Posted on 08/30/2012 9:47:57 AM PDT by NOBO2012
Once again, an evening of words. And in an unusual twist for this type of thing, they were nicely combined with ideas for a CHANGE.
...from New Mexico, Susana Martinez...
“We talked about many issues, like welfare, is it the way of life or hand up? Talked about size of government, how much should it tax families and small businesses? And when we left that lunch, we got in the car and I looked over at Chuck and said, "I'll be damned. we're Republicans.''
She should have known she was a Republican though, since she’s been packin’ a 357 magnum (something she shares in common with tonight’s “surprise” guest) since she was 18.
The take-away from Susana’s speech: words matter...
“I fear some of our leaders today have lost the courage to stand up. What we have now are politicians. They won't offer real plans, and only stand up when they want to blame someone else.”
Ouch again! This RNC is starting to feel like a b***h slapping fest.
Condoleezza was up next. Not only was she in the house, she owned it...
She dazzeled us with something the left abandoned years ago: ideas
...Butt let’s be honest here people, she still can’t hold a candle to the women of color on the left side of the aisle. Women such as Shelia “where can I park my moon rover on Mars?” ...
...Finally, the night’s keynote speaker: Paul Ryan.
Smells like vision...
(Excerpt) Read more at michellesmirror.com ...
I saw their speeches. Those two ladies were spectacular.
They both spoke from actual, personal experience and with conviction, which in itself is a very refreshing and dramatic change!
I did not like Martinez’s speech at all. She was throwing around Spanish in the speech. I can speak Spanish and would never do that. Condi’s was great, but Ryan’s was the best of the night!!!
Had quite enough of Condi from 2001-2009, thank you very much. Bush era retreads are not change I can believe in.
Actually, I am pretty sure that was calculated...and why not?
She was altogether credible and a perfect illustration of ‘America the right way’.
I don't have a problem with immigrants coming here, as long as they get themselves documented and PAY TAXES like everyone else.
Spanish speaking Americans are a fact of life here and Conservatives need to accommodate their message to all LEGAL immigrants... That is probably what she was doing.
“See, I didn’t mind Martinez speaking Spanish.
Actually, I am pretty sure that was calculated...and why not?”
Probably because you haven’t had the experience of having your home town conquered by the illegal alien invasion. Americans of hispanic descent speak English.
I made a point over a decade ago after the Prop 187 campaign in California, where we had to fight the GOP elites in addition to the other traitors and leftists, that I would never vote for a candidate who campaigns in spanish. That has spared me from voting for a long line of treasonous fools.
I am with you as to my disgust for the casual acceptance of illegals who come here with NO intention of assimilating and with complete disrespect for America and its traditions, laws, etc.
We don't need to import disease, poverty and crime... and NOTHING justifies politicians who say differently
Guess what, Condi fans? Chrissy Matthews agrees with YOU!
“Condi’s speech was presidential. Best address of the convention.”
— Chris Matthews (@hardball_chris) August 30, 2012
And we don’t need politicians who add to the breakdown of our common culture by speaking in Spanish at political rallies.
I live in Orange County, CA, and have witnessed firsthand the displacement of English over the last 45 years. Now when billboards go up they are in spanish.
This isn’t for the benefit of Americans of hispanic descent, it is for the masses of illegal aliens who have pushed Americans out of the neighborhoods by sheer force of numbers.
Much of this is the fault of the treason lobby in the GOP who refuse to enforce the law and deport illegals. They are too busy calculating how illegals can be used for their own political benefit. The Bush-Rove wing did massive damage to this part of the country. We do not need a replay in the form of Martinez or Marco Rubio, or any of the GOP who see themselves as ethnic spokesmen. California voted for Reagan for Governor and for President, but thanks to the treasonous idiots who transformed its demographics that California is now just a bitter dream.
If they want to be ethnic panderers there is a party that already does that, and unlike The Stupid Party it doesn’t pretend to represent America.
“If they want to be ethnic panderers there is a party that already does that,...”
Yeah, and they are getting 2 out of 3 votes from them.
refusing to pander to the voting bloc that could be key to winning or losing, gee, I dont think that’s a winning attitude.
... “We do not need a replay in the form of Martinez or Marco Rubio, or any of the GOP who see themselves as ethnic spokesmen. “
Note: These are candidates who WON.
I dont favor amnesty nor being weak on borders, but it’s only smart politics to try to reach out to get their votes somehow, and talking their language seems one way to do it.
You need to make up your mind.
Either you expect those who come to our country to adopt to our ways and our language or you don’t.
Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone” has a lesson for you:
Read about the Gypsies in Eastern Europe and who tries to get their votes.
You mean Grover Norquist, Islam’s agent of influence in the GOP?
I think you need to reevaluate who you are looking to for advice. Patriotism is a better choice than following the political calculations of an opportunistic traitor like Norquist.
Your reaction proves how right he was in the book.
Read it and weep. If you want to learn.
“Read it and weep” yourself. Here’s another look at your buddy No Borders Grover Norquist, Islam’s agent of influence in the GOP:
“On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, were sharply criticized over their commitment to reverse massive budget cuts Team Obama is making at the expense of our military capabilities and national security.
What made this attack notable – and potentially very damaging to the GOP standard-bearers – is that it came, not from the Democrats, but from a prominent Republican political operative, Grover Norquist. It is hard to see how his contention that Messrs. Romney and Ryan can’t be trusted to spend wisely on defense will help anybody but their opponents.
In remarks to the bipartisan Center for the National Interest, Norquist threw down the gauntlet to the Republican ticket. He declared he would fight defense spending increases, or even relief from the next, debilitating round of cuts. These amount to a further half-a-trillion dollars in across-the-board cuts over ten years under what has been called a “doomsday mechanism” known on Capitol Hill as “sequestration.” What makes matters much worse is that these cuts come on top of nearly $800 billion in Pentagon budget reductions already in the pipeline – a fact the anti-tax activist studiously ignores.
For a guy whose ostensible expertise is domestic economic matters, it is doubly surprising that Grover Norquist fails to recognize another disastrous effect these enormous reductions in defense spending will have – on employment and communities all over the country. Estimates run as high as 1 million jobs lost and $59 billion in direct lost earnings and $86.4 billion in gross state product in the first year alone. (For a detailed analysis of the impact by congressional district, see the Defense Breakdown Reports at www.FortheCommonDefense.org/reports.)
What Norquist did do, however, is directly take on the GOP ticket by opining that “Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money,” Norquist said. “I wouldn’t ask Ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment.”
The question occurs: Just who does Grover Norquist think would be better suited to be stewards of the “defense establishment” and the national security it is charged with providing? Having no expertise on these matters himself, in whom does he have more confidence than the people the Republican Party hopes will lead this nation for the next four years?
Based on Grover Norquist’s past history advising the last Republican administration (see www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), several candidates come to mind, as noted in this CSPAN interview with moderate Muslim Stephen Suleyman Schwartz:
Abdurahman Alamoudi: Alamoudi is a top Muslim Brotherhood operative and al Qaeda financier with whom Grover Norquist joined forces in 1998 to launch a Brotherhood front called the Islamic Free Market Institute. Alamoudi’s purpose was, with Norquist’s considerable help, to run influence operations inside the conservative movement and Republican circles, including notably the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign. Alamoudi should be available to help reorder our defenses as he is currently serving hard time in Supermax on terrorism-related charges.
Sami al-Arian: Al-Arian also went to federal prison, in his case for running a designated terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from his professor’s office at the University of South Florida. But not before Grover Norquist helped him meet with Candidate Bush in March 2000 and subsequently extract from Mr. Bush a public commitment that, if elected, he would work to eliminate a key counter-terrorism tool: the confidential use of classified information in deportation proceedings against illegal aliens (like al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar) so as to protect such intelligence from compromise.
Nihad Awad: The co-founder of an aggressive Muslim Brotherhood front and Hamas fund-raising vehicle, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) also benefitted from Norquist’s help in gaining access to and running influence operations against the Bush ’43 team. CAIR was listed in 2008 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the criminal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation on charges of providing material for terrorism.
Muzammil Siddiqi: To conclude this partial listing, Grover Norquist could surely also call for assistance on Siddiqi, yet another top Muslim Brotherhood leader and an influential Islamist cleric. After all, Siddiqi owes him: Norquist aided in securing for him the role of representative of the Muslim faith at the national ecumenical 9/11 memorial service on September 14, 2001. The Norquist-Alamoudi team also arranged later that month for Siddiqi to present President Bush with a Quran on the occasion of a private meeting at the White House. Such legitimation advanced considerably the subversive agenda Siddiqi and his comrades pursued as part of what they call “civilization jihad” against America.
Or perhaps Grover Norquist would turn to people like Trita Parsi, who even the state-controlled Iranian media have depicted as part of the “Iran Lobby” in America. He certainly did before: In 2007, Norquist created with the help of his Palestinian-American wife, Samah, an anti-defense group called the American Conservative Defense Alliance (ACDA). (Samah served on ACDA’s board of directors and as its corporate secretary). And ACDA, in turn, was a founder of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI). ACDA’s address was that of Norquist’s ATR group, where CNAPI meetings were also held.
By 2008, CNAPI’s coalition was made up of more than 40 groups including: Parsi’s National Iranian American Council (NIAC), CAIR and other Islamists; many George Soros-funded radical leftist groups; and the Norquists’ vehicle for undermining the conservative stance on national security, ACDA. Their common goals: to eliminate U.S. support for the democracy activists opposed to the Tehran regime, to block economic sanctions and to prevent any military action.
All these Norquist allies could, of course, be relied upon to back him in pressing for substantial cuts in U.S. defense expenditures. They would presumably be happy, as Norquist put it Monday night, to join him in getting “the Republican Party…[to] reexamine the actual defense needs and then work from there to determine how much to spend.”
To be sure, a reexamination of those requirements as defined by Barack Obama is in order. And our defense needs should indeed determine the resources applied to meet them. But the nation – and most especially the Romney-Ryan campaign – can ill-afford to take advice from Grover Norquist and his friends, especially as it would obviously be predicated on dramatically reducing such military requirements. It would also have the practical effect of making Obama’s ravaging of the nation’s defenses seem responsible.
At issue is not so much whether this Islamist-tied libertarian trusts Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to manage the nation’s national security needs. What we need to know is whether the GOP candidates trust Grover Norquist – and will they henceforth open their doors to him and the bad company he keeps?”
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frank-gaffney/norquist-repudiates-romney-ryan-on-defense/
Wow. A lot of venom over one guy. Take a chill pill.
my original point was about the story of how Gypsies vote communist in Romania for a simple reason: The other parties hated Gypsies and so never bothered to ask for their vote. My point was not about Norquist at all, but he tells the story well in his book “Leave Us Alone”. It’s a good book, btw, about how we can make a winning conservative coalition. One way to FAIL is to be too bigotted to actually ask immigrant voters to vote Republicans, and to do it in languages they use.
As for DoD budget cuts -
I happen to think that we need to stop spending too much in all government departments, and that includes DoD.
When this came up earlier and McCain whined about this, I commented how this was a trap and a bed of the Republicans’ own making. if they thought this was unacceptable, why did they sign a bill that made it happen?!? The better plan is the Ryan roadmap. But did McCain back that? Or other Senate GOPers? Not enough.
Instead of whining to UNDO spending cuts, we need to CUT SPENDING EVEN MORE. Romney and Ryan are massively stepping on the story of Obama being a ‘big spender’ by attacking Obama for not stopping these spending cuts. Obama projects a $10 trillion hole in 10 years. Poking holes here and not in the other areas is really wrong. Now, I am not in favor of the sequestration, but we need to go back to cut, cap and balance and get behind real, serious and substantive long-term spending cuts. To do that we CANNOT leave the DoD at a bloated $800b spending level. that is irresponsible.
But what makes the argument EVEN WORSE is this stupidity ...
“For a guy whose ostensible expertise is domestic economic matters, it is doubly surprising that Grover Norquist fails to recognize another disastrous effect these enormous reductions in defense spending will have – on employment and communities all over the country.”
You know what this argument is saying? Government spending creates jobs, and the justification for spending is that money is spread around in communities. How is this different from keynesian ‘spend the stimulus’ Obamunism? It isnt. this kind of lame “spending govt money creates jobs” talk completely steps all over the true and real critique of Obama.
It’s really dumb of Romney/Ryan to make this a campaign issue. It makes Obama look fiscally responsible which is the opposite of reality, and with dozens of examples like Solyndra, they actually point in the direction of Republicans begging for pork.
Sequestration is not some ‘doomsday’ mechanism. We used it for YEARS under Gramm-Rudman and it WORKED. It actually kept the budget in check and the deficits capped. It’s how we balanced the budget before. The dumb thing the Republicans did was let the Democrats force it all on DoD, when we need it across the board. So why not just propose a balanced sequestration?!?
It’s correct to say that Norquist is not a guy to listen to on national security, but on taxation and spending, he’s been spot on, and likewise, dont listen to a neo-con like Gaffney on budget and economics, that’s not his strength. We need to reform and reduce DoD spending to match our real national security needs and quit using DoD as a pork piggybank, just like we do with road bills, green energy and the rest. It ALL needs to be cut back, a lot.
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.