Posted on 11/23/2011 6:38:16 AM PST by TheRobb7
Now That We've Crucified Every Candidate, who are we gonna support?
Take a step back and think about it for a moment:
Romney? No, for reasons stated on this site and encoded on our DNA.
Paul? No, unless you're an isolationist.
Perry? Apparently not, since my fellow FReepers appear ready to kill each other at the thought of a Perry nomination.
Santorum or Huntsman? No, because they apparently aren't pure enough either.
Cain? Maybe, but many consider 999 to be 666.
Newt? After last night's debate, FR will lynch the man and serve him on their tables tomorrow...so, no.
That leaves Bachmann, who again isn't pure enough for my fellow FReepers.
So since we insist on nominating a Priest instead of a POTUS, my question to all here is this:
SINCE YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED EVERYONE ON THAT STAGE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.....WHO WILL YOU SUPPORT?
(or are we hoping that no one will have enough delegates heading into Tampa, thus giving us a nice little floor fight?)
Amen..I’m still praying she will reconsider. I shudder at the thought of four more years under Zero.
” NOOT “ ... NOOTROOTS .. as in, those who have roots here illegally...
_____________________________________
Sure worked for our current POTUS.
That right there is funny!
NOOTROOTS!
rotflmfao!
I don't think we know Sarah's real reasons for stepping aside. There's no doubt in my mind that she was running an undeclared presidential campaign, right up until about two weeks before her announcement.
She was on the path to the White House, but something caused her to stop. I know what she said, but I don't buy it. If her family were opposed to her running, she would have let the country know much, much earlier that she wouldn't run.
Sarah has served in one public office or another for about twenty years. She's been a wife and mother since day one of her political career. That never stopped her before, and I highly doubt that it stopped her this time.
I'm beginning to think that we're going to be forced to choose between the second coming of Karl Marx, or George HW Bush the sequel. Frankly, I'm horrified about our prospects.
I suppose I'd prefer the uncertainty of having another RINO run the country, to the real certainty of total collapse (and possible civil war) under a man who wants to be Communist dictator for life.
Either way, I'm getting the sense that we're not going to elect the sort of person that we desperately need to elect in such a time as this. If we ever needed someone like Palin to rise to the occasion, this is the time.
Without a leader of that caliber in the White House, we're almost certain to continue heading down the dwindling spiral, which means only one thing. We're headed for "interesting times."
Has NOOTROOTS finally gone FRUITLOOPS ?
“While we might not agree with every candidates opinion, we whould all agree that it’s better than what we have now.”
That statement is true only if it does not include Romney.
If Texas was a nation, its economy would rank as the 13th-largest in the world .
I’m for Rick Perry who, for over 10 years, has governed the state of Texas.
Rick Perry, of course.
I’ve taken time to study all the candidates and their records. Huntsman is the one I prefer.
Regarding Obama, that is a perfectly legitimate criticism, but I take the man at his word. I see no reason not to. Huntsman says he put service to country over any other considerations. He took an apolitical and internationally sensitive role, because he felt he could make a difference there.
Since he also served in a similar capacity for President George H.W. Bush (as US Ambassador to Singapore) and as a Trade Representative for President George W Bush, as well as working for President Ronald Reagan, the facts seem to give credence to his claim.
He certainly didn’t support a Democrat for president like Rick Perry (Gore) Michele Bachmann (Carter) Mitt Romney (Tsongas) and Herman Cain (Clinton); and his stance on climate change is not a world away from that of Newt Gingrich.
I want to win this time, and when we do win, I want an experienced, talented president, with a proven conservative record. I like Huntsman.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me Mr. Jeeves.
As a PG Wodehouse fan, anybody called ‘Jeeves’ gets a tip of the hat from me, as a matter of course.
Makes me want to riot and break things.
Best candidate is Rick Perry
The the wheel ends up on, Mr. Herman Cain. He after suffered the most (injustice) and held up the best in light of attacks none of the others had slung their way to this level. That is the mark of a true man.
I though it was odd, too - but I doubt it was any type of threat, which would have just brought out the Mama Grizzly in her big time.
Maybe when she asked God to "search her heart" He revealed to her His will for her, and it wasn't to be POTUS (not right now, anyway).
Do not doubt for a minute that God is in control - He is still Sovereign over all - and His plan, whatever it is, is perfect.
Two weeks ago I would have said Newt, Cain or Bachmann, but I am having second thoughts on Newt. It is not just the issue of amnesty, but his reasoning screams “I’m a big government Conservative”. That is my greatest reservation with Newt.
Forget Santorum. I thought he was a great Senator but he endorsed Spector over Toomey which really ticked me off. Quite frankly he does not strike me as much of a leader, or I would probably be less bothered by the Spector thing.
By the way I find it interesting how Gingrich co-opted Cain’s “Chilean Model” for entitlement reform. If candidate’s are stealing his positions, then he is already effecting change!!
I say Cain/Bachmann as my favorites. The lady from Minnesota is really sharp, but I give the nod to the man who has executive experience.
My 2-cents
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.