Posted on 04/17/2011 8:37:38 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
ALSO: My colleague Kendra Marr reports that WorldNetDaily's birth certificate aficionado Joseph Farah has been on the phone with Donald Trump every day this week.
Farah has advised Trump to simply ask, “"Where is the birth certificate?"” The Donald's recent claim that Obama’s grandma in Kenya is on record saying he was born in Kenya is just troublesome, Farah said.
"When you start making assertions and ‘grandma said,’” you start getting yourself in a bind," Farah said. "I'm not sure that's what grandma said. That’s fuzzy."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I believe that Obama is not concerned about answering boob bait for the Bubbas as he is answering intellectual challenges. Look at the time Obama spent on Ryan vs Trump. Trump is like a guy in a poker game who demands to see his opponent's hole card while the opponent won't turn it over.
And the more Trump demands, the more formerly unconcerned people are asking “why won’t he just show the damn thing?”
The Dem’s much-vaunted polls seem to reflect that. Many people I know feel the same way. Lately they are getting a lot more curious. I doubt that’s an isolated phenomenon.
Barack Obama couldn’t answer an intellectual challenge from an oxygen deprived wombat.
Will Farah still back Trump if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination and switches to the Democrat Party in order to “get Obhama out of office”?
How many other “conservatives” would there be that get suckered into voting Democrat if that scenerio transpires?
Trump will have the perfect excuse to do it -(the plan all along?)-because all he’ll have to say is, “I’m the only one who can beat Obama and if the GOP won’t have me, I’ll just have to do it another way even if I have to run as a Democrat.” He can use comments like Rove’s about him being a “joke candidate” as justification. He won’t run as an “Independent” because of the fact that most Democrats vote a straight Democrat ticket and he’d lose too many votes.
People with money and power like Trump and Soros have one goal - you can forget the little guy’s “issues” - just FOLLOW THE MONEY which means power. Both of them have “a history” that no prudent person should ignore.
For your consideration:
“I saw the crowd wanted him to talk about Soros but he didn’t want to”
REALLY? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705870/posts?page=51#51
14 posted on Saturday, April 16, 2011 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705963/posts?page=14#14
<>
“... Trump doesn’t need Soros fer gosh sakes. ..” ~hinckley buzzard
True: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705870/posts?page=136#136
152 posted on Sunday, April 17, 2011 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705870/posts?page=152#152
<>
“Ok. I did. And I don’t buy it.” ~ mojito
I wouldn’t use the word, “puppet”...maybe just two people with the same goals?
Just keep it in the back of your mind.
Take note of this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705963/posts?page=14#14
136 posted on Saturday, April 16, 2011 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705870/posts?page=136#136
Then you should look for another site, because this site is for conservatives, not bandwagon populists.
What these people cant fathom is that the establishment do not want Trump, NOR do they want Palin. So now,whats that leave?
The question is, can Palin raise enough money to counter the billion they say BO is going to come up with-if she runs? I dont think so. So that leaves the whole bunch with ONE choice. And you and I know what/who that is.
I am right where you are, grew up in a Dem, Irish Catholic family. In the mid 70’s I changed parties and never looked back, altho unfortunately my family is still voting Dem and think I am insane.
I would love a return to the 80’s but no it will never happen, as I don’t see a Ronald Reagan on the horizon. I pray the Republicans can field a conservative candidate that can win, God help us otherwise, four more years of this guy and we will no longer be the USA.
My conservatism is that which the site owner states:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
Jim Robinson
Now I dare you to tell me Trump fits that definition. I dare you to tell me Trump didn't say Bush was evil and should have been impeached for Iraq. I dare you to tell me Trump isn't in favor of Obamacare and Universal Health Care. I dare you to tell me he isn't above greasing politicians to get what he wants, ie, eminent domain.
You got that from Levin, didn't you? Now, I have no problem with Levin quoting Trump on any issue. I do have a problem with anyone telling only half the story:
Trump says Obamacare is UnconstitutionalIs what Trump says in the last paragraph some sort of "universal health care"? I don't know. The manuscript is unclear and I didn't watch the actual interview. But can competition across state lines be included in "universal health care"? I don't know, it's unclear, but it certainly sounds like it's got some free market elements in it, no? Are you sure that Trump is going to institute socialized medicine? Are you absolutely sure? Isn't it a little hazy and vague, and wouldn't prudence dictate holding our fire until we hear more particulars from the man himself? And I don't mean interviews from years ago, but real policy proposals for the immediate future. We can afford to be patient. I mean, it's not like the elections are in two weeks.
Trump on ObamaCare
If I run and if I win there will not be ObamaCare because it’s ruining a lot of companies. I have friends who own small companies, and they’re going to close those companies up because they can’t afford ObamaCare. It will not exist very long if I’m president.
Trump's O'Reilly Interview: O'REILLY: So there will be Trumpcare then?
TRUMP: Well, it would be a form of [???] much better. As an example, I have a big company. When I buy health insurance, I can't go across state lines to buy it. You know why?
O'REILLY: Yes.
TRUMP: And I can make a better deal in New Jersey than I can in New York with a better company. Yet, I can't go. No. 1, anywhere in the United States has to be a strong company. But we should be able to go out and price it privately. I believe in the private. But I don't want to be stuck with one or two companies in New York. I should be able to go to Wisconsin. I should be able to go to Iowa. If I want to buy health care for my people, as long as it's a strong company, I should be able to bid it out.
And this brings me to my main point here: Trump is all over the place on the issues. If you look up Trump's various positions (and they are varied, let me tell you), you will find him all over the road. You know those little surveys you can take in which you answer a number of questions about issues, and you get to the end and you push a button and you get a little square that locates you in a quadrant that's libertarian/authoritarian, conservative/liberal? (Of course you do) I'll bet you could take Trump's positions at various times, enter them into the survey and manage to get the Donald located in all four quadrants. A "four-fer," if you will. The question, therefore, is not what Trump has said at this or that time; it's easy to pigeonhole him anywhere you want. Anyone can do that. The question is, which Donald is the real Donald? Or at least the Donald that would govern from the Oval Office?
You will answer my question, I suspect, something like this: "But you've just given me the best reason to reject Trump!! He's all over the place on the issues. In fact, it's not as as arbitrary as you make it out. Exclude the last few months, and he's predominantly liberal. I don't trust him. Maybe he's sincere, but I don't think so. I'm highly suspicious, and as a result, he will never get my vote." That wouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion, but it would have the advantage of taking into account all the facts.
A couple of other comments: those remarks Trump made about Bush, they really stung didn't they? I mean, I remember when you wrote that little piece after the recounts ended in 2000. What was it called, "Generation W"? I think that essay got reprinted in Front Page magazine, although my memory may be faulty on that point (BTW, still up there in Holland--or was it Grand Rapids? I always liked the pic with the husky. Still around?). I remember thinking that you expressed my thoughts at the time quite aptly.
Well, it's been quite a journey since then, eh? Did Dubya ever disappoint you? I am not trying to ambush you or play "gotcha" here. I thought the same way you did then. Although never a Dubya enthusiast, I supported him, worked on the local campaign for him in SW Michigan when I still lived there, and voted for him twice. I don't regret it for a moment. Last November, I even got two signed copies of his memoirs for my parents. I got to shake Dubya's hand during a book signing at the local Barnes & Noble in Houston, where I now live. I am not a "Bush-hater," nor do I scorn anyone who supported him (I'd be spiting myself if I did that).
Having said that, I don't know that I would dismiss out of hand the thesis that "Bush brought us Obama." Really, although Bush gave us two pretty solid Supreme Court justices, cut taxes, and displayed decisive leadership after 9/11, didn't he have some warts? And not inconsiderable ones? And didn't his liberalism show pretty much right from the beginning (No Child Left Behind, federalizing airport security, et al.)? Didn't you feel a little betrayed when he essentially called people like you and me racists for opposing amnesty? By then it should have been clear that he was playing for the other team as surely as McCain was, although many on FR are loathe to admit this even now (and yes, I voted for McCain--or more accurately, Sarah).
But the policy differences weren't the only thing. There was something even more disturbing. Even when the policies were correct, they were marred by an amount of bungling that still shocks me. Let's look at Iraq. After the initial invasion, it was one debacle after another. And wasn't there bungling prior to the invasion as well? I mean, I don't think that the admin lied about the WMD, but what does that leave us with? A colossal failure of intelligence. A bungle of world historical significance, for which the buck stops at the president's desk. And after this debacle (and it's hard to tell which was worse, the WMD mess, or the failure on 9/11), what did the President do about personnel? Did he walk into the office of the FBI and CIA directors' and replace them? No, he let them stay where they were. We can make all the excuses we want for this, but did they really deserve to retain their positions? We don't need to think too hard to imagine what Trump would have said if he had walked into their offices after 9/11 (and no, that's not a reason to vote for Trump. I'm just illustrating a contrast).
I tell you all this as a combat veteran of Desert Storm (502nd MI/2nd ACR, Lighting Troop/2nd Squadron during the ground invasion). I was damned angry at the way things played out after the initial invasion. I came home from Desert Storm with limbs intact, and proud of my country. To watch people come home with one or two limbs missing (or worse) from Iraqi Freedom, and to realize that the occupation was not be handled as it ought to have been was infuriating. Easy fixes could have been made as early as 2005. Although I never supported impeachment and would never call Bush "evil," I was damned angry about the way things were managed. This is not to justify Trump's positions on impeachment, only to indicate that there was legitimate anger at the way things were run. That can't be brushed off with a breezy, "War is hell, that's just the way things go." It didn't have to go that way. The anger didn't just arise out of sheer BDS. It arose for readily understandable reasons in patriotic people like me when we saw the repeated ineptitude and bungling that marred Bush's term. The last straw for me was getting called a racist for opposing the amnesty by elites all the from Bush down to elite pundits such as Linda Chavez.
I say this not to "bash-Bush" indiscriminately, as the left did, but to point out that there are arguable reasons for people's anger toward Bush. It was expressed in different ways, and I never thought of calling for impeachment. I did think there was an enormous amount of bad governance. When I see those pictures of the smirking Bush saying, "Miss me yet?" my response is always, "Not particularly."
My final point in this rather length post is this: I don't think this "checklist" type of conservatism is enough anymore. Of course you have to have your views clarified and articulated. And you want to find a candidate that expresses you stances on a broad range of issues. But this "checklist approach" is no longer sufficient. I say that because I don't think there is a conservative movement anymore. The grouping that coalesced around William F Buckley after WW II has played itself out and is no longer there. Now there are conservative people and conservative positions; there are even conservative groupings of people such as us at Free Republic. But there is no "conservative movement." The fundamental positions now are these: the country class vs the ruling class. There are people who love the country (and this is largely the Tea Party) and those who are either indifferent to it or despise it. The former group comprises an enormous range of people. There are lots of conservative people in this group, but it's not "ours." There are lots of democrats, independents, disaffected people of all stripes. People in this group express themselves in all sorts of ways, and they are not necessarily our ways. This leads me to conclude that the template approach used by people like Levin, Coulter, et al, isn't enough to accurately sum up a someone like Trump. That is not to say we shouldn't evaluate what people say. I'm all for it as I said above, as long as people aren't giving the silent treatment to relevant quotes. I'm not saying we shouldn't look at what people say; only that we have to do more than that.
Anyway, that's the end of this long-winded post. I could write more, but I'm too tired at the moment and it's time to go to bed. If you don't think I am of worthy of further participation on this forum, fly to the moderators and Jim Rob and have me banned.
How so? I’m not arguing. Although entertained, deep down
I know there has to be a catch. But I’m not sure what it
is. I got that the “conservative” pundits had all been
recruited/scared away.
You can also buy the sudden conversion to a republican. But then you also have to buy Romney and the rest of posers who are selling the same snake oil.
As for checklist conservatism, if we don't stand strong now with tried and true conservative principles, you can forget about in the future. With even republicans like Mitch Daniels calling for a focus on just fiscal issues and ignoring social ones, the death knell has already been rung.
I would like to say thank you for serving out country. But it saddens me to see you take a laissez-faire approach to politics, especially since generations of soldiers fought and died for freedom.
I never said we shouldn't cultivate our principles. We need to do so more than ever. But we need to understand that we are not a majority anymore. As someone mentioned above, it would be great to go back to 1955 with technology (and without Jim Crowe laws, we can admit that we werent perfect then). Nice fantasy, but we have to accept that we're in a "post-conservative" society now. In response to this, we must cultivate an "evangelical" attitude about our beliefs, to use a religious analogy.
But maintaining principles isn't the same as applying them in judgments. Of course you have to cite what people say, but it's not enough cite a few statements, note that they are at odds with the template and issue a thundering,, "Anathema! Unconservative!" Argue that Trump is a hypocrite; point out his inconsistencies; cite his donation record; all that is fair game. But to pigeon-hole Trump with the BDS-afflicted, left-wing moonbats on the basis of some old quotes is a lawyerly cheap shot, and Levin knows it.
I have no idea how you concluded that I have a "hands off" attitude toward politics. We must sign up up with the Tea Party and promote the country class. Apart from dumping the Marxist in the White House, our main goal in the next election must be to promote the ascendancy of the Tea Party at all levels. That means from US Senate down to the local school board. We need to insulate ourselves from who ever eventually winsthe Oval Office. I'm more and more confident that it will be a non-Marxist. I am not at all sure it will be a conservative. That doesn't mean I've become quietistic or fatalist. If anything, I'm more active than ever.
I appreciate your gratitude for my years in the Army. I would point out however that the 7 guys in my unit who didn't come home from Desert Storm didn't die so so that Iranians could overrun Iraq the minute we leave.
Trump has been critical of Romney, and others in the field, but has been very nice to Huckabee and Palin and has actually given Palin some praise.
Makes ya think. Maybe he’s not working for Hillary...he’s working for Palin!
(he’s not working for anyone BTW - he has too big an ego, but it was fun to suggest)
The only problem Trump has with Palin is that he thinks she can’t win. But Trump just might give Palin the advantage she needs, by focusing on the issues that she is strongest at, and those who like what Trump says, but won’t vote for him, because of who he is, may find Palin a viable alternative.
She can’t, IMHO.
He could help her win the primary that way, but not the general.
She and Trump, oddly, have a lot in common aside from their personal lives.
They are both “outsiders.”
They are both derided by many and loved by others, with little in-between.
Both have high negatives.
However, I think Trump can sell his way out of his negatives.
Palin can’t. Unless perhaps she learns some sales skills from The Donald.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.