Log in

View Full Version : George H.W. Bush "unofficially" endorses Romney

vienna
12-22-11, 06:23 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57347349-503544/george-h.w-bush-unofficially-endorses-romney/


BTW, Dan Quayle officially endorsed Romney on Dec. 6; I wnder if he spelled Mitts last name "Romknee"?... :DL
em2nought
12-22-11, 11:58 PM
More reasons to choose Ron Paul :D
Sea Demon
12-23-11, 12:20 AM
Of course he does. G.H.W. Bush and Romney are both part of the same milquetoast (so called moderate) GOP establishment. Makes perfect sense.
vienna
12-23-11, 01:38 PM
What is really interesting is Bush did not endorse fellow Texan Rick Perry; wonder how Perry feels about the snub?...
CCIP
12-23-11, 01:46 PM
Well it hasn't exactly been a secret up to now that the Bushes are not really fans of Perry...
vienna
12-23-11, 01:51 PM
Still, Bush could have just kept quiet and not gone public; you know, the old GOP 11th Commandment...
August
12-23-11, 03:20 PM
(so called moderate)

You mean moderate as opposed to "radical"?
Arlo
12-23-11, 03:41 PM
What is really interesting is Bush did not endorse fellow Texan Rick Perry; wonder how Perry feels about the snub?...
Well, it's not like he hasn't had months to get over it.

He's Rick Perry and he endorses himself.

Erg ... I posted in a political thread.

(Slinks away, blending into the enviroment .... running silent.)
Sea Demon
12-23-11, 04:44 PM
You mean moderate as opposed to "radical"?

No. I mean "so called moderate". As in willing to jump on the liberal bandwagon for political expediency if the situation dictates. The media defines them as "moderate"....hence the label "so called moderate" by me. "Radical" or "Moderate" as true terms are not what define either of these two politicians.
CCIP
12-23-11, 05:35 PM
I think it was gonna be Romney all along - and I'll totally agree that he is the establishment candidate. "Radical" and "moderate" may indeed be relative, but Romney is going to pull in the most money, that's already a given. The fact that he's not radical, not encouraging any drastic actions, and willing to play ball to get things moving makes him good for business, and good for drawing in those on the fence who are frankly turned off by the Tea Party, and don't belong to the neo-conservative target demographic.

So, the establishment is backing a professional politician who's willing to bend and twist to the demands of the situation rather than stick to a hard-set agenda, and who's able to get both party ranks and money behind him. What else is new?

The fact is, too, that come election time, you can only beat a flexible, establishment-backed politician with another flexible, establishment-backed politician. IMO if the GOP chose one of the more radical candidates, they'd pay for it in the end. Their backers and elder statesmen have been and are gonna be doing their best to prevent that from happening.

Contrary to how both sides' speaking tubes paint the picture, neither party is driven by a radical agenda in any substantial way. There are too many people in each of those parties with too much to lose to do that.