Posted on 01/04/2012 2:42:58 PM PST by Syncro
IOWA SHOWS REPUBLICANS DETERMINED TO BEAT OBAMA
January 4, 2012It's been a mixed week for Mitt Romney's campaign. On one hand, Romney won Iowa, but on the other, he was endorsed by John McCain.
Until the first actual votes were cast Tuesday night, it appeared as if some elements of the Republican Party were becoming the mirror image of a liberal mob.
The wild swings -- at least in the polls -- from one populist right-winger to another suggested that some Republicans were determined to change the meaning of "conservative" from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues, determined to punish the country for its impurities."
Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama's birth certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.
And if there's anyplace for a zealot to shine, it's in a caucus state like Iowa.
But Romney won -- in a razor-close finish with another plausible candidate, Rick Santorum.
The reason the Iowa caucuses rarely produce the party's eventual nominee is not because Iowans are wacky white Christians, as some in the media have claimed, but because caucuses are ridiculous ways to choose a presidential candidate. It is a process that empowers the pushy and loud, much like a Manhattan co-op board meeting, but, unfortunately, not like anything envisioned by our founding fathers.
Instead of arguing for hours in public with partisans in order to cast a ballot, voters are supposed to put on their shoes, fight off the Black Panthers on the way to their precincts, vote in private and go home.
So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won. Read More »
I am a technological ignoramus. Thanks for copying and posting it and for your kind words and for everything you do here.
Thank you both.
I didn’t want to be impudent but I thought your comments so excellent they just had to be on JR’s thread. My pleasure to copy them for others to read. Thank you!
Thanks for posting Syncro. I have no doubt that some of the posters on this thread are lurking trolls that are here just to make trouble. But I’m really disappointed at the spectacle of some long-time FReepers who are on the Death-to-Ann bandwagon. One difference in opinion and they seem to be advocating a lynching for Ann. What about the 250 articles she has written they previously gushed over? Easily swayed single issue voters eat this stuff up but I’m surprised so many FReepers stoop to the level using terms like ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ regarding Ann.
Frankly, I’m embarrases by it.
Thanks for posting Syncro. I have no doubt that some of the posters on this thread are lurking trolls that are here just to make trouble. But I’m really disappointed at the spectacle of some long-time FReepers who are on the Death-to-Ann bandwagon. One difference in opinion and they seem to be advocating a lynching for Ann. What about the 250 articles she has written they previously gushed over? Easily swayed single issue voters eat this stuff up but I’m surprised so many FReepers stoop to the level using terms like ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ regarding Ann.
Frankly, I’m embarrases by it.
The good thing is that they get countered.
It's interesting that a poster who called her one of those hateful names says that Coulter sullies this form.
The real sulliers of FR are those that resort to calling names because they are incapable of debating FR members, imagine if they came face to face with Coulter.
Probably pee their pants.
“Don’t send me anymore of your sick FR mails exressing your perverted mind.”
Oh please. Stop acting like a dirty old man on the forum. Act and think like an adult, not a teenage with a crush.
And don’t call me what you obviously are!
I've had my picture taken with Palin, Bachmann and scores of women (and men.)
(I can't help it if hot babes like me)
And we are all happy and smiling.
I'm not interested in any of them in the way you apparently would be.
You are not the first person who seeming lives vicariously through me...
Stay in the basement, the world will be safer.
And stop calling a best selling author and columnist a slut just because you can't seem to be able to counter her proclamations.
I would have asked to have your juvenile rant/nameCalling/zotSyncro/JimBanCoulter post removed if not for the fact that the owner of this forum used it to bring you down a notch or 2.
: > )
No telling what you will read into that...
“The real sulliers of FR are those that resort to calling names because they are incapable of debating FR members, imagine if they came face to face with Coulter.”
No, I wouldn’t “wet my pants”, I would walk away and ignore her because she disgusts me. Nothing she says is of interest to me. I am NOT a troll. I chose to use the word “whore” because I think it is metaphorically true. Do I thing Coulter is a “whore” in her personal life...I don’t know or even care. All I care about is what she writes and publishes. I have NEVER gushed over her, and have always mistrusted her...long before (pre 2008) it became apparent she wasn’t really conservative but merely using us as a means to sell books.
I am pro-traditional morality(Judeo-Christian), pro-life, pro-family (heterosexual/monogamous), pro-military (still serving in reserve), pro-National Defense, and pro second ammendment. I can’t stand libertarians like Ron Paul. I consider Romney to be more of a danger to conservatism than Obama. So, to me, shilling for Romney is a high crime.
Personnally, I think Newt would be the best choice right now for POTUS. However, I also like Santorum. Perry is a good man, but I don’t think he is nimble on his feet to debate Mr. Obama.
Now if that makes me a troll....then I guess I will have to own the title. I am 45% Moral/Social conservative, 35% National Defense Conservative, and 20% fiscal conservative. That sets my voting priorities.
“No telling what you will read into that...”
I don’t put much stock in psycho-babble and won’t attempt to analyze you. You do strike me as a braggart. BTW - President Reagan is blurred. The picture would be much better is the woman (I really don’t know who she is) and yourself was not in it. Ronald Reagan was a great man - you don’t belong in the same picture with him.
The fact that Coulter is a best seller, doesn’t count for squat. There a multitudes of extreme liberals that can claim the same. Does that entitle them to a pass on bad error??? Your logic is flawed. She supports the enemy. She is no better than “Tokyo Rose.”
Ha, ha. Well said.
Take care.
“It’s all politics son. I’ve had my picture taken with Palin, Bachmann and scores of women (and men.)”
Oh, a political junkie. Well I suggest you get a picture standing next to wack job Ron Paul. You might actually look presentable standing next to him.
First of all, lets get this straight:“The real sulliers of FR are those that resort to calling names because they are incapable of debating FR members, imagine if they came face to face with Coulter.” You left this part out: Probably pee their pants.
No, I wouldn’t “wet my pants”
You admit you are one of the "real sulliers" with that answer. OK, that's a given anyway.
I chose to use the word “whore” because I think it is metaphorically true. Do I thing Coulter is a “whore” in her personal life...I don’t know or even care.
Yet you called her a slut, which you conviently left out. Which is a comment on her personal life.
Unless she is a metaphoric slut. Try to justify that one "only the truth"...what an ironic name you chose.
Oh and I have never gushed over anyone, on this fourm or in real life. That's not the way I roll
Well you have good bone fides, I will give you that.
Your slection of propler candidates is right on.
But calling Coulter a slut is over the line, and downright trollish behaviour.
Well you certainly did in FR mail!
And you are the first person that has ever PM'd me with the word penis.
I hope you are a woman...
You do strike me as a braggart. BTW - President Reagan is blurred. The picture would be much better is the woman (I really don’t know who she is) and yourself was not in it.
LOL@braggart...
Here's a bit of a clue for you.
The picture was taken so there would be a picture of me with a great conservative that I met at that event, Carrie Prejean, Miss California.
Fortuantely there was a pic of RR on the wall that we could "frame."
Yup, I'm a political junkie, and proud to be so.
So much in fact that I document my political travels with pictures, reports (Many here at Free Republic.) Sorry that gets yer panties in a bunch, oh well.
It's sad to see a poster who exhibits good political sense re candidates, but then at the same time is the “Tokyo Rose” of Free Republic.
Unfortunately I enjoy playing with the posters that get all verklempt over Coulte---plus on threads I post I like it when they bump the thread, exposing themselves (no pun intended! lol) as “sulliers” in the process.
“But calling Coulter a slut is over the line, and downright trollish behaviour.”
I do not apologize for calling Coulter a “slut” because I meant it metaphorically in regards to her “loose political morals.” I will apologize for the appearance that I was trying dodge saying it. I consider “slut” and “whore” to be synonymous. I responded to the “sully” remark because I have, on several occassions, said that she “sullies” this forum.
Like I said before, I don’t know what Ms. Coulter is like in her private life and I don’t care.
She trashed Newt recently because she is enamored with Romney. That is what really pushed me to become firmly convinced she isn’t a real conservative, but has been merely assuming a personna to sell books. Plus, I know this is highly debated amoung conservatives, she IMO gave aid and comfort to the homosexual agenda. Thus, I don’t believe she should be given “air time” on this forum.
I do not have a hidden agenda. I am deeply worried about the moral decline of our culture (the repeal of DADT being an example) and also about us becoming vulnerable because of an ever weakening military (at 57 I’m still serving in the Reserve). Most times moral issues are my first concern. However, in this cycle, until Santorum won Iowa, no moral conservative was viable. So, National Security became my front issue. I have watched many of the debates, and Newt seems to be the most capable. I concluded that I would feel safest with Newt and CinC. I still feel that way even though I really like Santorum. Peronally, I think a Gingrich/Santorum ticket would be a winner...it is something I can get behind.
Ann is messing with that....by trashing Newt and blowing the horn for Romney. She needs to be corrected or silenced. Has she gone after Santorum yet? I couldn’t deal with reading her after the Newt thing. BTW - I am NOT a fan of Newt...I just think he is the best choice with the right mix of priorities. Anyway, I want to see the primary stop being such a mess. I want Romney & Paul stopped cold quickly so we can get Mr. Obama out of office.
Until Coulter can get her head on straight, she needs to feel the disdain of conservatives. If we allow her to continue, uncorrected, we harm our own best interests.
FR carries clout. Were she banned from FR, it just might be what it takes to get her either corrected or silenced. That is why I take such a strong stand against Coulter.
Most certainly I have not been as amiable towards you and others on this forum regarding Coulter. That is not something I am glad of. Also, please realize that I find the term “hot” as being vulgar. I read a wonderful editorial by a lady the other day that describes how we have started to show a preference to “hot” over “pretty.” “Pretty” implies attractiveness plus modesty and innocence. “Hot” implies just sexuality, and not in the right expression there of. We need to get back to seeing women(especially the young ones) as “pretty” and not “hot.” Sarah Palin is a “pretty” woman...it degrades her to the level of stripper/prostitute to call her “hot.” Sarah Palin is a virtuous “lady.” IF Ann Coulter is truly “hot, hot, hot” then she is a form of pornography. That is really crude.
She’s lost her ever loving mind or she ‘s fallen in love with a liberal.
You are wrong on almost all of that.
Your interpertation of "hot" just shows your preverted lack of communication skills in that area.
You act all rightous and indignant here on the forum, yet continue to send me vulgar FR mails.
She (Coulter) needs to be corrected or silenced
Have you read this thread and the past few of the postings of Coulter's columns?
She has been corrected many, many times.
Silencing people is what leftists do, Free Republic is NOT a leftist website.
FR carries clout. Were she banned from FR...
Being as you can not let that go, I would suggest that you tell Mr. Robinson in no certain terms that he MUST ban Coulter or you will no longer post here.
PS: Your rationalization for calling Ms Coulter names is quite weak. It was wrong to call names. Expecially those.
It degrades you, not her.
I must confess to a certain degree of disappointment. You asked about my views on the remaining candidates. I gave you a short answer that was somewhat indeterminate (as I recall) except as to the evils of Romney and you wrote back correctly pointing out that I gave you an answer that did not discuss who I was FOR.
I then sat down and wrote a very lengthy post (#145) more than twenty-four hours ago as to Santorum, Gingrich and Perry and their respective strengths and weaknesses and my preference to comply with your quite reasonable request. It took a long time to compose the answer because I was deciding among them as I wrote the answer. I concluded for the reasons expressed there that if I had to vote today for one of them it would be Santorum. That post of mine also had the virtue of responding to JimRob's original request.
I don't expect JimRob to take the time to respond to my post or to any individual's post. JimRob also has a life to live and can't be expected to spend all his time answering our posts.
OTOH, I did expect that you, Recovering Democrat, would honor my effort at least enough to acknowledge that I had replied extensively to your question in exactly the terms you requested. I am probably being overly sensitive here but I generally don't make a habit of being overly sensitive.
I certainly concede that I despise the phony that is Slick Willard. I am almost incapable of posting without saying so but the overwhelming majority of #145 is directed to the respective virtues of Gingrich, Perry and my preferred candidate Rick Santorum. You may disagree with my analysis but I did a lot of work developing it in response to your questions and expressed no disrespect for you whatsoever in doing so. If anything, quite the contrary.
Recovering_Democrat is still working through the twelve step recovery program. He’s progressed through about 6 of the steps. Give him time.
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.