Posted on 10/20/2009 4:31:29 PM PDT by ejdrapes
BTW, Newt is making what is known as a straw man argument.
No one is arguing for a perfect candidate in every case.
Many of us are suggesting, however, that a candidate should meet some minimal set of requirements. A candidate who cannot measure up to such a modest standard is simply unacceptable.
And the standard has to be something more than simply calling oneself a Republican.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Daggett once worked for Corzine and has been a Democrat most of his life. He's in the race to help Corzine.
But Gingrich and the RNC completely ignores this fact because they need a strawman (conservatives) to blame if Christie loses.
Isn’t this the guy who should be sued for breaching the Contract With America?
I used to be a Newt supporter. I even defended some of his more recent actions which were questionable.
Not anymore. This guy is just another party hack, and seems to care little about truly restoring our constitutional government, which must always be the guiding principle.
It’s all true. THere are other issues where she’s a liberal.
I still think Markos (DailyKos) endorsed her precisely to cause trouble.
But she’s very liberal on a host of issues.
3 parties doesn’t work politically but 4 parties each with about 25% market share would work nicely. We need laws that encourage the break up of the Democrat-Republican duopoly, which is functioning more like a monopoly. If states reserved some seats for the top 4 vote getting parties it would incubate some political competition that is badly needed. I could deal with a viable in-plain-sight communist party winning 25% of the time if conservatives could win 25% of the time.
No it's not. Basically, all three candidates are liberals. Daggett is exploiting the Tea Party voters to chip some votes away from Christie. But the real tragedy is that the RNC is not speaking out against this treachery.
And I too am a single issue, second amendment voter, I’ve always thought that if the second, which I consider the most important, is not respected by a pol, he/she probably has little respect for the rest of them.
As much as I’ll be disagreed with on this board, Gingrich is right.I’m not particularly happy that he is right, but he is.
The NRA has endorsed Scozzafava, so I will send a small donation, even though she is not in my state.
It would seem that Newt has realized that Sarah Palin has pretty much taken over the conservative grass-roots supporters.
So, he’s trying to cozy up to the Rockefeller Republicans to regain some influence.
Conservatism wins EVERY time it’s tried.
Republicans should insist on minimum standards though. Considering it's NY state, I would have given Scuzzy a pass on things like homo marriage and other social issues as she is just a single vote and can't stop it anyway (Dems hold Congress anyway). If she would have been a true fiscal conservative, then yeah, I would be among those telling Hoffman to stand down and get out of the race.
I think that says it all. Atomic Dog, I believe you're on the wrong forum. FR is a forum for promoting conservatives. Period. We want candidates who proudly agree on our efforts to move this country in the right direction. We don't promote marxists because they happen to be right on one issue. If you're a single issue gun guy and think it's fine to enslave the rest of the country to socialism as long as you get to keep your gun, there are places for you on the website. Take your pro-Scozzafava views over a gun owner or sportsman forum. Probably plenty of Democrat gun owners there will agree with you. The NRA endorsed socialist traitor Jack Murtha simply because his record on guns was good (A+ rating from the NRA, but F ratings from every other conservative group on the planet). My guess is Murtha is your kinda candidate too.
Just as I'm against freepers who want to crucify a candidate who's 95% conservative because that person happens to be wrong on one issue, I am equally against freepers who want to a promote a 95% socialist candidate like LIEberman or Scozzacommie because they happen to be right on one single issue.
Bottom line: FR supports conservatives, not socialists. If you support socialists when they agree with you on your little pet issue, that puts you into conflict with the goals of this forum.
Ronald Reagan won by holding to his ideas and convincing people his was the right way. That is leadership.
If you seek to become a majority by adopting whatever ideas seem popular, you have no ideas that you hold more important than winning, and you represent nothing. And soon you will represent no one. That is “followership”, or maybe “follow worship?”
Newt is trying to give his lunch money to the bullies and expects them to respect him.
If the objective is to be majority, the recipe is to get on every issue that polls 60%, lie and fudge on it and, in short, become The Democratic party.
If the objective is to move the country to the right, then it is better to be a consequential minority than a corrupt majority.
Reagan is right, Newt is wrong
Reagan- "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers."
The NRA endorsed Gillibrand too. How'd that work out?
fools.
Very well put.
Jack Murtha Republicans are sickening.
Gingrich is choosing a ‘Republican’ over a real conservative.
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.