Posted on 12/26/2011 11:39:41 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Excellent article.
But why Santorum is dissed because he backed Specter?
Newt backed dede s over huffman in ny23 and allied himself wirh nancy pelosi and al sharpton, while cashing in lobby money for ethanol subsidies and housing bubble. His amnesty plan is the real show stopper though.
Perry is ok, though I still see red over his heartless comment and opposition to fence and everify (now it seems he supports some variant of everify).
Obama and the media will paint Newt as an example of the Congress Obama is "dealing" with.
Romney will be the example the media and Obama give as "the problem with Wall Street" Obama is dealing with.
Obama will also claim he inherited Bush's economy and it's still Bush's fault, he just needs more time.
Enter Perry, the media will claim he's dumb (Newt and Mitt will be "evil" since all Republicans are either dumb or evil)
Perry also inherited Bush's economy but with Perry's blueprint of low regulation,low taxes and spending cuts, Texas is due to bring in a 1.6 billion dollar surplus at the end of their biennium.
With Perry we can link Obama to Wall Street bail outs, unemployment, national debt, uncontrolled spending and show why Perry's plan works with statistics during Obama's reign.
You write “Obama broke that with precedent even if you are right on the interpretation of that clause”, but surely you would not allow something based entirely on deception and fabrication to be a precedent in common law?
Beside, although I like Newt, he will implode long before the general election.
>> “Obama broke that with precedent even if you are right on the interpretation of that clause”, but surely you would not allow something based entirely on deception and fabrication to be a precedent in common law? >>
NO, two totally separate issues. The place of Obama’s birth is where the deception took place you are talking about. The birth place of Rubio himself is not even an issue.
The precedent related to “naturalized” is related to Obama’s parents, who clearly do not meet the standard that would be at issue with Rubio. That is the standard where there is tremendous and respectable dissent on the actual intentions of the Founders.
None of our conservative candidates are flawless.
They all have multiple errors, mistakes, and/or made compromises.
For that reason, it’s fallacious to talk like “I wont back candidate N, S, B or P because they did X, Y or Z” when in most cases its small potatoes.
Like this talk: “I will never give him a chance to do such damage again.”
What?!? A pro forma endorsement was the end of the world? That washes away 12 years in the senate? Who else then? Perry is fine too, but you can nitpick Perry on the same lines.
We need to stop thinking about what minor faults each candidate has and start thinking about what GOOD THINGS they bring to the table: Policy, communication skills, record, and ability to beat Obama.
If Santorum’s only fault was backing Arlen Spectre, that would make him stellar. His real fault was losing in ‘06, marking him a ‘loser’, being a social conservative which marks him as anathema to mainstream media so they dont give him time or day and will attack him (ie the Newt/Cain/Perry/Bachmann treatment) should he dare to make a mark. Real conservatives need to look at his record and his skills and assess him on that basis, not over-focus on a single endorsement.
The most flawed of all is Romney who is full of compromises and back-pedaled on many items. But as the most moderate, he is the media favorite, least of a threat to the status quo. Romney endorsed the state-level version of Obamacare. It’s absurd and bizarre to make such a candidate our nominee. Conservatives need to unite, think positive, and not carp on minor heresies of good solid conservates ... or they will will by default let Romney be our nominee.
Every conservative who says “I wont support Perry/Santorum/Newt” etc for lame reasons is really helping out Romney at this point.
I like your list. I would add Mike Enzi of Wyoming. I just think that the list doesnt include any Presidential style leaders. I would taake Cornyn off the list though.
Also, Johnson is my congressman. He is good, but he is also 80. He served in both Korea and Vietnam. I was in Lubbock when Neugebauer was elected, and I would support him trying for leadership.
To me, the important things to look at now are the Senate/House Leadership. This would be my list:
Sen Maj Leader: Jeff Sessions - Alabama
Sen Whip: John Barrasso - Wyoming
Speaker: Jeb Hensarling - Texas
House Maj Leader: Paul Ryan - Wisconsin
House Whip: James Lankford - Oklahoma
Since Ive been alive, the only Senate Republican Leaders have been:
Howard Baker - Tn
Bob Dole - Ks
Trent Lott - Ms
Bill Frist - Tn
Mitch McConnell - Ky
And the House Leaders/Speakers have been:
Robert Michel - Il
Newt Gingrich - Ga
Dennis Hastert - Il
John Boehner - Oh
We need something better.
Here’s the awful truth. Many conservatives (myself included) would rather lose the election than see another RINO selected as the candidate. It is our belief that things may have to get worse, before the establishment can be purged of both Republican and Democrat statists.
The first line in my post, which was in quotes, was quoted directly from the article.
The rest of the post was my opinion that Santorum is the best candidate and that I disagree with the article’s portrayal of Santorum as someone he couldn’t support.
The intent of the founders was clear as day; they never wanted to see the leadership of this country usurped by one who had fealty to any other nation, (both parents US citizens,AND US resident AND US born.) That is the only way it can be interpreted, and the way the USSC found in Minor v. Happersett. What part of the Constitution do you want to throw out next?
Well I was having a polite theoretical conversation on which I had no firm opinion - but you have now jumped the shark by throwing bombs like “what part of the constitution do you want to throw out next” and crap like that.
Actually, I never said I was convinced one way or the other. I only said that folks who study the Constitution more than I come down on both sides. So maybe Mark Levin wants to “throw out” the Constitution in your mind. Or perhaps he knows more about it than you do. SHOCK!
The fealty to other nations is a valid point, but the intent is not clear as day. At any rate, it is impossible to imagine that your definition (and by your, I mean all who hold to your view) will actually be the law of the land should Rubio become a candidate for VP or one day President.
The entire birth debate on Obama was around HIS birthplace and never even touched the issue of his parent’s birth. And with his dad, there was actually a fealty issue legitimately. And yet, only the fringe of the fringe even brought that part up. That has set a huge precedent with regard to the parental birthplace.
Thus, with Rubio’s parents, and no fealty issue, there is no way your interpretation will hold IMO. Who knows, we might never even have to broach the subject.
But if you want to win that debate, might I suggest that there will be many with no firm opinion. There will be those with tremendous Constitutional cred on the other side. It would be to your advantage to realize that.
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.