Posted on 11/26/2011 7:57:51 PM PST by no dems
Newt did much for the Conservative movement in the 90s. People seem to forget that. His roots are Conservative and he will never be a total Moderate. The power of Washington has ruined 90% of the people who ever went there with principles and ideals. They became political whores very quickly. Newt has had a spiritual conversion, repented and is remorseful for much in his past. I’m gonna cut him some slack.
Almost overnight, the vast bulk of the illegal aliens then in country self-deported, and stayed out until LBJ opened the flood gates again with his loathsome Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.
So take your whining somewhere else.
Well sheesh! Hang in here and ignore insults. I know it’s difficult not to strike back. Consider the sources. Hit abuse and see what happens.
Primary Season is brutal. SPAM posts that few, if anyone bothers to read.
New sign on’s and multiple accounts...LOL. One just posted.
Oh my!
They fled Arizona (for the other 49) when we cracked down on employers... So I have to agree with that, if the Feds wanted to get serious, would not take deporting even 10% of them, because the rest would leave on their own when they could no longer make money and send those checks back to family in Mexico
Still using that deceptive new screen name?
WHY?
"Stick a fork in him. He’s done."
2 posted on Saturday, November 26, 2011 11:39:30 AM by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
Yes it is and it's also illegal. Be careful what is posted.
I'm not sure this is true at any cost. Obama has no chance of passing an amnesty bill. However, a president Gingrich might be able to ( oh yes, he will call it something else) with the assistance of Democrats and progressive Republicans like Boehner. I believe that if this were to happen, the economy of the US would mean little as we would be doomed to a a dominant Democrat majority progressing ever closer to a Marxist state.
Is Obama the worst among all the possibilities? I'm not certain. That's why my goal is to put in place a conservative, not just to defeat Obama.
What is this idea that some how scrutiny is not good? If we think because we don’t scrutinize our candidates that the left will follow in kind we are greatly deluded. I don’t like when crap comes out but if Bill Clinton taught us anything it can immunize a candidate in the general election if they survive it. I’ve heard it from all sides. Romney folks say don’t dare point out his record because he is our best hope, Newt folks say the same thing, Perry folks have said the same, Cain folks also (I consider myself one). This is a primary fight. What I do dislike is the criticism from our side that isn’t record based. Trying to cast a candidate as stupid because of misstatements or awkward language. Suddenly a man or woman becomes the distilled narrative defined by a handful of gaffs while other candidates who have demonstrated how horrible they are with very easy to see records of abuse of power and abridgement of liberties yet we are supposed to fear a man or woman who misstates something or doesn’t know a bit of trivia? That is what alarms me because it is at that point where we are no better than liberals.
I mean when I hear conservatives defending weak immigration policy, health care mandates, cap and trade schemes, etc it just makes me sick. Some of the vitriol and ridicule against the most liberty oriented conservative candidates like Ron Paul, Cain, and Bachmann is very counterproductive. I care less about whether a candidate is ‘serious’ in the eyes of the media and the political class and more about whether they take the Constitution and limited government seriously.
We need to stand up and choose a candidate worthy of supporting not troll out some retread politico from the 90s or some NE liberal Republican who wasn’t even a very good Governor by any measure. Does anyone think that Reagan had an easy nomination? No he was called stupid, he was called extreme but of course he was a more eloquent speaker which is an asset but I don’t know where people have gotten this idea that an ideological fight is a bad thing. The moderates in the GOP after the Reagan nomination even ran a third party candidate Anderson who took 14% of the vote. Reagan still beat Carter. Yeah I know that is a bit of history that is conveniently omitted.
Right now I’m sticking with Cain but I’m perfectly open to Paul, Bachmann and others. Let’s at least try to get someone who hasn’t supported big government like Medicare Part D, Health Care mandates, etc. The key element is to make sure We don’t follow up 2010 with a Gerald Fordesque or Nixonian Nomination which is what I see in Romney and Gingrich. Let’s try something different and have faith in our ability to make the case for conservatism and liberty in the face of socialism because no candidate will do that alone and I’m not going to pretend to go along with some throwback who wants to blur the lines. This isn’t a time for shades of grey, this is time for RED, WHITE, And BLUE!
We may not have a Reagan but by God we should demand the closest we can get.
I think the main ones that say they will sit out the election if their particular guy is not nominated are the Ron Paul supporters... Most all of the others it seems only will sit out if Mitt Romney is the Nominee...
In this Primary process, I wanted Sarah Palin, but she said no, so I am supporting Herman Cain to get the nod, but if he does not, I could grudgingly pull the lever for almost anybody but Romney, in our Countries best interest, Paul would be a stretch, but even him over Romney.
I have heard it said numerous times and completely agree, any one of our field is preferable to Obama... Romney would have to be included in that general statement, with a BARELY thrown in there, BUT running as a Conservative Republican, when he is not really and wont make the changes a REAL Conservative would make to really make the difference that is needed at this point, will hurt the Conservative movement, FAR more than he helps the country in my view.
That said, As somebody else points out, in response, I said that about McCain until he picked Palin and I went ahead and voted for our best interests and cast my vote for her... I just cant imagine right now, who Romney would have to pick though, because as bad as I did not want to see McCain get the nod, Mitt was again the One I did not feel I could vote for under ANY circumstances.
If Romney does get the nod, I will still go vote to try to vote in other real conservative, tea party types for other local and national seats but the Presidential boxes will most likely remain unchecked if it ends up being Romney vs Obama... I am done giving my vote out to ANY Career Politician at this point... and that goes for every one of my Congress and Senators that are up for re-election too!
local boards?
Thats just ridiculous, how many times have we been told this is a federal issue?
lol
Not much about these candidates to be excited about.
I recall a question asked at about this point in the 2000 cycle ... who is the president of Pakistan? Bush didn't know. But he sure as hell found out, in due time!
Bump
“Herman Cain’s only major shortcoming is a lack of knowledge/background on foreign affairs. It is a problem which can easily be overcome by appointing somebody like John Bolton as Secretary of State.”
or just any random freeper :/
That really worked well for folks in the last election huh?
A sanity vanity;).
Well done ‘no dems’.
Good vanity - it says all I’ve been trying to say in a single place. The “purists” (that will earn me more flaming) will kill us all.
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.