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 ...
Interesting ez. I am genuinely curious: if you disqualify Huntsman on climate change, why do you not disqualify Gingrich for the same reason? Perhaps, it was Huntsman’s attitude? It certainly can’t be a policy difference between the two, can it?
Yes seriously. Your "Bill Clinton" slur is despicable. There's nothing wrong with asking that kind of question in order to clarify what people mean, if the statement has more than one possible interpretation.
In this case, it could be that someone is using the "no one is perfect" argument to excuse something bad about a favored candidate, OR it could mean that we should stop concentrating on minor defects (because if we look for them, for sure we will find them) and concentrate on the overall calibre of each candidate. Some will be stronger than others on some issues but not on others. None will match our own opinions perfectly. Its all a question of finding the best match - i.e. the candidate with the most opinions we agree with and the minimum number of contrary ones that we can live with.
Oh please - GMAFB - if you were not happy with those running because they dont meet your purity tests - why didnt you ruin in the primary to get the nod?
And who is your choice? Tell me thwe perfect 10/10 Saint you are for who has even a remote chance at winning?
Good for you. You’re being realistic. I, sometimes even change my mind regarding strategy, and that’s what we’re largely talking about here. I think almost all of us here on FR want government out of our lives, a thriving economy and a protection of our lives and liberties. We disagree on the best way to get there.
Now, let's not pretend there are not other candidates in your equation. Is Newt a Beltway insider who has stabbed conservatives in the back? Yes. Is Newt shilling for amnesty? Yes. Does Newt understand limited federal government? His actions make that highly doubtful.
Are there other GOP candidates without those serious warts? Darn tootin. So they should be ahead of Newt in any consideration of the best anti-Romney for conservatives seeking to change the Beltway political machine for the better.
Can you then please explain why all three of your candidates are in the bottom tier. Use an extra sheet of paper if you need more room.
Strike Romney out?
Yes, I fully agree with you. I guess I was just being overly-polite there.
And who is your choice? Tell me thwe perfect 10/10 Saint you are for who has even a remote chance at winning?
Thanks for asking. My choices in order are Cain, Bachmann, Santorum and NOBODY ELSE!!!!
Cain is botton tier? That's rich. I see your sense of denial is not limited to Newt's call for border security.
Can you then please explain why all three of your candidates are in the bottom tier. Use an extra sheet of paper if you need more room.
That is total BS. Cain is at the top for one thing. Bachmann will probably win Iowa which will raise her to the top. Santorum doesn’t have the numbers or support so I give you that. However, I will keep Santorum so that if principles occur in some folks, they will find him a great conservative.
I agree. Once people start living deliberately and prayerfully, you can live almost “perfectly” meaning no lies, no breaking the commandments, no stealing. Humans are not just pinballs in a machine of life, we can choose acting honorably or dishonorably.
No, I fully expect Newt not to do what I would want him to on immigration. I believe in securing the border with troops, penalizing buisnesses who hire illegals, deporting any illegals who are detected, and no citizenship EVER for a person who entered illegally. Newt will not cater to my ideas on immigration and I would fully expect him to do what Reagan did.
BUT LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE (emphasis added) I think Newt is the best person in the field of eight to run America. In fact, after Newt I would have a hard time picking a “big picture” candidate because they are all so far behind him in intellect and knowledge.
Now lets have a look at your BIG JUICY BRAIN!!!
Since the initial premise of this piece is so glaringly false - that conservatives are demanding perfection, a messiah - all of its conclusions are of course utterly wrong.
Newt is a selfish narcissist with ethical and honor problems. He lives his life as if he is the center of the universe
It’s just the logical extension of the “nobody’s perfect” argument.
Huntsman insulted me when he told me what I should believe based on “science” like I was some sort of unthinking luddite who was supposed to accept what I was told. Tye irony is, it is HE who is accepting theories like a luddite when they have not been proven true, but have beem proven to generate millins of dollars for the people propagating them.
Newt did not insult me. He did accept the status quo, though I don’t know if he really believed it or was forced to moderate his views by a relentless attacking media.
Cain’s still my man.
Yeah, DC is full of people with intellect and knowledge of how DC works. What has that gotten us?
And that is my point exactly with Newt. I don't see how electing a DC insider as president would be any kind of impetus to change how DC works. Newt has shown me no sense of being constrained by principles, be those principles marital or Constitutional. Any conservatism he showed in the Nineties appears to have long been corroded away by his years spent since at the Beltway trough. I would vote for him over Romney, but he is my very last choice among the anti-Romney candidates, precisely because he does not offer any resistance to the pervasive Beltway mindset - instead, he embraces 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.