Posted on 11/24/2011 7:02:14 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
Romney and Perry have had the most infamous, heated, and replayed spats of this debate season. Neither came out looking good for their efforts. Perry came out on the loosing end and looked worse for a multitude of reasons. It helped to cement the notion that the guy could not think on his feet. It played heavily in the narrative about his 4 poor debate performances. Above all else, these are the reasons that Perry tanked. His policy positions were at best secondary to his fall.
I don't know why this should surprise anyone...they all do it in one form or another and it's always been that way on both sides of the aisle. But I think Newt is intent on winning and he wants the job...moreso he wants this nation turned of the course it's on. There is the hispanic vote and he's going after it...I would too and so would most...and he's certainly got a plan to address the immigration issue which is doable.
I agree. The attack on Romney was not consistent with Perry’s personality and therefore did not play well.
He’s come up with the most innovative ideas lately and I like everything about them. His flat tax was conceived with Steve Forbes and Forbes knows the economy.
His ideas for reducing the size of government, the size of the staffs of congressmen and women and trying to go back to the citizen congress like we have in Texas are excellent, though how easy to enforce that would be I don’t know.
He’s done some excellent things in Texas regarding family issues like getting rid of Planned Parenthood and passing tort reform.
And he does have executive experience, and unlike the other former governor, he’s never promoted national health care.
Getting rid of Obama care is a huge issue for me, as I just found out that I am a UNIT.
Uh, sorry, but going right back to shilling for amnesty is hardly the sign of a clean slate. And moving on is a line right out of the DNC playbook when they want you to forget the past.
I am not standing on the steps of a church casting judgement on whether Newt should be admitted in the front door - I am standing in my own personal POLITICAL judgement whether a long-time Beltway insider such as Newt is the right choice to be the 2012 GOP nominee.
And it is disingenuous to blur that distinction.
Yeah, I’m sticking with Newt as my second choice although with reservations that have little to do with his plan for illegals.
He does need to trim the gut though. My daughter noticed it and posted on facebook that he needs to consulte Jenny Craig.
Thanks for the link. Sounds like no matter who we put up, they all have issues with which they’re going to take a beating for.
If that happens, I can’t wait to see how that plays here.
There is a huge advantage to not worshipping nor hating any of our folks - and not being obsessed with candidates per se. That is, you can watch all of this unfold and not get your undies in a wad. Those who are obsessed with loving or hating certain folks don’t have that advantage.
That’s rather shallow
>> I am standing in my own personal POLITICAL judgement whether a long-time Beltway insider such as Newt is the right choice to be the 2012 GOP nominee. >>
That is a perfectly reasonable position and one shared by many. In fact, many who might support Newt probably agree with you at least in part on that - which is why they might not support Newt.
So why over state or over dramatize his immigration position simply to vent? It cheapens your entire position intellectually, and as stated above, you have a perfectly sound intellectual argument as a basis.
I would have thought that a rational and deliberate approach to solving problems was the bedrock of consdervatism. The vituperative reaction I see on this forum against Newt suggests otherwise. Either those folks have to stop calling themselves conservatives or conservatism is going to remain so weighted down with its own stone age ignorance it will never fly again.
None of the candidates on that stage are perfect. In the end, the chosen candidate is going to be a compromise. The ability to inspire will be a key factor in who that eventual candidate will be. I don’t see the ankle biting tactics of a desperate candidate wining they day.
Whatever it is...and has been for quite some time, is what caused me to first walk away from any and all support for her. I never thought until she started her negative in-party campaigning that she was a bad candidate. I now consider her among the loons. She and a few others continue to break the Ronald Reagan Rule of in-party negative campaigning. Funny thing is, she's got about as much chance as howdy doody to make the party nomination. I hope once she is done campaigning she at least does something constructive to help the GOP beat Obama. Newt has his liberal moments...but is a far cry from Obama and also Romney and Hunstman.
Well, people are shallow. Newt is short and someone said he reminded them of a garden gnome ... now that was shallow.
I just think he needs to present a good appearance.
>> I would have thought that a rational and deliberate approach to solving problems was the bedrock of consdervatism. The vituperative reaction I see on this forum against Newt suggests otherwise. Either those folks have to stop calling themselves conservatives or conservatism is going to remain so weighted down with its own stone age ignorance it will never fly again. >>
You have identified what I call “the ugly conservative” syndrome of those who “luxuriate in the purity of their own irrelevance.” On issues like immigration and abortion, these folks will deny the opportunity to incrementally improve the immigration situation or incrementally save lives by insisting on an all or nothing strategy. And they get very ugly and vitriolic about it too, claiming an moral high ground when in fact they are only claiming an intellectual pit.
We have way too many illegals and we kill way too many babies. Both of these problems are many decades in the making. Both will take at least some time to reverse. But the only way to eat an elephant is a bite at a time. Some folks insist we swallow it whole or not at all.
People like Perry's stand against the EPA.
They wanted to believe that the corruption and liberal meanderings that Perry’s longtime conservative opponents accused him of could not possibly be true in the same man.
Perry's debate performance disabused them of that notion and forced them to look honestly and openly to see if he was indeed a corrupt crony capitalist and open borders globalist.
The majority have determined that he is.
Perhaps she has nothing to lose by pointing out the truth.
These people have spent months..pounding the back roads of Iowa..pressing the flesh....it's a miserable existence..so..they can blow off steam...
Actually, it's good training for the surviving candidates..how to handle these attacks.
As I've said here several times..go back to 2000, the SC campaign...McCain was excoriated by conservatives, especially here on FR for his vile campaign against Bush, but I think that actually helped Bush..toughened him up for the race against Gore...Bush, up until then, was pretty much a local Texas figure...minimal national exposure...so he, and his staff, got a taste of what was to come..
That is rational, well thought out, reasonable, and based in reality.
Therefore, you are surely a closet pro abort, muzzie loving, amnesty supportin’ Mittens stooge RINO!!!! /sarc
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.