Why is it?

[mama]

Why is it that no previous Republican president is standing behind Romney? I don't see nor hear anything from anyone of note speaking up for Romney.

[AntiAlias]

Why is it that no previous Republican president is standing behind Romney? I don't see nor hear anything from anyone of note speaking up for Romney.

Well, there really aren't that many left. I am sure both of them have endorsed Romney.

[O Really]

Yeah, Bush the Younger is still in good heath, goes around biking and stuff. You'd think Romney would have him standing beside him every chance he got. Saying things like "...heckuva good job, Milt." Or "Milt is going to carry on a long Republican tradition of excellence in government." Or just make a few ads saying, "If you liked me, you're going to love Milt."

You're right. I wonder why Romney doesn't use him. Oh wait...I forgot. Bush doesn't exist and never happened and there was no President from 2001-2009.

[neoplacebo]

Yes, that's absolutely right. Palin, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld......they were all holograms.....fakes. Condoleeza Rice has come out for Mitt, but I bet it was only after she checked with the hologram decider in chief first. You betcha.

[Tertius]

Why is it that no previous Republican president is standing behind Romney? I don't see nor hear anything from anyone of note speaking up for Romney.

Because Republicans want a President elected on his own merits. Obama is such a failure that he needs the Clinton merits to attempt to save him.

[Crock Hunter]

Why is it that no previous Republican president is standing behind Romney? I don't see nor hear anything from anyone of note speaking up for Romney.

Because Republicans want a President elected on his own merits. Obama is such a failure that he needs the Clinton merits to attempt to save him.

Tell me Huge.. ... Why do you hate reality.. .??

- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

Reagan Having A Ball Playing Gipper To Win One For Bush
October 24, 1988|By Dorothy Collin, Chicago Tribune.

BOWLING GREEN, KY. — The cheers thundered against the rafters as President Reagan looked out over thousands of young faces, his eyes twinkling like sparklers on the 4th of July.

Ronald Reagan, age 77, in the twilight of his presidency, was having the time of his life on a recent rainy day at Western Kentucky University.

He was campaigning for George Bush, of course, and bashing liberals, one of his favorite political sports. But he was also basking in what has become a triumphant farewell tour for the Gipper, as the President often calls himself, referring to legendary Notre Dame football star George Gipp, whom he once portrayed in a movie.

Reagan is now spending two days a week campaigning for Bush and other Republican candidates. Not only does he want to help elect his vice president, but he is playing to history, working to keep the Reagan Revolution going and validate his presidency.

[Wneglia]

Why is it that no previous Republican president is standing behind Romney? I don't see nor hear anything from anyone of note speaking up for Romney.

Perhaps you missed this

and

this.

[O Really]

Why is it that no previous Republican president is standing behind Romney? I don't see nor hear anything from anyone of note speaking up for Romney.

Perhaps you missed this

and

this.

No, we saw it.
[from the article] "As presidential endorsements go, this one could hardly have been more low-key. ABC News caught up with former president George W. Bush in an elevator in downtown Washington on Tuesday and asked the question that elicited the sound bite.

“I’m for Mitt Romney,” Bush said, just as the doors slid shut. The 43rd president of the United States was on his way to give a speech on human freedom, in which he made no mention of politics, save one sidelong reference: “I actually found my freedom by leaving Washington.”

Yeppers, and Romney incorporated that elevator "admission" into his ads, too, eh?

[Colonel Taylor]

Here's a dangerous thought for the forum liberals. Listen closely, maybe the cons can have different thoughts and think for themselves and have DIFFERENT ideas. Unlike the libs who have proven thousands of times they can not think for themselves but are followers of their leaders.

[bannination]

Here's a dangerous thought for the forum liberals. Listen closely, maybe the cons can have different thoughts and think for themselves and have DIFFERENT ideas. Unlike the libs who have proven thousands of times they can not think for themselves but are followers of their leaders.

... and that's what I think of that.


(I'm going to regret implementing youtube...)

[Supsalemgr]

I believe the reason is he does not need Bush's support to rally the base. Obama has done a good enough job of that. Also, Romney knows full well bringing Bush into the conversation plays right into the hands of the Obama campaign. They would love the opportunity to run against Bush as another diversion from Obama's record.

[O Really]

So, Super-S. Stepping away from the "blame game" for a few minutes and taking the single issue of George W. Bush's work as President, do you think he (a) did a good job; or (b) did a poor job. No comparisons, no "but-but-but Obama, just pick one answer.

[Brother]

Because W probably offered and Mitt said, "Uh, that's okay..."

[Supsalemgr]

O Really, I believe Bush did a good job on national security and keeping us safe. I think he did a terrible job of controlling the spending of Congress.

[Supsalemgr]

Supsalemgr wrote:
...They would love the opportunity to run against Bush as another diversion from Obama's record.

Vrede wrote:
But not the GOP's economic or foreign policy record, that's why no Shrub. I think even you know that.

Thanks for making my point. This is why the Obama campaign would love it as it would give them an opening for another diversion. I think Vrede is secretly getting tips from Skin.

[billy.pilgrim]

O Really, I believe Bush did a good job on national security and keeping us safe. I think he did a terrible job of controlling the spending of Congress.

so why did he ignore ever warning that alqueada was going to strike

it was his fbi that told the agent, who reported arabs taking flight lesson but didn't want to know anything about take-off or landing, to shut up

[billy.pilgrim]

Supsalemgr wrote:
...They would love the opportunity to run against Bush as another diversion from Obama's record.

Vrede wrote:
But not the GOP's economic or foreign policy record, that's why no Shrub. I think even you know that.

Thanks for making my point. This is why the Obama campaign would love it as it would give them an opening for another diversion. I think Vrede is secretly getting tips from Skin.

I hope obama does use the fact that lil bush is going to the caymans next week for a tax cheat seminar

[Supsalemgr]

Skin was a repetitive, mindless poster on the Spartanburg board.

[O Really]

O Really, I believe Bush did a good job on national security and keeping us safe. I think he did a terrible job of controlling the spending of Congress.

If I knew the answer, I'd just throw it at you, but do you happen to know the percentage of Congressional spending that was used to fund two wars? And would any of that amount been controllable by the President?

[Supsalemgr]

It was primarily all the other spending that he would not veto. This spending was a true non-partisan effort. It was like LBJ with Viet Nam. Remember "Guns & Butter"?