Here we go…
…with more of this horse manure.
I refer you back to this for an explanation, and a tribute to Tsongas.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…with more of this horse manure.
I refer you back to this for an explanation, and a tribute to Tsongas.
Looks like his last address in Michigan was pretty nice.
Some people need to get a life.
“Paul Tsongas — a technocratic modernizer and reformer, but very much a Democrat”—from the link.
Personally, I still want to see BHO’s transcripts from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.
Wonder if he knows Ronald Reagan was a Democrat — an enthusiastic one — before he switched party affiliation.
Don’t think many today question his Republican credentials. Heck, even Obama sometimes pays tribute to Reagan (the Republican).
By the way, neo, that BuzzFeed has to be one of the worst webpages I’ve seen. And they must know it because they don’t even have a Comments column. Only “How do you feel” with a loaded choice of “reactions” which don’t allow for any negative reaction to the legitimacy of Buzzfeed articles or the writers themselves.
That’s pretty telling. Horse manure it is!
And there’s another piece that Obama wants you to see the piece with “Romney a Democrat.” That’s exactly why the guy has to go. He has neither a clue nor any inclination to govern. He knows only 2 things: campaigning and adulation from his followers.
It’s a bogus charge and a cheap shot by Gingrich who almost certainly knows what Romney was up to, once again revealing a real lack of moral character. Face it, he’s a politician. He may be ‘our bastard’ but he’s demonstrated beyond doubt a lack of moral rectitude and a disturbing willingness to embrace popular positions supported by democrats.
However, Romney reveals a lack of character in voting for the democrat in the primary whom he thinks will be the weakest. Yes, it’s the ‘smart’ political move but its an immoral move and the proof of it is that none of us can picture George Washington doing it. And doesn’t this country desperately need the kind of leadership that Washington and Lincoln provided? Or at least leaders who try to emulate that example?
If principle and character matter, then they matter most of all when they cost the most to exercise.
So, the two leading Republican candidates are unprincipled. One morally and the other is a RINO. And Santorum’s religious right social positions make him unelectable.
Such weak candidates however, in the long run, might be a good thing.
Why? In the next 4 yrs. Obama’s disastrous domestic and foreign policies are going to ‘come home to roost’. As their full consequences haven’t had time to fully manifest. But if Obama loses, the dems will block all reform in the Senate and the MSM will incessantly crucify the republican’s with all the blame for the US reaping what Obama and the dems sowed.
After 4 yrs of incessant blame and mis-characterization, the public may well be ready to re-embrace a party whose programs were not given a “fair trial” (choke).
Losing this election might be the best thing for not only the Republican party but for the nation because after 4 more yrs of Obama (groan) his ‘leadership’ and his party’s ‘policies’ will be, even for the MSM, undeniable failures.
Until enough of the public sees Obama as another ineffective Carter and the dems policies as equivalent to Hoover’s, the slow slide toward an ever larger nanny state will continue.
Geoffry Britain: I see nothing immoral about Romney’s vote for Tsongas because he said he didn’t just vote for him because he was the weakest candidate, he also voted for him because he was a Massachusetts favorite son and because Tsongas was also, in Romney’s opinion, the best candidate (although he wasn’t going to win, and Romney knew it).
And in fact, if you read my linked post, you’ll see that Tsongas was a fiscal conservative and a friend of business. So Romney wasn’t violating his conscience at all by voting for him. Tsongas was very conservative, fiscally. Nothing immoral about it, IMHO.
And I disagree with you completely on an Obama win. Just the fact that conservatives will lose a chance to change the makeup of the Supreme Court if that happens is huge. And the foreign policy ramifications are dreadful. And that’s all just the tip of the iceberg of my reasons.
There would be justice in seeing Obama reaping the disaster’s he has sown. But I agree with Neo – just the Supreme nominations alone make defeating him imperative. Add to that the continued packing of radicals in the EPA, Homeland Security, Justice, and State will undermine any sense of rule of law. I think it was Breitbart who said It will become a world of rock, paper, and scissors.
neo,
My impression was that Romney’s vote in the democrat primary was mainly driven by his view that it was an opportunity to weaken the democrats by ‘assisting’ in their fielding a weaker candidate. IMHO, that’s an immoral action, one that violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law.
I well remember Tsongas who, while a moderate by today’s standards, was nevertheless a committed liberal.
I agree that an Obama win would be just as bad as you indicate and I suspect that in a second term he would be even more ideological than in his first term.
Should any Republican win however, given the current conditions of a divided electorate’s values and a hostile, agenda driven MSM, any Republican will accomplish little beyond a Bush like ‘holding action’. I realize that ‘holding action’ is huge, I just think that it will be, in the larger picture, insufficient.
As, in the long run it won’t stop our society’s slow slide into the nanny state. Nor will more talk and reason accomplish much, as the liberal responses to reasoned argument on blogs demonstrates. Nor will the MSM reduce its propaganda.
I’m not sure anything can stop it but if anything can, it will be the discovery by the young of reality, that socialistic cures are far worse than the disease. And that discovery will, of needs, be painful in the extreme; witness Europe’s refusal to re-evaluate its socialism, which clearly it will not do before fiscal collapse ends their utopia. I see no reason, beyond wishful thinking and a natural denial, to believe that it will be different here.
Geoffrey Britain: Romney stated both reasons for voting for Tsongas: he was the weaker candidate and the better candidate. They’re not mutually exclusive, either; both were true.
If you read about Tsongas, or even just read my post on him, you’ll see that he was a social liberal as defined back then (which would probably make him a moderate now) and a fiscal conservative who was accused of being more like a Republican than a Democrat.
As for the rest, I agree that it’s not at all clear that anything can stop “our society’s slow slide into the nanny state.” But I certainly think another term for Obama would be a huge leap in the wrong direction.