Posted on 12/08/2011 11:51:17 AM PST by Bigtigermike
Obviously you are not a daily listener of Rush's or you'd know that he was on her case for 10 years (almost everyday) to the point where a lot of it stuck and she was toxic even for many democrats.
I'm not saying that was bad, but it had it's effect and we ended up with Obama.
Whether she would have been better or worse than Obama is a matter of speculation, but give Rush credit for taking Hillary out.
BTW, everyone, including Democrats, knew what Rush's objectives were with Operation Chaos. But do you think that it made Democrats more or less likely to vote for Hillary in the primaries when they knew that Republicans were crossing over to vote for her?
“I have no idea if Newt is correct about this or not but I fail to see how deliberately losing to Democrats is ever a principled stand.”
Yet I have seen some FR posters pat themselves on the back for threatening to do just that if their favored one isn’t the candidate. Beyond stupid.
You don't think Medicare Part D helped clearly secure Florida?
Were you around in 1964? Goldwater was the most principled conservative anyone could have hoped for. And lost in a crushing landslide.
That election might serve as an example of why losing on principle is a long-term losing strategy. LBJ’s win led to the “Great Society” that is at the root of our current economic and social straits. The eventual election of Reagan could hardly compensate for the damage the “Great Society” has done and that is so embedded in our society that we will likely never recover.
A lame duck BHO will be even worse from a conservative perspective than LBJ ever dreamed of being.
So, I will vote for the most conservative candidate who has a shot at winning and for that I will make no apology. Newt can settle his moral failings with his God.
That is because Rush as well as many posters here figured Obama was easy to beat
Remember McCain/Palin were ahead in the polls until the economic meltdown
That is the real reason Obama won
No.
Ubama stole all the caucuses. Every single one. That's never happened before. Not even close. He won a little over half the primaries. ACORN hijacked the caucuses. They didn't even tell Hillary's delegates where and when the votes were held.
Had ACORN not stolen the caucuses, Hillary would have been the nominee with ease.
Rush had nothing to do with that, regardless of whether his telling the truth about her made her "toxic."
I don't know of many Democrats who would base their vote on Rush's opinion anyway.
All thinking Freepers need to do is listen to Obama's speech in KS. This Marxist wants to remake America in the image of Stalin's Communist Russia.
I know you mean well, but here’s what bothers me about your stance.
If presidents were 75% true to Conservative ideals during their term, at the end of five terms (only 20 years) only 23.7% of the Left’s agenda would remain needing to be implemented.
If presidents were only 66% true to Conservative ideals during their term, at the end of five terms (only 20 years) only 12.5% of the Left’s agenda would remain needing to be implemented.
This is what has been taking place IMO.
It has finally come time to take a stand and refuse to go down the same path no matter who is elected.
We have to draw a line in the sand and say, “Not one step further Left do you go with my help.” While that seems like suicide, it’s only by doing this that the Republican party are another entity will rise up and actually roll back what the Left has been doing.
Right now, our (supposed) team rolls back nothing. Instead they implement more Leftist policy.
Not with my help they won’t.
That fits Newt perfectly.
I don't think Newt believes, "The government that governs least, governs best."
Newt's solutions always involve "smarter" i.e. bigger government. I have NEVER heard him speak of outright elimination of any government agency.
There is a particular professorial arrogance about Newt. What if’s and such are academic exercises of the academic and political elite. They accomplish nothing because they can never be proven conclusively.
Newt is this way because of his academic background and because he’s never held a real job beyond being a young husband to his former teacher. Since then he’s been nothing but a political figure who has had his share of ups and downs - and the political fate and largesse that comes with.
Politicians always fall back on the bullshit they know best. When they are faced with a logical and probing questioner, they delve further into the bullshit. The questions I’d like to ask Newt are:
1. You likely will give the illegals in this country ‘legal’ status; how can you guarantee the courts won’t fully legalize them and allow them to vote. Will you further guarantee that NONE of these people will drink from the public trough?
2. You have been shown to pander to anti-gun factions; will you swear to GOD that you will not impede or alter ANY provisions, rules, regulations, etc. to change the intended meaning of the Second Amendment.
3. What is your plan to abolish all agencies in the Federal Government not specifically cited in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? What is your plan to get around the liberal court interpretations of the Commerce Clause?
These are just three; there are dozens more. He wouldn’t answer one of them truthfully.
The global warming scandal is one area I have followed closely. I have carefully listened to Newt discuss this many times in recent months. I am certain that Newt very strongly believes in AGW and that "carbon loading" is a serious issue.
Newt is outright lying when he posits a position that indicates he has changed on the matter. Believe me, if elected, he will take an extreme hard left position on AGW.
Anyone who has read "The True Believers" by Eric Hoffer can easily see that Newt is a true believer in big solutions by big government.
I am still praying a REAL conservative can somehow rise up and take the lead. Our Republic cannot survive another Statist.
O.K. I always defer to people who know everything. :)
Statistically, it can only be the result of massive fraud.
How clear do you want it to be? Newt has clearly stated he is for an individual mandate. Newt has clearly stated he agrees there is global warming the government must do something about. Newt has made it perfectly clear he is for amnesty. To deny it would be pulling a Giuliani. I'm not saying any of these things mean he should not be president, only that he is on record concerning these issues.
It has been dishonestly tagged by the Left (and stupid conservatives) as a budget-budget government power grab, but its actually hugely successful and comes in under budget. The Dems control of the press will destroy this country.
Funny, this didn’t hit the side bar until it went anti Newt.
I heard in other written reports, that he was there for two hours, fielding a wide variety of questions, and that he received a standing ovation when it was over.
Also, Newt has not backed down from tough audiences. So what is the poster’s point?
I also saw him before a Town Hall meeting in S.C. He sat up there until no one had any other questions. He took questions on ALL topics including his personal life.
So what is the poster’s point? That’s what a primary is all about—to weed out those people who are not clear in their message among other things.
I’m beginning to think that people are not dumb. Let’s face it, McCain was a terrible candidate, and the American public saw through him. They’re seeing the same things in Perry, and also there’s something about Romney that’s not registering in a positive way.
Ford was a terrible candidate and deserved to lose to Carter. Bush would have beat Clinton had the guy with long ears stayed out of it.
Good post. I agree with your thinking.
I’d much prefer to take your word than the words from a news article filled with anonymous sources. You were present at a Townhall where he fielded all questions and stayed until all questions were answered!
I met him in a receiving line in Tampa after the GOP debate, He talked to me until I had told him all that I wished to impart and he also answered my questions too. Also have a picture from the same receiving line. He posed for that too.
I met five and spoke with five of our candidates that night and all were very gracious and very nice. At this point, I am firmly for Newt Gingrich because I’m certain he is the best equipped to take it to the Marxist, win the White House and lead our country.
“Why can’t normal people post the debates?”
Because normal people aren’t as tech savvy or dedicated to the cause as the average Ron Paul supporter.
Tards? No. Just people you happen to disagree with.
If that Medicare Drug Benefit hadn’t been passed my family would have had to file bankruptcy just to pay for grandpa’s prescriptions.
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.