Posted on 12/06/2011 3:15:45 PM PST by RobinMasters
Asked for a source never mind.
Trump = charlatan
Romney = phony and fraud.
I don’t blame Romney, or any of the others that don’t choose to kiss Trumps ring. Who made Trump the Godfather of the Republican Party? I would love it if Newt was the only one to show up and nobody watched.
I believe there is some heavy handed pressure being applied right now, and it is being wielded out of sheer panic, by the establishment Republicans, and this Trump venue for a debate is the first show down for some reason. Romney is in complete debt to the establishment by whom he is owned lock, stock and barrel. He appears where they tell him to appear. Newt’s numbers have got to be crushed soon, or the myth that Mitt is the inevitable nominee can not be perpetrated on the voters. Rove’s knees are knocking over Newt’s rise.
Fixed it
You know, when all is said and done, that may have been her "unorthodox campaign" strategy all along. She's well known for having some of the best instincts in politics.
If the MSM is successful in derailing Newt, I think the calls for her to step into the race will become a roar to loud to ignore.
Your envy is showing.
He won’t be missed and is making a mistake.
Sorry but I am with Rush on this one. The establishment and the Marxist Democrats don’t like being dissed. They are perfectly happy to see our candidates line up dutifully in liberal venues alone, for all debates. The Democrat always has the friendly panel advantage and the Republican candidate is chopped liver. Always and forever it has been this way and we have all bitched about it, asking why do our candidates subject themselves to an obvious set up to be paraded for laughs in front of a media panel who despises them and us.
Well now things are changing. Our candidates have been seen in greater depth, to be more fluent, and laying out conservatism in spades, but well outside of the usual snake pit. Trump is not interested in propping up Obama, no way, no how. This fact alone means an advantage for our candidates. None of them are afraid of questions, but please, clown or not, Trump can be deadly serious on everything from the birth certificate to the economy to the ineptness of the Marxists, and for this reason Trump’s interests are not served by setting our people up for a fall.
That said, what I DO appreciate is someone who will speak in plain language, not politcal double-speak/word-parsing, and ask tough questions on the issues THAT MATTER.
NO State-Run-Media moderator will do ANYTHING but what they are INSTRUCTED TO DO, and INSTRUCTED TO ASK AS QUESTIONS.
Common sense prevails, here.
Another source: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/6.html
(miss wrote last post Trump approx $3 billion not $7 billion)
http://www.huliq.com/3257/91937/donald-trumps-net-worth-goes-worlds-richest-ranking-goes-down
Trump is more wealthy than Romney, just pointing this out because apparently is means much to you how much money Romney has.
Of course, Newt has done more for conservatism than any of the other candidates. He has stood in the media sights far longer and only Palin and Bush has taken more flak from it. He is not my favorite but the truth must be said. Now more than ever is the time for experience in government.
Neither of the allegedly non-poor candidates has a whisper of a chance and I like them both especially Rick. But I might like to see Michelle run with Newt.
You probably will, unless he picks Santorum, which is doubtful.
So you prefer reality-show “debates” emceed by Left-wing “journalists” who do their level-best to mock any actual conservative candidate, I take it?
Typically you want to pick someone who is from a big state from a different part of the country. Santorum is from a big state so that makes sense too but he lost. Perry might be a good pick, too. I do like Michelle’s no nonsense approach though.
I’m with you and Rush on this also. I’ve had enough of the liberal media as moderators, with their presumption that the Obama approach is the norm and a more conservative viewpoint must be questioned and ridiculed. Trump will be interesting, and Willard can skip the debate at his peril.
Trump is out for Trump. Period.
I agree with you on almost everything else. I am all for going for better venues for the debates, I am cool with successful business people or conservative think tanks hosting these forums. I loved the concept of a Tea Party debate. What I am absolutely not in favor of is a having a clown like Donald Trump, who STILL claims (and is sending out solicitations to this effect) that he may run 3rd party for President, hosting our debates. Trump is a realityTV host, not someone serious presidential candidates should want moderating a debate for them. This will backfire badly.
Look, I want to marginalize the leftist MSM more than most people. I really like the idea of going around them and not allowing northeastern liberals to frame the debate. But Donald Trump is nothing but bad news.
You say: “And we all know how yesterday Trump b#tchslapped Tokyo Rove into next week.”
http://www.trn1.com/uploads/mp3/showclips/120611LAURATRUMP.mp3
“But I might like to see Michelle run with Newt.”
You probably will, unless he picks Santorum, which is doubtful.
*******************************************
Two reasons why the above will not likely happen.
The VP is usually seen as/often is the next president.
Michelle will probably lose by a large margin...is it wise to choose someone that wasn’t able to pull more support?
Second, Newt has already mentioned someone he is seriously contemplating for the ticket - and it would be brilliant.
(Rubio has said he wouldn’t run)
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.