Kasz216 said:
That's a bit confusing since Palin was the choice by those "true" conservatives. Neocons wanted Romeny, McCain Liberman. The regular cons. Lead by Newt Gingrich were pushing Palin. |
Alright, well that makes my point even further. You have your:
1. "True" (or smart) conservatives: those who are fiscally and socially conservative but are very conscious about a politician's qualifications (this is arguably the smallest group)
2. Evangelicals and other "Bible-thumpers": more concerned with social issues than economic issues (this is the only group that really wanted Palin)
3. Neocons: would have gone for someone more like Romney as you suggested
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
