This dust-up over Rush’s comments about Clinton’s looks will bring the age and looks thing back up later, as the liberal media seeks revenge.

Sometimes I think liberals care less about being right (as they know it) than getting their way. Should Clinton not get the nomination, as happy as they might be about Obama, they will be pissed.

I know it is a base assesment, but with Obama and Edwards looking like high schoolers, we can’t go geriatric just to be different. Take a look at Bush, even now – he is looking better than spry.

No US President should look older than the dead guys on US money. We are at war, and at very least we need someone who looks like he can beat up Amadinajad (or wears a dress).

We are a long way from the election, and this fawning over Reagan’s legacy and Fred’s “hasn’t said anything bad yet” is going to get old (while he gets older).

In the end we will have a candidate that “gets our message”. With a little conservative foundation, that’s not so bad.

Has there ever been a time like this that the field of nominees were so diverse in their platforms, records and backgrounds and that it has been so hard to find a Republican nominee for president? I’ll support whoever is chose because of the bromide “party trumps person” when it comes to politics, but unless something changes for whoever is nominated, I’m not really enthused by the front-runners

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

No doubt you’re correct that Tancredo felt that Mitt has a better shot at the WH, (I think that was his third criteria for selecting Mitt, as I recall), however he is simply wrong. American’s love porn and video games and guns, conservatives just as much as liberals, and there’s no WAY Mitt can win the general election unless the Democratic contender is convicted of a felony and thrown in prison just before voting begins.

That being the case, Fred has the best chance, not of winning the nomination unfortunately, but of winning the general election, because all of the other candidates other than Ron Paul are liberal nanny staters that simply won’t appeal to the conservative electorate, at least not enough of them to matter.

Put it this way, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, if I vote for him or Fred, I get to keep my guns and games, freedom and liberty, which simply isn’t true of any of the other candidates in the race.

Mitt is history; Tancredo was wrong to endorse him… but I agree that Tancredo did what he thought was right. I hold no ill will toward Tancredo; I just think he threw away his endorsement.

I watched the whole hour Mitt had with Russert and it made me sick. I really like Mitt for his fantastic CEO ability and his obvious morality but that one interview he wasn’t the staunch gun rights and illegal deportation advocate I wanted to see.
Even so Mitt is far from the hold your nose to vote for guy some of the others are.

I still have reservations and I like Fred’s Federalist attitude but I also know that Tom Tancredo is in a much better place to choose a winner than I am and I know that if I can trust anybody, its Tom.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Oh well, I never said he sold out, I said he put other interests in front of his principles. You basically said the very same thing.

Gatordoug – I give up. We clearly see this differently.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

I like Tanc a whole lot. He is still one of my favorite Conservatives.
BUT, as your post points out, TANC put his principles BEHIND other interests. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

I can see there Tanc is coming from. It makes sense.

I just don’t understand it. I can respect the ‘I don’t agree, I think Fred is the better candidate’ argument. Great. But Tanc sold out his principles. Ugh. Even after he spelled it out for you in the interview. I just don’t see how you can think that.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Try your silly labels on some one else. Tancredo has been very tough on border issues, Thompson was far more in tune with Tanc than Romney. You do the math!

I guess that even ‘Tom Terrific’ isn’t above placing politics over substance.

Tanc obviously cares more about personal benefit than principles.

Sigh. This is where you Fredfolks lose me every time.

TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Tanc obviously cares more about personal benefit than principles.

Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I’ve been playing video games since I got my first computer back in the early 80′s. I’m nearly 40 now and I don’t consider Mitt to be remotely qualified to take over control of one of my longest and most treasured pastimes.

But I’ll make a deal with Romney: if he’ll let me take over control of his religion and if he’ll prostrate himself before me, I’ll consider allowing him to take over my hobbies.

Sorry Spirit of 1776, if you’re not interested in video games, perhaps it’s a generational issue, you undoubtedly think I’m overreacting, but believe me, there are millions of adults in this country that play video games who will NOT be voting for Mitt now.

If we are lucky, we will have for years of nothing being accomplished, and President Romney will served the republic by halting the left’s advance. That’s all I’m asking for.