Posted on 12/21/2014 7:21:06 AM PST by kingattax
I see talking heads...blah blah blah. Everything that comes out of their mouth is pablum. Never a direct answer to any question. In fact, a lot of their answers are so full of crap they don’t even make sense. They string together words that sound good. When you dissect it it makes no sense.
Short answer....you are correct. lol
Ted Cruz must be a FReeper!!! Sounds just like what we have been saying here for years.
Santorum?
But IF they do, no doubt the Crat plantation population will march in lock step to ‘ma-sa`s’ orders.
The IN presidential primary was May 3, 2012. Willard had the nomination sewed-up by the time I got to vote.
If the GOP-e does it again with another “moderate” life-like stiff, they’re dead to me.
Cruz it or Lose it.
YES!
That’s exactly the sort of progression I was referring to!
lol
Rand Paul is worse for the country than his pappy: Ron Paul is such a nutjob that nobody takes him seriously, but Rand has moments of lucidity and can sound almost reasonable at times...
Us? What's this "us"? There is no "us" - there hasn't been an "us" in a long time. There's just "you". Vote for who you think is the best candidate; don't be a lemming follower. The GOP has abandoned you, so make do with the best you can, and while you're at it, do your best to not browbeat someone who has decided not to follow the GOP's pied piper tune.
If by "us" you mean informed Americans who understand that it is their duty to vote and who want limited government -- that is, they advocate for the conservative (sparing) use of government as opposed to the liberal (frequent) use of government -- if that is what you mean by "we," then it leaves us in a place where the only way to actually use our votes to assist conservatism is to use them to weaken liberalism. Voting for liberals whether they are Republicans or Democrats strengthens liberalism.
A PLURALITY split, where a president is rejected by a clear majority of American voters, HURTS that president and make him weak. That is what Perot did. Perot's plurality split AIDED conservatives because it was clear that most Americans opposed Clinton. Clinton was hit by the Republican Revolution (not to mention impeached), and as far as I'm concerned, the only responsible way "we" should vote in 2016 if the GOP nominates another Romney, is to vote to WEAKEN whichever leftist is destined to win, the Democrat or the Republican. A third party candidate run in my book would be deemed a success even if the candidate lost, but the liberal who won was denied a popular mandate for more "liberal" government. The BEST CASE would be if the third party candidate, presumably someone like Cruz, actually won -- that would be gravy, though he also would likely be denied a majority mandate.
To my way of thinking, "we" are left in a place where the path is actually pretty clear.
Schrub's track record was nothing to write home about, either.
Nicely put.
Yeah I know what you mean. Its just regurgitated bs.
Here is a link to what I believe is one of the best examples. McCain had a top campaign adviser resign because he didn’t want to be mean to Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21consult.html
These are the type of people who are counseling Republicans in Washington DC. Its no wonder why there is such a big disconnect between DC Republicans and the grass roots.
Ted Cruz will be the nominee. He is playing things perfectly. He sets small fires that get him noticed while getting important points across. The establishment media/RINO wing won’t be able to ignore him. Particularly true in the Republican debates. Remember how the moderators completely ignored Duncan Hunter? They won’t be able to do that with Cruz.
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.