Posted on 10/26/2009 6:23:11 PM PDT by GoldStandard
Levi Johnson is running for president????? Damn, wonder what Sarah thinks about this development??????
Being from NM, he would immediately have a problem of being unable to win his own state. The state is 100 percent Democrat in Congress. Just like MA.
Johnson is the most pro-limited government candidate in the race and has a proven record to back it up! He is light years about “special needs Palin” in this regard.
By “special needs” I was referring to Palin’s unfortunate tendency to pander by supporting government programs for her pet causes as a means to win votes.. I see no evidence that Johnson does that kind of pandering.
Well....right now it is doubtful that Palin could win any state. Johnson has can have tremendous appeal with Democrats and independents who value personal liberty.
You have a point. Sorry ~ didn’t mean to attack you.
>> Certainly better than the majority of idiots who are currently scheming to run. <<
You may be right, but I’d rather not vote for any idiot, whether he’s in the majority or not. HHOK.
Seriously: never trust anyone who claims to be a conservative but thinks it’s OK to allow people to kill babies. Pro-abortion candidates always claim to be fiscally conservative, but what pro-abortion candidate has ever turned out to be so? Mitt Romney? George Pataki? Christine Todd Whitman? Sue Collins? Arlen Specter? Olympia Snowe? Michael Bloomberg? Mike Castle? Mark Kirk? Tom Ridge? Arnold Schwartzenegger? Lowell Wiecker? John Sununu? Lincoln Chafee? James Jeffords?
The only pro-abortion conservatives I can think of pre-date the Great Purge of pro-life Democrats, and even they are special cases: Warren Rudman was famous for the Gramm-Rudman Act but he was actually quite fiscally liberal on other issues; Barry Goldwater eventually came out as pro-choice, but he was long out of office by the Reagan years and the politicization of abortion.
I didn’t know this guy was an abortionist.
Your attempt to link Johnson, who has a proven record as a tiger for small government, with statist Republicans like Snowe doesn’t hold water. He also a more principled position than they do. As I understand it, much like Ron Paul, Johnson supports letting the states decide. All of the other Repubicans you mention support federal supremacy not only on abortion but other issues.
“Rather than continue to exchange barbs, tell me why she will never be president? Tell me why she would not make a great president. What is it about her that causes you to think she will not be president and if elected, she would not be a great president.”
I didn’t realize we were trading barbs. I never said she would never be president, and I never said she wouldn’t make a great president. What I said was it’s way to early to have any real idea who may win the nomination. I also pointed out how the more hardcore Palin supporters are quite similar to the Fred Heads. Right at the moment Sarah is polling behind Mitt and Huck, but her supporters insist she has a lock. I also see some of her supporters getting a bit testy with anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Sarah may run and she may win, but except for running as McCains VP her resume is a little bit thin, not empty just thin.
Romney has proven that with all the Money in the world, he can't buy the election. I personally believe he would be a moderate and probably excellent fiscal president, but he will not win. I think people don't trust him. His previous pro abortion stance and MA universal health are a millstone around his neck. Couple that with his religion and it is just too easy to find someone else to vote for. Too slick by half for most peoples taste.
Jon Huntsman is also an excellent business man and would probably make even a more effective and better president than Romney. However he lacks name recognition, and has the same problem with religion as Romney. Mormonism is considered a cult by a large percentage of Americans. It is just a fact that many people would have aproblem voting for a Mormon
Huckabee is an incredible campaigner because he is a natural politician. People like him. He is good in the debates and has a happy warrior outlook. He suffers from a money problem. I am not sure how good of a president he would be. I can only state that he would be a damn sight better than the present resident.
Gary Johnson can not win the nomination. He is Pro-Abortion, Open borders, Drug decriminalization. He would be out before the Iowa caucuses. Primary voters are true believers. They are the strong social conservatives. If he changes his stance he will be like Romney he will look like a flip flopper. He would be branded the ultimate DIABLO RINO by every right winger and commentator in the party. He is a dead horse.
Palin has the name recognition and the ability to raise tons of cash. Every conservative will be busting open their kids piggy banks to send her as much as the law will allow. However, she has serious problems with how she was eviscerated by the press.She would have to fight tough and dirty. She would have to pull out all the stops and make absolutely no mistakes. She has been unjustly branded as a simpleton. This is the cry from the far left, the media, and the country clubbers in her own party. Of course that is what they said about Reagan, GWB, and Eisenhower. The where all so stupid they ended up winning two terms.
I have no clue who will get the nomination, but Palin has at least as good of a chance as any of the other known entities in the party right now.
Regardless, I will strongly support anybody that can dislodge this Statist Scumbag from the office. We have to. four years of this jacka$$ will be a catastrophe, eight years will be the death of the Republic.
No problem. I’m just happy we still have the right to different opinions.
Sarah Palin is a Republican not a LIberaltarian.
Besides being conservative in the Economy, etc.
She understands why we are fighting the IslanOfascists who declared war on us. Her son recently returned from service in Iraq.
She is Not one of the anti war Liberaltarians.
So far we do!
I don't remember the Reaganites being angry with anyone except Jimmy Carter.
Anyone who will allow people to kill their babies cannot be trusted not to compromise their conservative values on other issues when the push comes to shove. There have been pro-lifers who have also sold out their conservatism once they reach the national stage, like the Bushes. But then again, the Bushes nominated David Souter and the Harriet Miers, so maybe they weren’t so pro-life after all. It’s just that pro-life sells better in Texas than it does in New Mexico.
Come on... I’m not one of them (you’ll notice I’ve already posted that she needs to enunciate her positions before I’ll support her), but maybe you’ve noticed the Palinites have a little more to be angry over. Reagan always seemed above it all (part of why they slandered him by calling him aloof), but I do recall a fair amount of angry Reagenites
Abortion is always wrong. Therefore, it should be opposed by society. The death penalty would be the loss of yet another life. On the other hand, Dr. George Tiller deserved to die, and his death will save lives. I was very saddened by Dr. Slepian’s (sp?) death, because I knew it would be an invaluable propaganda tool, and because I knew it wouldn’t save any lives. Another butcher would just take his place. Dr. Tiller was unique in his willingness to kill any babies. His death will save lives, so I did not feel any such sorrow. His killer was a vigilante, who took God’s authority into his own hands, so he needs to be punished for his unjust crime. But I can’t say I’m sad that certain babies won’t be killed in Kansas anymore.
Go Sarah! You magnificant, strong, beautiful woman!
>> Nice purple prose <<
I’ll defend everything I wrote as cool-headed and rational.
>> Let’s talk specifics about the implications. Do you think a woman who has an abortion should get the death penalty for murder? <<
Do you want to ask him whether he wants to execute American soldiers? Murder is a legal term, not a moral term. That’s not a dodge. As a legal term, it’s a judgment as to how harmful it is to society, and how malicious the criminal is. Soldiers’ killing is required for society, so we honor them, we don’t execute them. Even when a war is purely unjust, and participation in it is totally voluntary, we don’t execute the captured enemies. Not even in Rwanda. But we do oppose them, and stop them. We don’t quabble about whether the Rwandans had the right to slaughter their countrymen.
Abortion is always wrong. Therefore, it should be opposed by society. The death penalty would be the loss of yet another life. On the other hand, Dr. George Tiller deserved to die, and his death will save lives. I was very saddened by Dr. Slepian’s (sp?) death, because I knew it would be an invaluable propaganda tool, and because I knew it wouldn’t save any lives. Another butcher would just take his place. Dr. Tiller was unique in his willingness to kill any babies. His death will save lives, so I did not feel any such sorrow. His killer was a vigilante, who took God’s authority into his own hands, so he needs to be punished for his unjust crime. But I can’t say I’m sad that certain babies won’t be killed in Kansas anymore.
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.