Posted on 01/05/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Tea party favorite and pro-life conservative Sarah Palin and her family were viciously attacked to the point she chose not to run.
Congressional Tea Party Caucus leader and constitutional pro-life conservative Michele Bachmann had early promise, but I guess came across as too "shrill" and consequently her numbers driven down to the point she exited.
Successful pro-life conservative Texas Governor Perry hit the race at the top but due to missteps and less than stellar debate performances soon fizzled and is now all but gone.
Pro-life conservative businessman Cain and his famous 9-9-9 plan had promise, but was driven out due to indefensible allegations.
Pro-life Reagan Revolution conservative Newt Gingrich reinvigorated his campaign and soared to the top of the national polls, but was unacceptable to the establishment and apparently also unacceptable to the "true conservatives" among us and his numbers are now plummeting
You'd think "unquestionably" pro-life, pro-family conservative Rick Santorum whose recent surge took him to a tie in Iowa and who's now surging in the national polls might be good enough to stand against Romney for the base, but looks like there are "true conservatives" now attacking HIM as not good enough.
Well, drive them all out and who's left?
Huntsman? Who? Moonbat Paul?
Ideas anyone? Should we all continue attacking the conservatives we don't like until we drive them all out?
Personally, I could easily have lived with Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt or Santorum and would be proud to enthusiastically support any of them, warts and all. Any one of them is infinitely better than Obama or Romney.
But if we don't land on one soon and raise him up over Romney, guess who we're going to be stuck with? And it ain't going to be pretty. And if abortionist/statist/progressive Romney (or moonbat Paul) is the one, might as well get used to four more years of Obama. I won't vote for or support either one of those two.
I'd suggest that we all stop trying to tear down the other conservative candidates in the race and instead concentrate on trying to build up our own personal favorites. Who knows? May even discover an acceptable conservative (if not a great conservative) in the bunch. We've never had a perfect conservative yet. Not even the magnificent Ronald Reagan. We and they all have warts.
But we do want to have a candidate with at least an actual CONSERVATIVE record and not an out and out liberal progressive RINO. So let's compare their records and their actual conservative accomplishments but not try to destroy them personally.
God bless and may the best CONSERVATIVE be our nominee.
I’m good with any of the three but just a small, minorish aside: Can they all say “nuclear”?
I was beginning to look at Huntsman once, as I do believe that when a President of either party asks you to serve in some capacity, it’s honorable. As such, that Huntsman was an Ambassador under the Incompetent in Office. But he still seems a bit like a present from a foe. And then t seems the Boston Globe decided to endorse him. As I see it, they only choose those most palatable to their extremist liberal leanings. So my choice remains Gingrich.
“Was Obama’s healthcare bill forced through to begin microchipping the American people?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sc3W4d7oMY
Paul's base is real and we're fired up in every state. Palin is right about not alienating us. I could vote for Santorum because he is truly pro-life and I could vote third party against Romney because I can't decide whether he is worse than Obama. I don't think Paul is going to win but it will be interesting to see what he does at the convention. KY's primary is late so if it looks like Romney is going to lose, I will surely vote for Paul. Get rid of Romney folks and don't worry about Dr. Paul.
I like your homepage. Just don’t like Ron Paul. I will vote for any republican who gets the nod whether I like him or not. Third party will ensure Obama a second term, just ask Bush the elder.
But you know the more Texas balks at fencing their border I ma fast wondering what they're trying to protect which a fence would crimp. What are they hiding in plain sight ?
The problem, Jim, is that each of the non-Romneys have problems as a candidate, and since we all passionately desire Obama to lose, we naturally crave a strong candidate to put up against him.
Unfortunately, the strongest candidate chose to stay home and shoot moose.
If you heard Rush today, James put it very well - we DESPERATELY want someone as articulate, passionate and talented as expressing themselves as a conservative as Rush is. To my mind, the only person who fits that bill is Newt... but HE’S been so demonized I doubt he’s a viable candidate, which puts us back to square one.
What I really HATE is the inevitable feeling that the powers-that-be want Romney, and Romney it’s going to BE... period. Look what they did to Newt when he rose to the top... as compared to the Omaba-like lack of attacks on ANYTHING Romney says or does.
Romney CAN’T make it without Republicans voting for him in the primaries... but if we knock down all of the non-Romneys, who’s that going to leave us with?
I feel like the Republican Establishment is every bit as much the enemy of conservatism as the America hating RATS.
The chip, if it’s going to be that, can be required without Obamacare. Supermarkets, drugstores and helps agency’s already disperse flu shots...not to mention the roaming medical buses. So when the time comes it won’t really matter what medical program is....it’ll be a go and carried out.
Hopefully we won’t be here then!
This is a national security matter. Declare it one. The drugs, violence and potential for terrorism make it so. As stated, the Dems will do all in their power to hinder via legislation/lawsuit/media the BP/NG/ET all. This cannot be allowed.
The fence does not have to be mid river. At most it requires 300 feet of shoreline for fence/road/open security area. If there was ever a legit use of eminent domain, this is it and most, by far of the land in question is federal/state anyway. Any farmlands can simply have a canal diverted from the river in those areas for livestock etc.
Animal crossings can be established at and/or neat the manned outposts. Placing one every couple miles with cameras/sensors will take far fewer people to man than Perry’s paroling ideas.
The private lands can easily be compensated for at market value since this gets paid for by ENDING monetary aid to mexico.
So, lacking specific details is the basis. Canals are farmer maintained, Border crossings are where they exist today.
People saying the terrain is too rugged need to explain how china did it 3000 years ago over terrain with far rougher features and nothing but human hands.
I said it isn’t feasible. I did not say we don’t have the technical and financial ability to do so. Two totally different discussions. The former includes understanding the implications of ceding land and water to Mexico and the agricultural and environmental impact of such a fence.
I’ll not address the rest of your comment.
Pray tell then, who were you talking to?
For me, the pledge thing just signifies the signer is willing to publically put his neck out on the given issue. Whether they stick to it is another qustion, but at least we then have something to go by.
IMO
Those are some good ideas that should be considered. But I didn’t say anything about the terrain prohibiting a fence.
KMA you unprincipled Red-legged diptard.
I’ve supported Sarah, Bachmann, and now Newt.
And again, you are totally missing the issue.
Rick Perry (or any other anti-fence President) will no longer be ‘the boss’ and have the control and authority of a governor. He will be President and subject to a different set of rules in the Federal version of a “Co Equal” (yea, I know...) system with distinctly UN-equal democrats. Picture this..
Dear Mr President,
The House and Senate Democrats have decided that you will not be using the Border Patrol, National Guard and related agencies to interfere with our ever-growing constituency from the South as you attempted to do with your authority over the Texas DPS.
Henceforth, any attempt to enforce anything but the open border which our continued power and authority rest on, will invoke our wrath and you will get nothing you require, want or need to govern from us.
Additionally we will be on TV and throughout the media 24/7 and if you think we raised hell with Bush, you haven’t seen squat.
By the time Americans stop to imagine the ramifications, we will be permanently ensconced in power and we have Milquetoast ‘conservatives’ to thank.
Shoulda stopped us when you had the chance,
your pals,
Harry and Nancy.
“A fence along the Texas portion of the border is not feasible. “
I don’t understand. If not terrain, then what makes it not feasible in NMex/AZ/Cali, but not Texas? Since the tech exists, all that’s missing is willpower.
Edit - What MAKES IT FEASABLE
The fence does not have to be mid river. At most it requires 300 feet of shoreline for fence/road/open security area.
I believe there are some requirements about fencing/walls along the flood plain which must comply with US/Mexico Treaties, Rio Grande/water.
Likely so. But that’s why you make this “officially and legally” a “National Security” issue. It places it in a whole new world related to environmental ans “Treaty” obligations. And considering Mexico’s “obligations” don’t concern them, I don’t see why we should be too concerned either.
I believe I adressed that in my original post to you. Rugged terrain can be handled. It’s the agricultural and environmental factors that make it infeasible, meaning not practical rather than impossible.
For more discussion, jump over here. We’re discussing this topic now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2829619/posts?q=1&;page=1
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.