Keeping clinging to second tier hopefuls. You'll ensure that Mitt gets it.
Thanks for your work TBBT!
I’d go for Newt, pimples and all, anyday over Mitt. Newt shows some good traits that Mitt would not have on his best day.
I was a Fred Thompson guy the last go around. Others were Huckabee fanatics. Neither side would give an inch. South Carolina rolled around and it was all over. We done ourselves in and McCain marched away with it....
History repeats itself...
“Keeping clinging to second tier hopefuls. You’ll ensure that Mitt gets it.”
Man that hit’s it on the head!
We are eating our own here. DU, KOS, Huff and Axlerod are having a blast reading our post’s here at FR.
Time to get serious and focus on how we can get rid of Romney and Obama. Only one has that chance....NEWT!!!!
President - Gingrich
Vice President - Bachmann
Secretary of State - Bolton
Secretary of Defense - West
Secretary of Commerce - Cain
Attorney General - Issa
My primary happens on March 6 and it looks more and more like I am going to cast my vote for Newt. I still think Newt is flawed in many ways but I also believe he's got the fire in his belly to take Obama down to the mat during the general election and to beat Obama, we are going to need a fighter.
“Keeping clinging to second tier hopefuls. You’ll ensure that Mitt gets it.”
Yep...!
The land of the free has become the land of the "governed."
As we consider essential qualifications for a President at this critical point in America's history, we might consult an excerpted portion of the 1801 Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson for guidance on the seriousness of the undertaking:
(Excerpt) "Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
"About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
Now, the question is: which 2012 candidate possesses the intellectual qualifications to lead us to "retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety"?
Only a candidate who possesses an in-depth understanding of the Founders' principles can defend those principles against the counterfeit ideas of tyranny which prevail in the current Administration.
bttt
Also, the stakes are too high this year to let another "gentlemen loser" like Romney get the nomination. If we give Obama another four years, we may very well not have a democracy left in which we can have the luxury of casting a "principled" vote in ever again.
For those who fear a President Romney, don't worry about it because it isn't going to happen either way. Either Romney will lose the nomination or he'll lose to Obama in November. Choose your poison accordingly.
For even if Mitt Romney was a conservative we could get behind, he just does not have a very good track record in elections. Mitt Romney is a pushover, a milquetoast who has only won ONE election in his political career and even that was a unimpressive 5-point victory in the Massachusetts 2002 gubernatorial election against one of the biggest lightweights the Democrats ever ran in a statewide election (Shannon O'Brien). How much of a lightweight was Shannon O'Brien? Well, despite being a lifelong Massachusetts resident, I had to Google Mitt Romney's Wikipedia article to get her name because I had forgotten all about her.
Once in the governor's chair, Romney was so disinterested in the job that he didn't even run for re-election, nor did he ever prepare a successor, saddling us with the Obama-clone Deval Patrick. Romney apparently only used the governorship to impose mandatory health care, an initiative that he hoped he could use as a springboard for the 2008 presidential campaign.
That was the only political election Romney ever won. In 1994, which, remember, was a big Republican year, Romney was trounced by Ted Kennedy in a senate bid. And some Republicans think they want this guy to be their standard-bearer against Obama in 2012?
Trust me, if Romney gets this nomination, the only thing Romney will need to work on next summer is his concession speech - which is something, I might add, that he has more than a little experience with.
Romney will go down in history with John McCain and Bob Dole as just another gracious loser - a nice guy running an uninspiring campaign while the liberal Democrats kick his ass from Maine to California.
Sorry - I’m not buying.
Each election rolls around and I keep hearing that past positions and records are to be overlooked - it is the more recent statements and actions that are more meaningful. Well - that is all well and good, except in this election cycle, we are seeing “Conservatives” using this tact very selectively.
In this case - Newt supporters are clinging to a record from over a decade ago, over his much more recent and troubling ideas, statements, and positions. Since the days of the “Contract with America” and holding Clinton’s feet to the fire somewhat to, at least on paper, balance the budget - Newt has ventured far from the ranch - His positions have grown troublingly more and more “big government”. He supported RomneyCare and the individual mandate included. He dove off head-first into manmade-global warming and the associated strong support for Cap and Tax.
He is soft on illegal immigration (throwing “family values” into his defense of what is essentially another amnesty - even if not a “path to citizenship”).
Am I to also overlook his “consulting fees” from the bankrupt FreddieMac?
He stated he would have voted for the bailouts (after all - he directly benefitted from them...).
And this is all without even starting on his moral troubles since his past “successes” in Congress...
Thx TBBT
Read these again, internalize them…
…which had been held by the Republicans for only two out of the previous 62 years…
…led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928, almost 70 years…