Posted on 12/17/2011 12:08:08 PM PST by Jim Robinson
First there was the Reagan Revolution, then Newt's Republican Revolution, and now the Tea Party Revolution.
In each successive revolution, the lovers of liberty threw off a bit more of the yoke of the oppressive ruling class to reestablish some vital part of our God given liberty and freedom.
Pro-life, small government, big defense Ronald Reagan set and accomplished the goal of bringing down the socialist Soviet Union as a threat to the world and reestablished free America as the dominate superpower. He rescued America from the hapless Jimmy Carter who had dragged the nation down into to the depths of despair. Reagan taught us that our best years were indeed yet to come. He reinvigorated our economy by reducing government regulations and taxes and created a free market environment ripe for capitalism to flourish. A lover of life and freedom, he fought off the socialists and merchants of doom and death at every turn and sparked the beginning of the decades long Reagan Economy. He was a champion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and he delivered us from evil.
Pro-life, small government, big defense Reaganite, Newt Gingrich, set and accomplished the major goal of wresting the congressional majority away from the socialist Democrats who had held it for forty years. His conservative Republican Revolution cut the taxes, cut the spending, cut the deficit, cut unemployment, blocked President Clinton's progressive agenda, blocked HillaryCare, reformed welfare, defended life, and balanced the budget four years running, ensuring that the Reagan Economy flourished and stretched throughout his term and beyond.
Mitt Romney set goals of protecting and sustaining abortion as safe and legal in America. He sought to be more radical than Ted Kennedy in respects to "gay rights." He swore to defend Massachusetts' strict gun-control laws that "kept us safe" and promised not to chip away at them. He set and accomplished the goal of bringing big government healthcare solutions to his state and mandating that all formerly free citizens must purchase a government approved product or suffer a tax penalty. He loves mandates against the people.
He stated that he was an independent during Reagan-Bush and he was not returning to Reagan-Bush. And he didn't. Instead, he delivered taxpayer funded abortion, gay marriage, gun-control, socialized healthcare, busted budgets, ruined economy, liberal activist judges and a destroyed Republican label.
Romney was and is demonstrably per record an anti-Reagan, pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-gun-control, anti-liberty, pro-socialist healthcare, mandate-loving, liberal judge appointing, budget busting progressive.
He is without a doubt the exact opposite of Reagan, Gingrich, the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Revolution and the Tea Party Revolution.
If the Tea Party now embraces Romney, it will have accepted defeat and surrendered to the ruling class.
There is a reason why the elite establishment GOPers are pushing the anti-Reagan Romney and rejecting the pro-life, Reaganite Newt Gingrich. And I guarantee you, it's not in the best interest of the Tea Party or the Liberty we seek.
Not on my watch!! No Romney, no way!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
Romney would be much better-suited giving Obama a primary challenge than the Republicans. It’d be good for the Democrat party too, helping them move back to the left from communist.
This is one of the problems with the structure of the Tea Party. Both Romney and Ron Paul like to claim they’re the Tea Party candidate. Since the Tea Party isn’t an organization with a declared leader, they have no way of refuting these people. That’s just one thing that makes me think the Tea Party needs to become a lot more of an official party than it is right now. If not an actual 3rd party, can it at least become an organization that could hold some kind of election to determine who its leadership and spokespeople are? If there’s a membership fee with money that would be donated to whoever the Tea Party-endorsed candidate is, that should keep liberals from spamming the voting process and also add some more incentive for candidates to support the Tea Party’s platform.
I take it this means the people who warned me I’d get bounced for supporting Newt were, ummmm, slightly misinformed? ;-)
Hank
If I knew Romney wasn’t a used cars salesman when it came to politics...and he was what he said he was...then I would vote for him in a second, but we all know the truth. I just hope Newt holds on and the attacks don’t phase him.
That was a great read!!! Thanks for not being a sell out like so many ‘conservative’ we see in politics and the media.
I would support Santorum though he has litle chance, I stood up for Cain till he quit (maybe after even), Would have supported Palin, Bachman’s polices are fine.
Now I’m for Newt, just my honest impression though that he’s fading.
I’m not a Romney hater but even believng his current conservative positions I have doubts about his leadership qualities, he’s too much of a spoiled rich boy phoney.
If we want Newt I pray we all do everything to win him the nomination. I’m not voting Obama or third party. Obama must go.
The American people are waking up and they know our country is on the brink - and they know who put us there.
They're not looking for svelte - They're looking for someone with experience, a true statesman in the original sense, a father figure, if you will, that can stop this madness...
They won't be doing a 'personality' vote this time.
that post is too pitiful for a real reply
People like her and Nikki Haley - for O'Donnell, who suffered the slings and arrows of the Establishment - she knows she'll never win dog-catcher unless she pays dues to the Establishment - and as for Nikki - sold her soul for big promises?
Remember all the bribes and pay offs the demRat dd for O'bummerCare?
They've sold their souls -
Truth be told...tell it like it is Mr. Jim! Awesome post!
Go Newt!!!!!! Go!!!!
re Coulter - it’s really much simpler than that long scenario ;o)
She’s part of the champagne circle in DC.
Newt will take all the bubbles out of their champagne...He won’t appoint ONE member from the Establishment Ivy League Cabal.
Their decades old reign will be over - for the foreseeable future - especially any of them alive today. They are in a panic.
The only future they see is the dustbin of history.
Here we go again. ;o)
Please, at least let’s us Freepers know and tell the truth...
Newt was hired as a consultant when the bank were looking for a way to help people learn how to work, to save and to buy a house - then the process took a turn when the banks got sued and made to adopt the sub-prime loans - giving, ‘gifting’ not ‘low income’ but even ‘no income’, no credit loans.
Newt’s advice - “that’s insane...”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/gingrich-fires-back-at-lobbying-charge/
Now, dig back to just WHO it was that made the banks give those loans? Was it Newt? hardly. Was it the banks? They didn’t want to do it.
Does Acorn and CRA strike a bell? The banks were taken to court on the charge that they were “Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage)...”
Starting to get the drift?
And who was their lawyer that took it to court? Can you handle the truth?
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
Don't underestimate your endorsement Mr. Jim.....some people do vote based on who endorses who and that includes here on FR, not to mention the lurkers.
I'll not forget your words when first coming to FR regarding Sarah....you raised a question...that question steered me to a favorable end.
So I disagree ...your endorsement does matter to some who could very well make a difference. No doubt someone in the press will pick it up as well....
It can be argued that the most “charismatic” candidate has won every presidential election since at least 1980. Putting policy completely aside, wouldn’t most people of both parties agree that the winner of all the below presidential match-ups was the most likable or charming candidate? Perhaps the most likely to succeed as a salesman?
Obama/McCain
Bush/Kerry
Bush/Gore
Clinton/Dole
Clinton/Bush/Perot
Bush/Dukakis
Reagan/Mondale
Reagan/Carter
Half of the above winners were older than the loser, so that charisma factor isn’t solely based on youth. I think it’s accepted that Lloyd Bentsen won the debate against Dan Quayle by using his age and experience in his favor and having more memorable lines and better rhetoric.
Good looks might be a more important factor than age. Arguably every one of the last 8 winners would be rated as better-looking than the loser. However, looking at the V.P. races, you can point to Bentsen/Quayle where the gravitas factor seemed to overwhelm the looks disadvantage. Perhaps the same could be said about the Cheney/Edwards debate.
It seems to come down to which candidate “connects” with voters more. Newt has done a very good job in the primary reinventing himself and reconnecting with voters based on the strength of his communication skills and rhetoric. He shows gravitas up against Romney and the others. He would probably exhibit the same qualities against Obama, leading to a Bentsen/Quayle style result in the debate. Remember these results from a focus group done on Republican voters:
“When asked what relative Gingrich reminded them of, several Republicans said a favorite uncle or a grandfather. They described Romney as a “missing father” or a second cousin.”
Again, you have to look at Romney’s electoral history. Read “Overestimating Romney” in the Weekly Standard at the link below. Romney becomes LESS popular the more that voters get to know him. He’s lost 17 out of 22 elections and was an unpopular one-term governor. He doesn’t “connect” with the public. He seems to have that same out-of-touch air about him that Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, or Bush Sr. in his 2nd run had. With Romney, it seems like we’d be setting ourselves up for a Clinton/Bush style defeat.
While Newt would have to buck the trend on the best-looking candidate being the winner at the top of the ticket, there is evidence from the V.P. races to show that can be done. The reality is that Obama has extreme charisma and the public still likes him personally. NONE of our candidates can beat Obama on sheer charisma, not one. If we place our bets on that, we are sure to lose. In order for us to win, the country either has to be doing badly at the moment of the election, or we need to be able to articulate why Obama’s policies will produce bad long-term results. Therefore we’re either going to win by default no matter who we nominate, or we need to nominate the most skilled communicator that we have. In either case the choice is clear, Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2818702/posts
You may be right. IDK. I’m just summarizing what she said.
I have respected Ann for a long time. I found FR through her. So her support of Romney really bothers me. I’ve given it much thought. Here’s what I suspect.
I don’t think she has a clue how close to actual rebellion and revolution we really are. I think she’s examining the future through what she sees as a slow, methodical, incremental reversal of liberalism’s consequences. She believes the return to conservatism can be accomplished through the election of centrist moderates if those are our choices. She sees Romney as the only choice of the current slate who can attract Obama voters and begin the reversal.
She doesn’t understand the mood of fly-over country. She doesn’t see that we can’t and won’t accept that slow reversal. We’re fed up. We want nothing less than a total overhaul and a return to founding principles. And there’s the trouble because the liberals want the same in the opposite direction. Ann doesn’t seem to understand that we are no longer willing to go along to get along for small victories. And that’s sad because the liberals understand it perfectly.
God bless her. I hope she wakes the hell up ... and soon.
If not us, then who? If not now, then when? That’s where we are.
I think you’re probably right - they live in such a make believe, encapsulated world, they haven’t a clue about who or what we are out here in the real world.
Also, can we please remind ourselves what actual lawmakers received political donations from Freddie and Fannie? Let’s not forget that as of 2008, B.O. was the #2 recipient of donations from them, and that’s going back cumulatively all the way to 1989! There is a difference between collecting fees as a private citizen who’s not representing the people or voting on anything vs. receiving campaign donations as an elected official who’s voting on the country’s policy.
All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1. Dodd, Christopher $165,400
2. Obama, Barack $126,349
3. Kerry, John $111,000
The bottom line is if our election process is going to come down to which party can pick the best-looking candidate in the name of electability, we are screwed. Our only hope long-term is to nominate people of substance who can potentially talk the public out of that kind of senselessness.
I believe you’re correct. However, Ann doesn’t seem to be concerned about Romney’s connection with conservative voters who don’t trust him. She seems to think he’ll connect with 2008 Obama voters. She thinks that’s how we’ll win ... by attracting those who are disenchanted with Obama. IMHO, that’s the wrong goal for conservatives. Disenchanted Obama voters are not going to help us, in ANY way, to return to founding principles. To be down right crude about it, disenchanted Obama voters can “get bent” as far as I am concerned.
Not to mention, that’s an argument for nominating Hilary Clinton as our candidate. No one else could attract as many disenchanted Obama voters as her. What happened to standing up for principles, fighting to defend them and sell the country on them?
In addition, how does it help us with Senate and House races if we attract disenchanted Obama voters to the polls? Just maybe we can get them to hold their nose and vote Romney, but they’re just as likely to vote for Democratic congressmen to “balance” him out. And we all know how well Mr. “My Hands Were Tied” Romney knows how to “work with” a liberal legislature.
Bingo. Great points.
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.