Posted on 11/25/2011 4:30:57 AM PST by radioone
No one is perfect. No one. Not a single one of us has led a completely blameless life. We've all said something that we wish we hadn't. We've all lied, cheated, or stolen. We've all done or said hurtful things. Imperfection is a reality of the human condition. We know and accept that we are flawed. We realize that our parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors are flawed. If we accept this as true, why do we expect more from our potential elected leaders?
Every day, you can turn on the cable news, or go to your favorite news or blog sites, and hear all about the Republican presidential candidates and how imperfect they are. We all know about the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain. Most agree that these charges have probably been completely fabricated. That being the case, we are then subjected to constant criticism of his campaign's handling of these allegations. Now we get to hear all about his flubbing of a question on Libya. The mainstream media has force-fed us clips of Rick Perry having a bit of a brain freeze during a debate. We know all about Newt Gingrich's past marital problems. He appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi, and he's criticized Congressman Paul Ryan. We hear these attacks daily from both sides of the aisle. These stories are designed to convince us of something that we should already know: no one is perfect!
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
My order is a little different from yours, but it does change from time to time.
And that being the case, I am focuses on who will sign legislation from what will almost certainly be the most conservative congress in many decades.
Thus, I do not require a perfect candidate and do not invest in that hope. In addition, I understand that if we count “mistakes” only - as some do - that there is no proper “curve” for how long someone has been in the public eye.
>> Losing Obama has to be Job One, you are right. The candidates should say it more often and stop attacking each other for their flaws. Perhaps that is how Newt rose to the top? >>
There is no perhaps to it. That’s EXACTLY how Newt rose to the top, along with the fact that he lumped the media into the camp as our enemy (which it is) and he also praised the other GOP candidates as well. Bingo.
Like the people who are still screaming that they were called "heartless." Those whiners are even worse when they are males...can't call them men!
>> Me - Im just looking to rid ourselves of the communist WMD Obama. We can sort out the rest later. >>
And that’s our only choice in reality. Use any analogy you want:
Stop the bleeding, because you can’t repair the wound til you do.
Plug the hole in the Titanic, and then re arrange the deck chairs.
Successfully take the beaches, then you can figure out how to take Berlin.
And on and on - any of these analogies drawn from real history and real life are applicable to the wisdom of your sentiment.
I’ve been saying this for weeks. There’s no perfect candidate. There never will be. No one knew for sure how good even our greatest presidents would be, before they served.
We need to get behind a strong conservative who is bold enough to stand up to media, public pressure, and evildoers. We need someone who is wholly unashamed of conservatism and articulate enough to explain why conservative policies help all americsnd best. We need someone with a dose of wisdom, more effective in a president than encyclopedic knowledge.
I don’t think that’s true at all.
I don't think one can say exactly why Newt rose to the top. Perry and Cain rose to the top as well and they are very different candidates than Newt.
I think Newt is the candidate du jour in the quest for the anti-Romney. We'll see if he stays up in the polls or slips back down.
Bachmann is smart and conservative and articulate. Her problem is her personality and delivery. Like someone said on the last debate thread, she is always negative, and things are always apocalyptic with her. No evidence of any sense of humor. She’s pretty but not very likable. I am not sure shed be a bad president, but I thi k she’s off-putting.
>> I don’t think one can say exactly why Newt rose to the top. Perry and Cain rose to the top as well and they are very different candidates than Newt. >>
Actually, one can say exactly how Newt rose to the top because it’s obvious.
He rose due to the debates in general, and that translates to this specifically - and whether or not you like Newt, all thinking people can agree on this:
A: he gave the best debate answers on a wide range of subjects
B: he attacked the liberal media and tied them into the problem of Obama and liberalism in general.
C: he praised his other GOP candidates more than anyone else
D: his consistent performances drove a lot of folks who had written him off - in many cases “for good” - to reconsider him.
Perry never “rose” to the top. He came in at the top based on what folks hoped and thought he would may be, and sank immediately. (He is sneaking back up slowly, and that will be interesting to watch).
I don’t know if Newt will stay or not, but he rose to the top after everybody already knew what they did not like about him. That is not the same with Cain or Bachmann - neither of whom has a 30 year career in the public eye.
Ain't it the truth!
RINO has been totally overused and has become a lazy way of saying, "Person with whom I disagree."
And those who vote in favor of amnesty are traitors.
Oh, spare me. Perry, Cain and Newt are three very different candidates but all three have topped the polls at some point. So your claim that there is something special about Newt’s rise is belied by the fact that the two others rose and fell back in front of him. Newt is just the candidate du jour in the quest for the anti-Romney. We’ll see if he has staying power.
I’m fine with Rick Perry’s “making DC inconsequental” as far as it goes. I’m fine with Gingrich’s debating abilities and intelligence with respect to unvetted Obama.
What I am NOT fine with is the dilemma of the illegal alien problem in this country, for EITHER one! Somuchso that it is a solid deal-breaker as far as my voting for either under ANY circumstance. To me, there is no equivocation leeway on this, period.
And those who mislead about who is in favor of amnesty are liars.
You always malign anyone supporting any candidate who appears not to be the "most" conservative as "stupid".
I would submit that a FReeper supporting Perry or Gingrich, rather than Cain, Santorum or Bachmann, is most likely doing so with the belief that a Perry or Gingrich is more electable even with their flaws. Tactics rather than merely pure principles. Gain ground vs. all or nothing. Intellect and reasoning rather than blind and inflexible rote. C.Edmund Wright described this well on another thread relating it to war strategy ...
Stop the bleeding, because you can’t repair the wound til you do.
Plug the hole in the Titanic, and then re arrange the deck chairs.
Successfully take the beaches, then you can figure out how to take Berlin.
Incremental progress to win the greater, larger, more important battle later. How is that "stupid"?
Still, I continue to go back to the fact that Perry has been governor of a huge state for 10 years and has a solid record of achievement. I'll take him. If he can do for the US, what he's done for TX, we'll be taking a giant step forward by replacing Obama with Perry. The very fact that Perry wants to get rid of the EPA is a huge plus.
Energy is one of the first steps back to economic prosperity and Perry understands that.
If that’s the excuse you think your maker will buy, more power to you.
I would suggest that anyone who voted for John McCain for president is not well positioned to have a hissy fit about Newt’s immigration policy. I don’t know if you voted for McCain or not of course, personally I voted for Bob Barr.
Can I assume then that you did not vote for John McCain, the amnesty king of all amnesty kings, in November 2008?
You completely disregard what has been proposed as the differences for their respective "topping of the polls".
Gingrich and Cain entered at the beginning and were 5%ers. Perry entered later and was immediately at the top of the polls. He sank due to his own debate performances. Cain was the immediate beneficiary of that and so he 'rose' to the top. Now Cain has also been hurt, not by allegations, but by his responses which have given some pause to some as to whether he can win. Such concerns with Cain, combined with the best debate performances, seeing the enemy as the libs/media not other GOP candidates, being a knowledgeable statesman and historian has been the reason that Gingrich has "risen" in the polls from the bottom in spite of his known flaws.
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.