I really am beginning to think that the best outcome may be Bambi winning reelection, because at that point he and the liberals will soooooo overreach, that they may actually trigger a revolution!
Since the administration is so big on things like the "Arab Spring," maybe we need a "POOF Spring."
Now, off to the gym to stay in shape for the "fun."
May I just say that I HATE
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 8:03am.
May I just say that I HATE our primary system.
When was it decided, and who made the people of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina the bosses of the rest of us?
Isn't it time the whole thing was revamped? It's not the 1800's any more. With TV, the internet and all the news out there, candidates don't need months to trek around to different states over several months to campaign. Voters have ample opportunity to learn about them.
Even "Super Tuesday" is losing its influence.
Why not have all primaries in one month?
Yeah, I know, I'm just venting, but the primary here in Pennsylvania is in April. As if it matters.
I hate the primary system for a different reason
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:11am.
As an independent taxpaying citizen, I resent the fact that Federal and state tax dollars pay for these two corrupted parties to determine who their candidates are going to be.
Why should taxpayers pay for this? Let the parties pay their own way. Hold state conventions like the old days, but stop spending my money.
And that goes for the national coronation conventions, too. Historically, the Congress has been giving $100 million to each of the two major parties to subsidize their week-long party. Hell, they don't even pick an nominee there anymore; it's already been determined before the opening gavel. Why do we pay for it? Because they've gotten away with it for so long, no one even notices anymore.
Yep,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:15am.
When was it decided, and who made the people of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina the bosses of the rest of us?
The fact they are "Open" Primaries is what bothers me, we end up with a candidate that does not truly represent the "Party"
Cut Cap and Balance!
Submitted by MediaMike on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:03am.
Obama didn't run the country into the ground with massive spending and socialist policies: Pelosi and Reid did. What we need is a Republican house AND senate combined with a president who will sign Paul Ryan's budget. I have no doubt Romney would sign it and so would Santorum.
Legislation like that (with a balanced budget amendement), while not a panacea, would put the country on a more stable path. Newt, on the other hand, has suggested he doesn't like the "right wing social engineering" Ryan's budget represents. Would he sign it?
Obama is complicit up to his neck
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:15am.
He was totally onboard with Pelosi and Reid. If he weren't he could've vetoed anything they passed because there were never enough votes to override a veto.
No Debate about that
Submitted by MediaMike on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 10:50am.
No doubt about it ... the democrat party was taken over by socialists encouraged by barry. He eagerly signed anything Pelosi and Reid sent up the chain of command. But don't you love the fact they voted HIS budget down? They still don't have a Senate budget, so they don't have to tell us HOW they're spending our money.
All I'm saying is it's important to make changes in the Senate and House this year. Any republican president would sign cut, cap and balance. Dontcha think?
"Rick Santorum could not win
Submitted by redhunter on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:13am.
"Rick Santorum could not win the general election, because I believe he represents the best contrast to Obama"
Maybe on issues, but their resumes would be very similar, e.g., attorney, senator.
We've seen what has happend with someone without executive experience.
That being said I find all of the candidates lacking.
And there you have it, folks . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:19am.
DAVID LIMBAUGH: "This amounts to replacing the "Buckley rule" — that "we should support the most conservative candidate who is electable" — with "we should support the most electable candidate, provided he is at least marginally conservative."
And you get another W. -- a Big Government Republican with no fiscal discipline.
This nation can no longer afford -- literally -- Republicans like Bush-43, Hastert, and the like.
Santorum....
Submitted by Timothy H on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:39am.
Remember when Barack Obama was the guy that couldn't win a general election? Or Ronald Reagan?
Conventional wisdom is more and more often a display of mob mentality rather than true wisdom.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -Albert Einstein
And for blonde:Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraint. -Timothy H
If only
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 10:13am.
we could have a candidate with Romney's experience, Gingrich's fire, and Santorum's principles.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Perfect Candidate
Submitted by FaulknerFan on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 10:21am.
You got it HK, perfect candidate. If only...
Buy would the RNC approve?
Ok, I'll ask it again on this thread:
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 11:50am.
Why would you (anyone here) reject Rick Santorum on the basis of "big-government republican" or similar tags, and not reject Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney? Further, if you reject them as well, are you a Ron Paul supporter?
Along with David Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin, I support Rick Santorum so long as he's in the race.
I couldn't support Ron Paul for his foreign policy positions and I think the only reason he's gained as much traction this cycle as he has, has to do with our nation involved in a decade-long war, on top of exploding fiscal debt. In years past, he's had marginal support on the edges only. He's kind of the perfect-storm libertarian. But he can't win because he still only appeals to a narrow range of voters. Which, by the way, is the same reason your (anyone reading this) perfect candidate will never win a general election; the country is simply too diverse for a perfect candidate to ever emerge. It's, I believe, why executive-level politicians are relatively more moderate than representative politicians.
What I like about Santorum is his principled stance on issues; even if I disagree on some level. I respect a strong, principled approach. I respect courage of conviction. I respect that he hasn't run from the challenge and has put in the hard work that a perennial candidate like Romney has been able to skirt with the massive influx of big money (read: advertising), and the 30 years or more of Newt's inside DC connections have allowed him to exploit. He may not win, but it'll have as much to do with the media as it will the other candidates. For those of you deriding the media for "selecting Romney", it's ironic how quickly some are writing off Santorum as the "can't win" candidate- another media meme established from the outset.
I'm not trying to convince anyone who to vote for -that would be pretty damn presumptuous on my part and I don't do presumption well- but a recent poll of "right-leaning" bloggers was conducted which found Rick Santorum the most conservative candidate still in the race (54%RS-22%NG-19%RP-4%MR) yet 3rd in preference (34%NG-32%MR-22%RS,11%RP). I can only assume that people believe Rick Santorum is the most socially conservative and the social conservatism doesn't really matter all that much anymore. Of course, the less socially conservative you are, the more apt you'd be to support ObamaCare- so there's that.
Actually BK...
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:37pm.
Newt lost me when he attacked Romney, liberal style, about Bain and being so rich. I really didn't care about Newt's "baggage" per se. But the Bain thing, as well as his attack earlier this year on Paul Ryan, was a total turn off. Newt lost me himself, it wasn't anything that anyone else said/did/ads, etc. He did that.
2 out of three of us are pulling the Santorum lever today, and #3 probably will too.
And I'd throw out there, I was very impressed with the depth of Rick Santorum's knowledge of Latin America in the debate the other night, something which I find to be sorely lacking from everyone else. We need to mind our own back yard.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Agree completely J
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:44pm.
I was really turned off by that blatant political move on Newt's part. I really enjoyed the debates when he ran interference for the other candidates against the moderators- he was excellent in that role. But once he started gaining traction, it went tohis head and that ego we were warned about came charging to the surface.
I'm also didn't eliminate Newt based on his baggage, but it does cast some doubt as to his faithfulness to a cause; that for me, being conservatism.
Have fun with your primary day!
Oh, and let me add
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:59pm.
...I don't give a fig about the media's notion of electablity, either. They can kiss my grits on that one. I don't believe Santorum will catch fire after Florida, but I'm happy to cast my vote for him. We have to beat Mitt into submission on the conservative agenda.
I truly believe what is going to happen is that Mitt's money will overtake the field, and that he'll be the nominee. But he's' going to need a Palinesque #2 to excite the base (us), and that will have to be Allen West. Marco Rubio won't accept, he's said so numerous times, and I believe him.
We all know about Allen West, but beside the obvious, he is one pugnacious SOB (I say that lovingly, BTW). He will be the attack dog in the fight (just like Palin was)....relentlessly and articulately destroying ObamaCare and the rest of the socialist agenda, spending, etc. He will destroy all of those who come out against him, as he does relentlessly with Little Debs, Harry Reid (go to SharkTank and watch Allen eviscerate him with a spot-on immitation, hilarious!) and Nanny Pelosi. He's not afraid of any of them, and doesn't care that he's "junior"....he took on Eric Cantor a few weeks after raising his hand last year, as a freshman, for a lazy legislative calendar. And he's not backed down since.
We're going to vote about 2 p.m. I'll let you know what we hear. In 2010, we were hearing "lots of angry voters"...and look how that turned out. It should be very, very interesting today.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yep,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:01pm.
I am with you 2. I like Rick, even though he sometimes repeats himself to much, and levels to many attacks (albeit justified) on the others. I think from here on out, he should concentrate on his message and Obama's record, and he will do just fine.
Blonde,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 4:13pm.
I assume you saw West tell Reid, Pelosi and Debbie to basically take their socialist crap somewhere besides America. It was great and actually made a good day out of a real crapper.
It's the liberal MSM that want to decide electability.
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:16pm.
They are constantly hammering that one GOP candidate or another is not "electable". They are trying to influence the choices of the conservatives.
I am appaled that this nomination race has devolved into the type of battle that it has, but it is imperitive that conservatives continue to support their candidate of choice and vote for them in their primary. Otherwise we will not see the diversity of conservative opinion and the eventual nominee will not be able to decide how to bring together the various blocks if they don't see them clearly.
Demographically the country is half conservative, 30% moderate/populist and 20% liberal. It's just that all the liberals are in the media and the news industry so that is all the country hears about. That is the most insideous thing that the liberal MSM does, is give a distorted view of popular opinion.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
~Something no one seems to be pointing out
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:59pm.
"Yes, and it's probably been true every time. As we march inexorably toward socialism by incremental steps, the need to elect political leaders to take steps to reverse it increases on a linear plane. But with President Obama, we're advancing not by incremental steps, but by giant leaps, hurtling toward statism with alarming alacrity."
America is the frog that was being slowly simmered to death, and Obama turned up the heat so much, so fast, that we're FINALLY considering jumping out of the pot of liberalism. The way things are going with our youth, if they'd waited another 15-20 years to nationalize healthcare it would have been no biggie and there'd be no escape. But they got Obama in, they took over Congress, and they got excited. They got confident. They jumped the gun.
Obama and Co. have focused the debate in a way that was impossible before, and things are becoming so dire that people are waking up to the fact that liberalism is a bad, bad thing.
And that, folks, is a good thing.
I would agree, and point out something...
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 1:23pm.
You can't stop from being simmered to death by turning down the temperature a degree or two. You have to either turn it way way down all at once, or never mind.
We are actually close to a full on boil at the present. Adjusting it down to a simmer, while moving in the right direction is not enough.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
You're both right, but
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 1:37pm.
the notion is impractical and improbable. Sadly. The reasons liberalism thrives is because it preys on the weak and there will always be those too weak to survive without it. You can't eradicate government assistance because too many people prefer it to the alternative. You can't make people work hard. You can't make people want to give up other people's money. It just won't happen. And if you take it away from them, you will be vilified to point that you could never enact your agenda.
Some things just can't be completely undone so you need to figure out a way to move in the right direction or risk being drowned out and losing any opportunity. We can't fall on the sword.
~"The poor you will have always with you"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:06pm.
Taking care of the poor has always been the job of charities. What we need to do is dispel the liberal myth that the government is responsible for caring for the poor.
Won't happen Bru
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:31pm.
You just need to spend a short time in a big city to recognize it. Life there is utterly dependent on subsidy (or drug money) and they all believe it's government money -even when it comes from churches. The only difference betwen now and during the last administration is that this is "Obama money"; exponentially better than Bush money. But money all the same. And the drug problem is much worse than the media or bogus government studies would have you believe. There are parts of west Baltimore that are probably 90% comprised of hardcore (heroin or crack) addicts. They don't work, they live in relative squalor, and yet they drive nice vehicles, wear nice clothes and lots of jewelry. The bars and clubs in the area are always packed. They don't want to change that and as long as the government is providing the means, they won't have to. That's why Elijah Cummings is essentially a tenured congressman.
It would be nice, but it's probably a mountain too high.
~It's unsustainable
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:40pm.
When the $#@! hits the fan there isn't going to be any more money for all those people, and they're going to have to deal, or be dealt with.
WB, you are right -
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:41pm.
Escape from NY.
Oh, I know Bru
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:59pm.
but that really doesn't matter, does it? All you need to do is say it's sustainable. Obama has been saying that for three years and Democrats in general since FDR and yet here were are in the fight of our lives trying to save the union. It's a fight that probably can't be won, but may be able to be managed with the right approach and over the long haul.
This is going a bit off-track but I think it has to start in education.
Saw this at HotAir earlier today. This seems like a step in the right direction and may be the only way to convince people that they can actually live a more fulfilling life off the government dole- but it'll take generations to accomplish, and that's without liberals impeding. I'd be interested to get Cajun's take on this; I know she's not a Jindal fan. And Boudin's. I wonder if they have any personal knowledge of this.
But back to your point though: ever notice how movies and books always depict future life on earth as desolate with unending war and famine? I wonder why that is.
bkeyser,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 4:08pm.
during the great depression there was a time period between the point where people were put out of work and the time people/government came to help. It would be good to look at that time and see what happened as people moved to areas that had labor intensive jobs and traded sweat for food and lodging. Many struggled, many survived, some failed - the government only helped change the geography, the labor and to paint a rose colored hue on being poor because the results are still pretty much the same.
~What we're all talking about
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 5:44pm.
is plain old human nature. If our baser impulses are allowed to rule unchecked, we become greedy monsters who'll take what we want from whomever we can. We're all born that way, and our parents are supposed to train us out of it and into mature adulthood.
Liberalism has fostered and rewarded greedy, self-indulgent behavior in order to create a permanent, needy underclass willing to trade votes for 'free government money'. The results are the welfare class and the elitists who treat them like pets who need to be taken care of. That is, until the pet bites the hand that feeds it, which is when all hell will break loose. Look at the feral youth riots in England last year. There's no place for that in a civilized country, and we need to stop coddling it. Unchecked selfishness results in the kind of bestial madness we see in places like Rwanda, and the only cure for that is a hefty dose of lead.
Hi Bk*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 4:41pm.
You rang?
Yes, we have been following this issue closely. First, I am not a Jindal fan but no doubt he has done good things for our state that no other governors have done before and that is to present "new" ideas for change. He has angered the two Teachers Unions here so this must be a good program. Our public schools are ranked amongst the worst in the country. Our private schools, mostly religion based, have always excelled. In fact, the local Christian school where I live, Westminster Academy, every year has a 99% graduation rate WITH college scholarships. The 1% are those that join the military.
The $8500 per student is for public schools. With those vouchers at $8500 per student, the state can send two kids to private schools. New Orleans in particular has many more private schools and all of the public schools are pitiful. The graduation rate in NO public schools is under 60%. And it isn't just the teachers, administration as well. An example,after Katrina, many teachers applied for jobs in other parishes. The Orleans School Board had no records on many of them. The state did an audit and found hundreds of teachers drawing a salary and were never in a class room in NO.
Jindal wants to have accountability for teachers wages/benefits vs student testing results for each school. The teachers arguments, wait for it, against this attitude since they cannot control the kids' efforts to perform better on testing. Jindal made his point big time. The teachers unions did not realize they would garner so little support against Jindal's program. They do, however, have the local media's support.
Jindal is also currently in the process of making massive changes to teachers and state employees retirement systems. This will hurt new employees faced with an entirely different type of pension program. Retired state employees here do not do anywhere as well as retirees in other states. He also wants to change state employees medical and drug coverage. This is one program in our state that actually is successful and has a huge surplus. He wants to change the program and take the surplus and apply it to balancing the budget. There are questions on this idea because there is great disparity among our retiree pension plans. For instance, legislators and Judges can serve 4 yrs and draw 100% pension, Employees and teachers must work 30 yrs and he is also planning to raise eligible retirement age. Fine, except, he has found loopholes for his friends and supporters he has hired. A retired pension employee cannot work for the state with wages and a pension. The pension must be suspended. Not so for his friends. Some of them are drawing as much as $100k pension and a $100k salary. This is why some people see Jindal as just another politician. The difference is that he is very intelligent, has some good ideas, he is a great supporter of La and our culture , resources and environment.
So, everyone is in favor of his changes to the school system because, it makes the teachers accountable, it angers the Unions, and it affords many poor people opportunity to go to private schools. And the media hates it, another good reason. People are in support of his changes to pension plans but his plans do have some inequity. The things that he wants to do for La and unable to do so is because of Obama. We have been hit with even more stringent EPA legislation, we have been thwarted by Coast Guard and COE in plans to renovate and protect our coastal areas. Because of the drill ban, we lost millions in oil revenue which is now beginning to take effect. Notice the states Obama goons have targeted are all republican states and dependent on unique resources of those states and oil/gas.
So, even though Jindal is known as a typical career politician , he is a smart one, has done some good things for La after many years of corruption and stupidity in the governors office. Jindal's greatest quality at this point is that Obama hates him....LOL
Thanks Caj-
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 5:12pm.
That's why I asked! Ed Morrissey noted a quasi-endorsement from the WSJ for Jindal as VP; I can't say Morrissey was agreeing with that notion, just that he noted what he thought was such a suggestion. The idea that Jindal is susceptible to cronyism is concerning though, and why I'm sure you don't agree with the WSJ in that regard.
I will say this though: purity in politics is probably another unattainable goal. Everything must be measured in relativity. We can wish for a government that won't scratch backs, but as long as there is an itch, someone will scratch it. And that makes purity a short-lived experiment. It's a shame how money corrupts, but unlike the OWS'ers and certain fringe libertarians/anarchists like to believe, there will always exist some kind of currency. And as long as people are unable to provide every service they desire for themselves, they will always have to bargain with others. Again, it's a matter of just how corruptible they are. I guess in some respects, it is those more often tempted who choose to enter politics in the first place; lowering the bar, as it were, for corruption in the industry.
Thanks for your feedback.
Bullseye Bru
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 4:23pm.
I just pray that enough wake up and vote these liberals out.
Check your PM in a few minutes.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
RINOs don't like the Buckley
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 4:09pm.
RINOs don't like the Buckley rule or Reagan's "11th Commandment". And despite the lips service they pay to him, they *hate* Reagan too.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال