Posted on 12/02/2010 7:47:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
"John McCain wants us to now believe, in his own words, that he was never for amnesty," JD Hayworth said. "But the truth is in this ad. John was for amnesty yesterday, today and will be for it tomorrow."
You are conflating what McCain says and believes to what Gov. Palin says and believes.
Nonsense. Palin says she doesn’t support amnesty.
You keep playing word games and it isn't helping her, "a path citizenship for undocumented immigrants" is amnesty, she is on record supporting it consistently. Do you seriously think calling it "not total amnesty" will work for anyone other than her blind supporters: she's not for total amnesty, she is for partial amnesty, but that's not amnesty because she wants people to have to pay for their amnesty and wait for it!
Do not forget she is a pork queen...
you poor little retard. McCain, Kennedy, Bush, Graham, etc, ALL SAY THEY DO NOT SUPPORT AMNESTY. It is because, like Palin, they do not define amnesty as allowing people to stay here legally. They believe, like your Precious, that once comprehensive immigration reform is passed and they are legalized to work here, that that is not amnesty. It is. It is the battle we fought in 2007. Where the hell were you??
What is McCain’s position on immigration? Or does he have his usual several opinions depending on the circumstances?
Sarah is Sarah. She is a net positive for the GOP, without a doubt. She’s a star, she’s attractive, she has some good conservative instincts. But what she isn’t at this stage in her life is the person who has what is required to fix what’s broken. The Reagan revolution was aborted prematurely by the stupid party and it will take someone with that type of wisdom and steel to get us out of the freefall America finds herself in now. Not only to stop the freefall, but to chart a new course of constitution-abiding governance. No one can fill Reagan’s shoes completely, but we better start getting folks in who come damn close.
who knows what evil? told me the exact opposite.
One example:post #9
That is correct...it is a deliberate strategy of the dems to cross over to vote for the weakest of the GOP candidates in the NH primary in order to provide momentum for that candidate; making the pubbie candidate easier to defeat in November. They pull the same stunt in Vermont, although it is not as effective at the Presidential level because the Vermont primary has little effect on the national primary race.
As to where Jr. was in 2007, my guess is that he was looking for a village.
In 2008, Romney won the NH GOP Primary among registered Republicans...but when you include the ‘crossovers’ (independents, many of whom are really democrats), the victory went to McCain. The ‘independents’ voting for McCain in the GOP primary returned to their true colors in November and voted for Obama.
Not necessrily so. I can and do see her positive qualities. And frankly, those positive qualities almost made me pull the lever for McCain, which is saying something. I see her positives differently now than I did 2 years ago, because I know more. That said, she worked her tail off for the midterms, she punches hard at the dems - sometimes scoring knockdown blows. She pisses off the liberals, always a good thing. And she is unbowed by the fire she receives from the media. And finally, most of her positions are in line with conservatism.
Despite all the battles I have with her fan club here, I don't hate her. I tend to like genuinely nice and patriotic Americans. She seems to be both. But I can say the same thing about Mitt (at least the latest version of him), Huck, Daniels, Pawlenty, etc. They all (today) promote mostly conservative postitions and I don't doubt for a minute that they are patriots.
As freepers who are interested in more than general leanings and platitudes, we tend to evaluate folks for president (moreso than senator or congressman)with a fine tooth comb. And as such, when we individually decide on who to support, it is natural (and FR tradition) to amplify the negatives of the competitors.
That is why someone like Huckabee, whose 2A, pro-life, anti-homo, anti-bailout, and pro-military postitions are rock solid, is still painted as a RINO here. His record as governor was too much nanny & taxes & pardons, and despite his Road to Des Moines conversion on taxes, illegal aliens and amnesty, few are willing to offer him the benefit of the doubt.
Same with Mitt. With just a few exceptions, Mitt ran (and continues to run) as right winger. But regardless, his record as governor had way too much liberal nonsense for his non-supporters to trust him.
And guys with better reputations, such as Barbour and Daniels, they too are already getting put through the wringer. Haley for his idiotic stance on eminent domain and illegals, Daniels for his foreign toll roads and his soft peddling of so-called social issues. Once a person decides that one of these guys is the best, that person will downplay these flaws and beat the drum against the other candidates' flaws. It's politics, amplified here on FR because of our passion for the country and conservatism.
I don't think you will see the day come anytime soon when the majority of freepers say - "yeah they all got their strengths and weaknesses and I'll be happy with any one of them except candidate X." So the dynamic now with Palin is that you have a large group of people that insist she is the best we've got to offer. And many in that group are painting her as not only the best we've got, but a new Reagan, a homerun, a no-brainer choice - proven by the large nationwide following she has gained, ratings , etc. Another group, myself included, see her in the same group of republican politicos as most of those others mentioned. And because we do, we are going to amplify that. There are certain positions I refuse to accept anymore, and Palin has some of them, as do the others mentioned above. So I will support the candidates, and only the candidates, that come closest to my positions. And like most others here, it will be at the expense of the competition.
Thanks for the answer.
i’ve been involved in 6 New Hampshire presidential primaries going back to 1980. Unenrolled voters (independents) can vote in either DEM or GOP primary. DEMs can only vote in the DEM primary. I don’t know where ‘wkw evil’ is from.
I think who know what evil?'s post number 171 explains the confusion. The GOP primary *is* open to self-described Independents (democrats) and that's terribly wrong.
The American electorate is too lazy to think long enough to research candidates, they just react to feelings and media produced impressions
and oh yeah
DH is still my guy
I am in NH...I see what the problem is...he is talking about REGISTERED Democrats; whereas I am talking about Democrats who mask themselves as ‘independents’ so they can deliberately screw with the GOP primary. The other poster is correct...REGISTERED Dems have to vote in their own primary...the ‘independent’ ones (and there are LOTS of them) vote for the GOP ‘sad sack’ (last time it was McCain); then reverse course to vote Democrat in the general. It is a very effective strategy. That is why I am CONVINCED that if Sarah runs; she will LOSE NH; and the media will shred her alive. That is why I hope South Carolina has their primary before NH. Closing the primaries would certainly help...
I know you live in NH and I’m now completely clear on the open primary in your state and I agree with you about the Independents playing games: masking themselves as Indy’s when they’re really democrats. It’s a game played in states that permit Indy’s to vote in either primary and that sux big time. The two parties ought to put a stop to the practice.
Sarah has one chance of winning NH and that chance is if the so-called INDYs decide to vote for her thinking she’s the weakest to go against Obama, but I think they’d get more of a kick out of handing her a colossal loss.
Pence held firm against TARP. Sarah’s running mate helped run it through. I’d vote for either one but prefer Pence.
I apologize for not clarifying...I lump all dems into one big stinking pile. Sarah might have a chance in NH IF they would close the primary and let actual registered Republicans choose their candidate without outside shenanigans. Let registered party voters choose their candidates in the primaries, and the independents can make up their minds in the general. (I have actually been at the table while ‘independent dems’ decide which of the weakest GOP candidates they should support in the GOP primary. They get the biggest kick out of sticking it to the pubbies...means more to them than voting in their own primary. Sad.)
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.