Sexist. Sad.
Seems like he forgets...
Posted on 08/12/2011 1:07:19 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Bryan Fischer
August 12, 2011
The big winner in last night's GOP debate was Rick Perry. This is for the simple reason that no one else won. The race from this point forward is Rick Perry and the Eight Dwarves.
The exchange between Pawlenty and Bachmann was spirited, and there was nothing inappropriate about it. Politics ain't beanbag, as Lincoln famously observed. It's a contact sport, and part of what you must do in the primary season is distinguish yourself from your competitors. You have to throw some elbows to do that.
Pawlenty was hurt by the exchange, because he took a swing at a girl. No matter how much progress we think we've made on gender equality, there is still something deep inside us that says men should use their strength to protect women, not attack them, and Pawlenty put on the full-court press last night.
But Ms. Bachmann chose to get into the ring, and can't complain if punches are thrown, nor should anyone complain on her behalf. That's one of the reasons to question whether it's a good idea for women to get involved in the rough and tumble of politics. I hate to see a woman attacked like Bachmann was last night, but she made herself vulnerable to it by throwing her hat into the ring.
What has been done to Sarah Palin and what is being done to Michele Bachmann — the grotesque beating they have taken from the hostiles on the left (I'm not talking about Pawlenty here) — is a travesty and a shameful embarrassment to any culture which claims to have an enlightened view of the treatment of women.
But this is what conservative women who enter politics are choosing to accept. It is not right, but it is inevitable, since too many on the left are consumed with bitterness and hatred toward conservatives in general and conservative women in particular. They are enslaved to a driving, brooding passion to destroy, and the more attractive the conservative woman is, the more it feeds their blood lust. As captives to this dark, driving vitriol, they can't help themselves. It will take the power of God to set them free from their own bondage to this mindless anger and rage. This means that a woman must count the cost, as Jesus taught, before jumping into the fray.
Part of the problem here is that when a women mixes it up in the political arena, and gets punched, she must punch back. The danger to the woman here is that every time she punches back, which she must do, she hardens a little bit of her soul and sacrifices a little bit of her femininity. I'm not sure that's a good trade. But each woman needs to make that choice for herself. No one else can or should make that decision for her.
Quick hits on the rest of the debate:
Romney came across as plastic. He completed his abject flip-flop on marriage, going from being the man who imposed same-sex marriage on America by executive fiat in 2004 to a man who now supports a federal marriage amendment to undo what he himself did in Massachusetts. He has a real credibility problem on social issues.
He defended RomneyCare despite the fact that it served as the blueprint for ObamaCare. He said the first thing he would do as president would be to give a waiver from ObamaCare to all 50 states, which obviously then includes Massachusetts. So once again, he'd use the power of his office as president to undo what he did as a governor. All in all, not a sterling record of consistency and believability.
Ron Paul's policies would be a positive menace to our national security. He is clueless about the danger Islam poses to the West, and doesn't even mind if Iran nukes up. And he is one with Obama in blaming us for Iran's hatred.
In Paul's confused thinking, whatever the CIA did to Iran in 1953–1953! — explains and justifies their lasting and eternal hatred of our country. That's no different than urging us to maintain an abiding hatred of Japan because of what they did to us in 1941. It's ridiculous.This is absurd and dangerous to an alarming degree. It's hard to see how a man this out of touch with reality regarding Islam can be trusted with the power of the Oval Office.
Plus he wants to Mirandize foreign Muslims who kill us, even though they have no constitutional or Geneva Convention rights whatsoever.
Newt and Herman both gave disappointing responses when pressed on their views on Islam. Both had taken strong and correct positions in the past, and both got squishy and squirrelly last night. Grassroots Americans are aware of the threat Islam poses to the West (when Herman said sharia law does not belong in American courts, he got spontaneous applause), and are looking for a leader who understands that. It increasingly looks like neither Newt nor Herman will fill the bill.
Newt got testy when Chris Wallace exposed his flip-flop on Libya, and tried to justify his contradictory positions with an answer nobody could follow. Romney was exposed as a flip-flopper on Afghanistan. Romney continues to appear to be disconcertingly inconsistent and unpredictable, not good qualities in a chief executive.
Paul did remind us that liberty comes from the Creator. But his understanding of liberty includes the liberty to snort cocaine, shoot up heroin, and indulge in prostitution and sodomy. That's not liberty, that's bondage. His views promote license, not liberty.
Santorum was the strongest on the platform on the pro-life issue. He rightly would make no exceptions even for rape, since in America we don't punish a child for the sins of his father. He's absolutely correct.
Huntsman made himself a non-factor by admitting he has no economic plan on his website, which should have been his first order of business. He also indicated he'd be for amnesty once the border is secure, a position anathema to most conservatives. Romney repeated the canard that we are a "nation of immigrants." We're not. Eighty-five percent us were born here.
Huntsman also argued that he as governor has the best record in the field on jobs. He loses that argument once Perry gets in the race tomorrow.
Bottom line: the race is Rick Perry's to lose.
I agree with you about Gingrich. Having said that, he did well in the debate.
Perry is a sitting Governor. Perry was the head of the Republican Governors Assoc. He has contacts in every state (He wrote an Op-Ed with Nikki Haley less than a month ago)
He has an actual record as an executive to run on. He is not running on personality or on a narrow platform and he hasn't been running for the last 3 years. He's been governing one of of not the most successful states in the union.
He's very different from the other candidates in this regard, even Palin.
I am sweet, loving caring" and the back that you are showing says "I am MOM."
What is the problem with being linked to the Chamber of Commerce?
But there is a better than even chance that the Perry and Romney policy differences, which I still do not think are all that great, can be explained by the different constituencies which they represented, not their core beliefs.
Both are way to close to the country club/cheap labor/chamber of commerce wing of the party. There is a reason that most of the money from this wing of the party are going to Mitt or Rick. I don't think you can be all that enthusiastic about one without being enthusiastic about the other. Nor can you despise one without despising the other. They're pretty much two sides of the same coin which operated in vastly different environments.
You’re exactly right about Perry, and that’s why I don’t expect him to falter or fade out. It could happen, but he’s been to the party before, and he knows how to dance.
Whatever. Rick Perry would be better than what we have in there. The Republicans could trop out a cocker spaniel and I would vote for it before voting for Ovomit.
There are, to be sure, differences within RINOs, some superficial, some big. But in general, a RINO is still way better than a committed socialist Democrat because a RINO understands that a healthy private sector is absolutely necessary to generate the taxes necessary for the nanny state. Your average socialist Democrat has no such understanding.
Then whatever you get, you'll deserve.
The drive to privatize profits while dumping the costs on the public is immoral. General Electric is a prime example of this type of thinking.
How soon they forget that Perry was once a Democrat and backed Al Gore in the 1988 primaries.
Really? Here’s a look at what Perry was doing during the Reagan years: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15ttperry.html?_r=1
Sexist. Sad.
Seems like he forgets...
Bachmann was never about default on debt. Ever. Stopping spending just will force re-prioritization. And immediately, not in some mythical 10 year down the round Boehner Universe.
So just Where did you come up with that erroneous interpretation of the debate? Even Pawlenty didn't accuse her of that!
Yep... Thompson looked great, had the right positions on paper, and the right image. But he dragged his feet in entering the 2008 Presidential race, and then when he spoke, it was at 50% speed - boring - with a long drawl and clearing his throat every sentence. Thompson was an idea - but it just didn't work out.
BUMP!
I watched the debate last night in it’s entirety. Except for a few brief moments of entertainment provided by Cain and Gingrich, the whole sorry mess was a waste of my time.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the true beneficiaries of that debate were those who were not involved in it. The two most obvious such souls are Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.
Perry will enter the fray tomorrow, reportedly, and we’ll see how he does in future debates. Palin’s plans remain to be known. But last night their stars got a bit brighter, but only because the “eight dwarves” showed such little light at all.
The people that didn't join the debate are the winners?
That will really sell well.
You betcha!
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.