Posted on 12/15/2011 4:21:09 PM PST by kristinn
Well, Perry is an underdog if you consider coherence an asset... Though I really like when he gets to stand next to Romney and he makes Mitt goes bonkers about the book thing.. I am hoping we’ll see that again...
Santorum is solid, I know... I just can’t bond with him for some reason, and I’ve tried. Same with Bachmann. I support Newt with all my heart but I see some really good candidates up there on stage.
I’ve watched the debate twice now. Once by myself, and once with my husband. Thoughts:
1. Ron Paul made it clear in relation to foreign policy that his is not in sync with much of America. This debate was the beginning of the end for him. We have both Rick S. and Michelle B. to thank for that. Rick framed the situation perfectly and Michelle brought it home to roost.
2. For better or worse, the Newt “lobby” thing has been perfectly laid out. We have Michelle and Ron to thank for that. Ron framed, Michelle detailed. Bottom line, Newt supports gov’t involvement in projects that serve conservative interests. Was he right with Frannie/Freddie? Hind sight is always 20/20, but in the day, people who read the writing on the wall were seen as kinda out there.
3. The two Ricks did well, but unfortunately did not distinguish themselves. Rick P. has a nice sense of humor, but no matter how he tries, he still seems a bit slow. I don’t think he is— he just comes across that way. Rick S. is my favorite of all the candidates, but the media block on him is hurting him with the general public. I don’t know how he can work around this. I really, really like him.
4. Mitt is out, as far as I’m concerned. He’s too broad-minded. That was made clear by Rick S. in this debate. The reaching across the aisle he is willing to do is too far reaching for my taste. Might as well vote for Obama.
5. Huntsman...who? Did nothing of any note.
6. Michelle— did a lot to sharpen the focus on other candidates, and came across much more authoritative than in the past. For some reason, I can’t quit seeing her as “wifely.” That is not a bad thing in general, but I just can’t see her, in my minds eye, going toe-to-toe on the world stage. I believe she can...but I can’t picture it. There’s the rub.
I’m pretty set. When Sarah P. was a possibility, I was for her. She didn’t declare, so I won’t pursue write-ins for her. If she wanted it, she’d be there. I’ve been undecided until this debate. I am now for Rick S.
My plan...if Mitt, Ron, Michelle or Huntsman are put on the ballot, I will write in Rick S. If Newt or Perry are on the ballot with Rick S. for VP, I’ll vote for that. If Newt or Perry are on ballot without Rick S. I’ll write Rick S. in as my vote. Rick S. is the only candidate I trust. And yes, I know the Arlen thing. It’s over-kill. Not worth talking about.
My fervent prayer is that Iowa sticks it to the polling and media moguls and votes so contrary to what’s been put forward that the entire apparatus is left scrabbling. That would be a tremendous coup for conservatives everywhere. One can dream..........
No, that would be another childish question.
Your argument is a straw man. America isn’t the Republican Party and Gingrich did say he would support and campaign for candidates who supported partial birth abortion so your analogy fails on that count too.
Wasn’t able to watch this, is there a you tube replay link?
Attack the analogy...weak. Whatever, moving on.
Whatever is right. Your analogy is weak. That’s a fact so deal with it.
You are so right.
I could tell you stories about what he has allowed and what he had Caused to happen to our troops in Afghanistan = I have family who did two tours there. But let me just put this one traitorous act - his new ROE - has resulted in...TOTALLY in favor of the Taliban. TREASONOUS/
http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx
AFter he put in his new ROE, we had DOUBLE KIA in 2009 - from any other year of the war.
In 2010, it TRIPLED.
and this year?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/afghanistan-death-toll-bloodiest-month
He has much American soldier blood on his hands -
Well, let me post just this one illustrative example - and it has been repeated again and again...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/08/75036/were-pinned-down-4-us-marines.html
He killed these Marines - plain and simple - along with 100’s more who wee not allowed to defend themselves and who were denied air cover...
You can expect at least some retreads regardless of who wins.
Newt mentioned he'd ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State if he'd reform it as Newt's outlined but just making that comment was suggested to be a violation of campaign law.
Michelle Bachman said everything she said in the last debate about Newt lobbying was true according to Politifact. In fact, they said no such thing.
It’s crap like this that brings Bachman down to a democrat’s way of doing things. That’s why people have lost respect for her, not because she’s a woman, and we’re all sexist. BTW I’m a woman.
It should be on Sat. Night on FNC.
Politifact is hardly the arbiter of truth. Michele’s mistake was quoting a “truth” website that is a product of the newspaper industry, namely the St. Petersburg Times.
Michele does deal with the mainstream (left-leaning media), appearing on air and giving them stories. Undoubtedly this is to gain wider recognition and get her message out, and at some point every candidate has to do that, they can’t only appear on Fox. So in terms of building for a general election campaign, mentioning politifact in news articles will score web search hits by independents who are googling for her name. Politifact, of course, calls Republicans liars every chance it can, so every Republican gets the downside of being mentioned by them whether they like it or not.
That being said, there is at least one published news article that describes the well-documented efforts of Fannie and Freddie to woo Republican support.
Newt’s involvement was, in a legal, technical sense, not lobbying. But to say that he didn’t lobby is a tepid pursuit of the truth at best.
It was more what I would call meta-lobbying. He was hired by Freddie to be the brains behind the operation: coming up with written material to circulate to Republicans in DC as well as coming up with lists of potential Republican supporters who could be successfully lobbied (by others, of course).
So yes, he did not personally do the lobbying, he was simply the mastermind behind the lobbying efforts.
Perhaps I should post a new thread which sheds light on this story.
Michele reminds me of so many conservatives in the past who were castigated as lunatics and liars then ultimately validated by history. As a child, I was in a class where everyone else falsely testified against the teacher. None of the students even approached me with the scheme and I simply told the truth when asked - what I had seen with my own eyes. I thought nothing of it at the time, but throughout the years I’ve reflected on those events often. I’m always inclined to take no sides until I hear all sides after seeing firsthand how even seemingly “innocent children” can get caught up in crowd mentality.
Too often today people want to kill the messenger; in politics, finance, law - even faith, when the message is not to their liking.
Conservatives who understand the difference between successfully getting a Republican elected President and electing someone who will reduce the heavy hand of big government should carefully consider each candidate very, very carefully for the Republican primary.
Social conservatives moan in agony over a repressive Executive branch that deals heavy-handedly with families, Christians, homeschoolers, etc. As do free-market conservatives cry over government intrusion and control of business. As do those who are concerned with the legitimization of and increase in power of islam - inside America’s politics, business and even military.
They simply forget that for 8 of the past 10 years, this has all happened with Republicans heading the Federal government.
Sometimes those we think are our friends are not always what they seem to be.
As a master politician and statesman, Newt comes with the pluses and minuses associated with such a person; they can get a lot “done”, which can be both a blessing and a curse.
Whoever wins the nomination, IMHO, let’s keep praying.
Right you are about Politifact. It’s about as unimpeachable as Snopes.
Wish Bachman would give it up as well. And yes; given time allotments; it should have been down to ‘two’. But then; maybe the ‘Media’ does not want to give more time; to the top tiered. Perhaps; for their purposes; ‘less time per candidate; is more, of what they want.
I just saw where he’s one of the panelists on Hannity tonight.
He’s one of the “old-fashioned” Dems - in contrast to the radical/progressives today, he’s a conservative!
Dang! Missed it.
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.