Posted on 12/17/2011 6:05:59 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
In a perfect instantiation of green conservatism, the Gingrich campaign has been fuelling a bandwagon entirely on Newt's hot air. It is nearly midnight, however, and therefore almost time for that bandwagon to turn back into a pumpkin (or rather, lemon), which will leave those conservatives who are a little too focused on the manufactured issue of "electability," and who had almost been persuaded to hold their noses and vote for Gingrich, to return to the drawing board in search of someone who can defeat President Obama. They will (and should) ultimately decide that the answer to their quest was standing before them all along, and that it requires no theoretical compromise after all. The answer is to support a genuine and unequivocal conservative, Michele Bachmann.
For while many of the Republican candidates might be able to defeat the disaster that is Obama, Bachmann would be able to do it in a manner most satisfying for conservatives, namely one which draws attention specifically to the nexus between constitutionalism and the moral tradition of American-style individualism.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Can there be any doubt now that she sent Rollins out to attack Palin?
“...it was only *after* Newt was deposed as Speaker that the GOP in Congress started to lose its way.”
Newt was not the only House leader to be thrown under the bus by the establishment.
Does the phrase "No Newt Romneys" sound familiar to you? If it doesn't then you simply haven't been paying attention.
“I’m not happy with any candidate.
I reject Newt because of his lunatic amnesty plan, and the fact he joined every trendy liberal issue in the last 5 years.”
I can understand that, which is why it is more important
that true conservatives take the Congress. Very few seem to understand this.
IMO, Michele is the most conservative candidate running.
I donate to her campaign. Just did again yesterday.
Here’s the link....
http://www.michelebachmann.com/
>>>FR seems full of humourless, “my candidate or we’re all going to hell” types who are absolutely convinced that if their particular candidate doesn’t win the nomination, then all hope is lost, everybody else is a stinkin’ RINO for not voting for their candidate, and are a bunch of idiots besides.
Whatever happened to honest disagreement, people? Why does everybody who prefers another candidate to your own have to be either stupid, a RINO, or bought and paid for by their candidate’s campaign?>>
It is the fruit of the shallow and unhappy mind - a small mind consumed by people and not particularly aware of ideas. A mind that looks only for the “bad” in a person as a way to “eliminate them” instead of looking for the good and the bad as a way of doing a cost benefit analysis - because a small mind would rather emote than analyze.
This always leads to almost worship those with the shortest public careers (these people tend to like MB, RS and Palin) because folks with the shortest careers have the fewest negatives. (and positives too I might add).
Thus, an idea based honest disagreement is not what the shallow prudish unhappy mind looks for. They prefer to do drive by vents that are based on a single fact but are devoid of any texture, context or perspective. They relish the purity of their own irrelevance.
That’s my take on what is bothering a lot of us, including bothering you.
...and to clarify WHO I meant when I was talking about those who “tend to support MB, RS or Sarah Palin” - I mean to say those who tend to only support one or two of these folks and who are violent and virulent against all others. The kool aid crowd, not the general population of supporters.
I was one of early national internet columnists to support Palin and still do. (just to clarify...)
I dare you to “whisper” that to Marcus in person.
______________________________________________________________
You might be afraid of someone because of their size. But, let me tell you this: If you think I’d be afraid of that fat, effeminate, sissy you need some intense therapy. I’d hit him in his lispy mouth so hard his great grand kids would be born dizzy. And while we’re handing out “dares”.... I dare you to kiss my a**, punk.
“She should go back to doing her job in the House and stop hustling to be POTUS.”
She should not come down hard on her fellow GOP candidates the way the men do. After all, women should know their place.
I would vote for her as the nominee if I could be reasonably certain I was not thereby casting an indirect vote for Worthless Willard.
I am all in favor of vetting candidates, and at the national level, vetting their families and close associates. However, vetting is vetting, not repeating unsubstantiated stuff. This statement needs to be backed up with links or you need to back off.
Rather than backing off, or at least posting a better link than Rosie O'Donnell, you repeated it at post #30 and added more at post #88 with effeminacy allegations and threats of physical attack. C. Edmund Wright then picked up somewhat similar concerns at post #37.
I'm not saying you're wrong. What I **AM** saying is that I want proof before damaging allegations get traction in cyberspace.
Please, this womans hyperbole makes Newt’s look tame on his worst day... She wouldn’t pull more than 35% of the vote in a general election, and probably far lower. This woman has zero chance of winning a national campaign.
I am with you, Bachmann has zero chance in a general election, none. Anyone thinking otherwise is either flat our ignorant, or is in denial.
This woman would not get 35% of the vote on election day if she were the nominee, and yes, thats going up against the worst president of most living folks lifetimes.
People are not going to vote for a bitter, shrill, mean person, and like it or not, Bachmann comes across EXACTLY as that.. her hyperbole’s make Newt’s on his worst day look calm.. remember that lie about $19 Billion or whatever it was visit to India by Romper Room? Wasn’t remotely an accurate figure, but it was this shrill person who threw that out there to get attention, she’s just not showing the temperment or stability to be voted for, and like it or not, while most here might agree with her positions more often than not, most of the american public are not going to vote for her. She’s a non starter.
Could explain why she comes across as a bitter mean shrew more often than not....
Bachmann lies perpetually, she used hyperbole like no one else.. remember that $19 BILLION trip to India? That was Bachmann who started that load of crap.. She’s just a nut job.. yes, I agree with her stand on issues far more often than not when it comes down to how she votes, but how she handles herself, day to day, I would not hire her ever to be part of my organization, she’d cause as much if not more trouble than she solves.
She’s not remotely shown the temperment or leadnership needed for me to consider voting for her.. just comes across as a shrill mean shrew as often as not. She has ZERO chance at the White House.
You said there have been “whisperings” of homosexuality on the part of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s husband. I have no authority whatsoever on this website and I'm not going to try to interpret Free Republic policy since that is the job of the Admin Moderator, but my understanding is that any comments about a candidate which are not widely known have to be backed up with a link to the source.
However, this is more serious than a question of Free Republic policy. What you are saying is a ticket to a libel lawsuit. You absolutely **CANNOT** make allegations without facts unless you want to end up in a courtroom with a million-dollar lawsuit against you. Your only saving grace is that it is very difficult though not impossible for public officials or public figures to win such lawsuits unless they can show reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice, and Rep. Bachmann is defined as a “public official” under New York Times v. Sullivan, the key case of modern libel law.
To make my motives clear, I am not in any way a closet supporter of Rep. Bachmann. I agree she's made allegations that are out of line and she needs to be called on them. I frankly don't know who I'm voting for this year, except that it won't be Mitt Romney or Ron Paul because both are dangerous to the future of America and I do not believe either can beat President Obama, which is the goal toward which all conservatives should be working. I would be saying the same thing if you were making allegations like this against Romney, Paul, or even President Obama.
Bottom line: If you're going to make a damaging allegation like this in a public forum, you need to back it up with facts. Integrity demands that.
She also needs to travel back in time and qualify to be on the Virginia ballot in the primary - missed today’s deadline.
Remember when she said she was a serious candidate? Ha Ha.
If she were in it to win it, she would have made the deadline.
Admin Moderator: Please check out my Post #99 in reply to darrellmaurina.
Thanks,
no dems
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.