Posted on 05/20/2011 1:11:30 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Tea Party congressman underwhelmed by current Republican presidential field By Michael O'Brien - 05/20/11 02:45 PM ET
The current crop of Republican presidential candidates is "lukewarm" and unexciting, said Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a Tea Party darling.
West, a freshman Republican lawmaker from Florida, badmouthed the 2012 field of GOP hopefuls while noting that he himself would not be seeking the presidency.
"I've got to tell you that no one is really exciting anyone out there right now," West told the conservative website Newsmax in an interview posted late Thursday. "I think by September, October, maybe we'll see a front-runner. But right now, you know, kind of lukewarm."
West said he "couldn't say right now" if he had any favorites, and that his only focus was on seeking reelection to his House seat next fall.
West's words might sound disappointing to someone like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), a potential presidential candidate who helped propel West to his congressional nomination with a key endorsement just before the primary.
The political action committees of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) each eventually endorsed and donated to West, too, but not until later in the process, and much closer to Election Day.
West appeared at an event in Florida earlier this year with Donald Trump, who withdrew from seeking the GOP nomination last week. West credited Trump with setting a faster pace for the other Republican candidates.
"I think that he tried to get people to come out of their comfort zones, but you still have a pretty 'blah' atmosphere out there," West said.
Funny how some people absolutely hate “absolutists”. What would be the opposite of an “Absolutist”?
Situational ethics - soon morphing into “if it feels good, do it”.
How is it "rational" to kill one person for the crime of another?
How is it "rational" to break the oath of office to provide equal protection for all persons, as the Constitution explicitly and imperative requires?
please point me to your posts on the same subject in regards to mccain, 0bama, or any of the other candidates
unless you’ve harped on them equally, you’re shilling against the congressman
Babies created through acts of sin cannot be good people? Please tell me you didn't really mean that.
what? now you have a problem with an absolute position?
i’m not on board with that. i do not believe good fruit can come from seeds planted by evil acts. that said, i still believe the choice is up to the individual... and should be agonized over.
the difference between the two positions isn’t nearly as great with the pro-abortion crowd.
**********************************************
Yours is the "pro-choice/pro-abortion" position.
Still? You still believe the individual should be allowed to choose life, even though the baby cannot ever be a "good fruit?"
I need some duct tape, before my head explodes.
Are you suggesting that those on this thread who are pro-life are discriminating against this candidate? Do you have any proof of that? If not, I suggest that you owe everyone here who has proclaimed themselves to be pro-life an apology.
Yes, I do a problem with your position that it is absolutely right to always kill babies conceived through sin.
I can't wait to see EV's answer to this one!
Wow. I think that BykrBayb and I are eagerly awaiting this as well.
I don't support any politician who thinks it is okay to ignore the explicit, imperative requirement of the Constitution to provide equal protection for all persons.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."-- The Fifth Amendment
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-- The Fourteenth Amendment Constitution
And no, I don't support politicians like Barack Obama or John Judas McCain, either.
You can go look at my posts for yourself, or apologize for your false assertion.
If EV takes the time to answer that silly post, it will have to be a very long reply. Anyone who’s been around FR more than five minutes knows EV is pro-life.
Good answer! [insert applause]
And he's certainly not a McCainiac.
*************************************
Amen.
strangely enough, i went through about 10 pages of your posts... and i see you’ve attacked republican candidates on their pro-life stance
yet not one attack (at least in the last month) against a dem.
funny how that is
and no, i made no assertions to apologize for. i stated a simple truth. if you haven’t done the same to other candidates (i listed dems), then you’re shilling against the congressmen.
how far back should i go to find you bashing a dem on their abortion stance? months? years?
You make a phony case. In fact, its a lying case.
But, why would anyone be surprised that someone would make stuff up when they think its okay to kill some of the babies, and to break the oath of office to provide equal protection for all.
I just went back through ten pages of your posts and couldn’t find a single thing critical of Satan. So, you’re obviously a shill for Satan.
/sten “logic”
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.