YOU ARE THERE
THE IMPOSITION OF OBAMACARE/ROMNEYCARE
AND DEATH PANELS BY BACKSTABBER ROMNEY,
THE SWIMMER AND THE FELON.
Posted on 01/26/2012 4:35:06 AM PST by icwhatudo
Anne Coulter pal Matt Drudge has declared all out war on the Gingrich campaign. As of 7am Eastern time he has 9 negative mentions about Newt (none on Romney):
NEWT FLASHBACK 1983: REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL 'DECAY'...
NEWT 1986: 'The Reagan administration has failed, is failing... President Reagan is clearly failing'...
NEWT 1988: 'If Bush runs as continuation of Reaganism he will lose'... VIDEO...
INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN
R. EMMETT TYRRELL: William Jefferson Gingrich...
COULTER: RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!...
CNN: Gingrich admits his ABC claim was false during debate...
Gingrich tells UNIVISION: No perjury during my divorce depositions...
Marianne Gingrich lawyer: 'He was never deposed'...
What about this one:
ABCNEWS: Romney Failed to Disclose Swiss Bank Account Income: $1,700...
This one:
Liberal Groups Plan Florida Assault on Romney...
And this one:
LIMBAUGH: Coordinated Avalanche Against Newt Doesn't Match My Memory of Reagan Years...
Hmmmm, snarky, smarmy Demonrat!
It's a good thing you don't insult people. Don'tcha just hate it when people do?
There is this thing about charity. Real charity does not require us to tell people the myths they prefer to believe about themselves. Real charity requires candor and honesty. If people insist on being stupid or evil, it is a kindness to tell them so rather than to pretend otherwise to comfort them.
I keep forgetting to point out that if you like being libre, then you had better join the effort to stop Romney and any other privileged establishment pimp because if he is not stopped, then Obozo gets four more years. Just a bit more charity as I defined above.
P.S. Ann Coulter.... go eat a sandwhich or something.
The people who know Newt best have their doubts. If he's nominated, I'll vote for him. The man's had three wives. I don't suppose that matters. He's been on many sides of many issues, and was comfortable with sucking up to Nancy Pelosi and the Global Warming scam.
I wish Romney had always been a perfect conservative. I believe he is more conservative now and knows he must be. I don't trust either one of these guys to do everything they say and will watch them closely. You seem to think Newt's never fallen short of being a conservative first and a politician second. I haven't an won't. The man made a fortune lobbying for Fannie Mae while Fannie Mae was screwing up our economy. There is your hero. Romney has been wrong on a lot of things. I've said it before and will say it again. I'll vote for which ever one of them is the nominee and will not turn our country over to Obama as some weird way to punish Americans.
The Backstabber Fascist Romney has been against
EVERYTHING Conservative.
IF Romney is on the GOP ticket, WE WILL NOT VOTE
FOR ANY GOP CANDIDATE.
None of those stories were on his page this morning when I posted, 1 is of liberals attacked Romney (which is a positive) 1 is about Rush disagreeing with the attacks on Newt, and one ONE is a negative on Romney.
So the score for today is 12-1 against Newt...and the one came only after Drudge got roasted.
Baholney..both Michael and Nancy Reagan are backing Newt and taken in context, Newt’s comments on Reagan were not an attack. Nothing compared to Romney’s almost complete rejection of Reagan in his run for the governorship!
I agree.
My point, however, is that the only effective backlash is to (1) get a positive message out (refute the media pieces, if necessary), but more than that (2) to win.
I am not saying what the media, including Drudge, is doing is nothing.
I am saying it's a waste of time and ultimately futile, and even counter-productive, to wail about how this **shouldn't** be.
It IS!
And the only way to stop it is to stop it from being effective. Not always easy. But a lot more potentially effective than focusing on how awful it is that someone said something negative about Newt and claiming that everyone else is stupid for even evaluating the information that comes out.
I’ve seen Newt criticizing the Reagan years. Have you?
Where? Show me...I have heard Newt criticize some issues with Reagan and Reagan was not perfect. THat is what friends do and was not an overall critique of the “Reagan years” as you represented...right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YOnWzGB7G1g
We are likely to part ways on your tagline too! Rand Paul will have the very difficult job of proving to me that he is not simply a much more polished stealth version of his father's insanity. I don't blame him for supporting his father given the blood tie. OTOH, no one I could ever support would have the combination of Neville Chamberlain's surrendermonkey foreign policy, Timothy Leary's chosen policy on drugs, Log Cabin's view on permissible perversions (even to be subsidized with tax dollars or with private corporate funds which like corporate taxes are derived from the customers without seeking their opinions), and NARAL's and Planned Barrenhood's eagerness in slicing, dicing and hamburgerizing innocent babies. On abortion and perversions posing as "marriage" I am looking not for dishonest lip service but for tough legislation on a federal level since the evils arise from federal court decisions and I don't care about namby-pamby arguments based on their views of the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. The fedcourts started this fight and have cowed state courts into surrender based on the Judicial Supremacy clause. Congress will just have to step up to the plate and punch the judiciary's ticket among other things.
That Santorum is "notso hotso" on economic matters does not phase me since I am less and less economically conservative but more and more Roman Catholic as I grow older. What does phase me is Rick's seeming inability to gain traction. Get back to me on him when he takes a poll lead but we need but one of Rick and Newt and it looks like Newt's the one.
As to Ron Paul, I cannot imagine anyone on the Right finding acceptable his foreign policy, his DO NOTHINGness on abortion and perversions posing as "marriage," his support for gays in the military (I am wiling to keep them from wars and from divorce court). Auditing the Fed sounds like a fun blood sport and quite worthwhile and he has the subcommittee chairmanship to do it in this, his last term in Congress, but, true to form, it is just too much trouble for him to bother backing up his words with action. Earmark king. His idea of returning to the gold standard would trigger the French Revolution American style complete with mobs manning guillotines in the streets and brushing aside severed Paulistinian heads by the dozen (not a bad idea in itself but it scares the children). The GOP badly needs a massive injection of Jacksonian (Andrew) populism not further dallying with libertarianism of the Paul sort. Those college cadres of his, if inclined at all to Republican futures, will become actually Republican when (if?) they marry and have kids.
My departure from the free-thinking ways of libertarianism came on the day when I read the freshly decided Roe vs. Wade and grew up. When I was a state officer of the Libertarian Party, no one in my state's LP leadership favored the Viet Cong or Uncle Ho in the then current war. No one despised the troops or their mission. The party was libertarian (of course), favored legalization of gold, the individual freedom to smoke pot and hashish (not sympathy for hard narcotics), favored slipping between the sheets with one's significant (opposite sex) other while taking due care (hey, we were hormone-ridden kids), school vouchers, attacking the funding sources of the welfare state and deconstructing the Great Society, defending the RTKBA since we trusted no government that did not trust us with guns. Herod Blackmun and Roe vs. Wade ripped it.
Since Roe, libertarianism has evolved into a menace to Western Civilization (defined in the Vatican but also by various Evangelical authorities, Scripture and Orthodox and Chassidic Judaism). Indulging in youthful pastimes like dope-smoking and unmarried but otherwise normal sex turned out to be a sort of sociological gateway drug leading to abortion and perversion as new norms. Not for me! Then there was the growing anti-militarism and canoodling with anti-American anti-war movements. On all these counts, see ya, LP! Far, far from me. I also grew a lot less thrilled with La Rand when pondering her infamous lifestyle and non-political opinions. If I had not previously departed, her specific support for (spineless Attila) Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan because Reagan was pro-life and Rand thought abortion a secular sacrament would have done it.
Our choices for influences on the GOP are hardly limited to El Run on the one hand and Mittwit and Miss Piggy McCain on the other. First of all, each of them is effectively an enthusiast for baby-killing and perversion, which puts all three on the same side other than mere lip service. I'll take Princeton Professor Robert P. George, former academic Dean of Yale College Donald Kagan, Norman Podhoretz or Midge Decter, Phyllis Schlafly, President Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Seattle radio talk Show host Kirby Wilbur, Professor Hadley Arkes, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry (but not on Gardasil), Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio (but not on the subject of Gingrich or Romney), Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, Mike Pence, any GOP Congress Member voting against the increase in the debt ceiling of 2011 not named Ron Paul, Walter Jones or Jimmy Duncan, Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York, (Rev. Mr. ?) Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Conference, Rabbi Yehuda Levin of New York City, Jeffrey Lord of American Spectator, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, and a lot of similar folks whom I am not remembering but you get the picture.
Newt will appeal to a lot more than 30% of the public if nominated and he stands the best chance of winning of the remaining candidates. Populism is his long suit and he is playing it well. Sexual history? House rebellion against him (by the likes of Hastert, Boehner, by pro-abort Susan Molinari of Staten Island and Bill Paxon her hubby from Buffalo)? Fannie, Freddie, K Street? Newt is one of us. Mittwit and Ron Paul are not. Santorum is one of us but he has no apparent chance. We are fed up with candidates being chosen by the LSM and the Elites. We will no longer listen to either. Newt's the one, whatever his flaws. He has a set of enemies a man can be proud of. We know how to hate and we will not hate one of our own. We have his back. Whether you wish to be part of us is up to you.
I guarantee you that a nominated Mittwit will lose and it will be the social conservatives who finish him off. McCain was the last stand of the mushheads for us. Never again!
Libertarians don't seem to get just how dead meat Ron Paul truly is. We really don't need him to do the thinking for us.
Oh, and I have been called an "extremist" all my life and I am proud of it. The day I am accused of moderation is the day I double check my premises.
God bless you and yours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJaImGbEclI&feature=related
We should buy that girl a four gallon banana split per day and make her eat it until the anorexia stops attacking her brain cells.
Evaluate all you like but if the evaluation doesn’t take into account the motivation of those who are rapidly releasing a flood of half-truths and decades old information, then i think it misses the real story here. For it isn’t just the negativity that angers conservatives, it is that there is so much coming out seemingly all at once, so much so that most working people don’t have the time to read beyond the damning headlines, don’t have time to properly evaluate what is coming out. And that is the whole idea behind this coordinated attack, to make it nearly impossible to “refute [all] the media pieces” to those voters who hardly have time to read much more than a headline.
My own approach (despite how you may wish to characterize it) is to recognize the media assault for what it is and to not let it demoralize us, but rather use it to energize us even more by standing strong with and voting for Newt, which is essentially casting a vote against the media and the establishment.
That was NOT badmouthing Reagan for heaven sakes! He was making the point that the Bush needed to be new and not run on the past...he did not say there was anything wrong with Reagan’s basic policies at all! O brother!
wow...new and innovative ways to lower healthcare costs and trying to work with Obama to get that done. O boy...that is evil! Very very weak...he was not promoting obamacare at all!
I am a big boy and have been insulted by more professional insulters than you.
"The people who know Newt best???" have their doubts, huh? Would that include the cadaver of Robert Dole? Jack Kemp often called Dole the "tax collector for the welfare state." There was a time when both were to appear at a Young Republican convention in Seattle in 1987 and they were jockeying to see who could arrive and speak last. When Dole was later than Kemp, Jack explained that there had been a fire at Dole's house in the library, that both books had burned and that he hadn't even finished coloring one of them yet. Today, Dole is solemnly warning us to back another establishmentarian dull as dishwater unprincipled excuse in the form of the Mittwit. After all, if Dole couldn't win, why should the GOP ever win again. The two words that applied when he resigned his Senate seat, the two words that applied were Good Riddance! Like Hugh Scott before him and Mitch McConnell more lately, he was nothing but a marionette for the corporate big shots and trust funders. He could'a been a contenda!
J. C. Watts worked with him and supports him but J. C. never felt the need for a constant flow of special interest money like, oh, Denny Hastert and John Boehner. Tom Delay criticized Newt today. He was once a contender. If he is supporting Romney, I can't wait to hear his rationalization. Newt had three wives. (Reagan had two but he was born earlier and in more conservative times). Newt's first marriage was bordering on child molesting with him as the victim. His wife had been his high school geometry teacher. They had an amicable divorce as such things go. He was, prior to the divorce, involved in an affair with future wife #2, Marianne, (and she with him) the paid embittered blabbermouth for ABC News. Did she imagine that she was marrying Mr. Monogamy??? How stupid is she? The first marriage (such as it may have been with wife #1 still living, we Catholics are somewhat skeptical on that score as to Henry VIII as well) was apparently annulled as he became a Catholic by the ecclesiastical courts (unlike Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon) and the marriage to Marianne was annulled by the same courts as well (which may be the real reason why non-Catholic Marianne is pissed off, and marriage #3 to Callista Bialek was blessed by their Church. Is your lust for soap opera sated yet? Does this have anything whatsoever to do with who is worthy to smite Obozo? I did not think so.
Newt is like the little girl with the curl. When he is good, he is very good and when he is bad, well..... The man is cursed with a lot higher IQ than the Mittwit and he speculates out loud. His entire life is not scripted like the Mittwit's. He does not dance on the strings of the privileged like a marionette like the Mittwit and will not accept the role of Dancing Bear for the Elite. He is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Privilege, Inc., like the Mittwit. He does not invest in businesses, take massive fees, bankrupt and shut the businesses down, lay off the workers and sell the machinery for scrap like Bain Capital funded and once run by the Mittwit. When the Mittwit did all that, it was just "good business" as Ebenezer Scrooge might say, but criticizing him for it, poor fragile dear, is (drumbeat) CLASS WARFARE!!!
What Romney has been is the perfect airhead and therefore the perfect destroyer of lives and therefore the perfect liberal. Other than the single marriage and some wholesome looking kids, there is absolutely NOTHING conservative about Mittwit. He is and always was a pro-abort, a pro-homosexual perversion cheerleader, a gun grabber, a friend to Planned Barrenhood, a Global Warming enthusiast (not for one opportunist commercial but a putz who actually believes that drivel and, unlike Newt has never apologized), a tax hiker of the taxes and fees paid by ordinary folks to relieve the crushing burdens of the poor zillionaire trust fund babies, and the absolutely unrepentant father of Romneycare and therefore of Obamneycare. Romney has been wrong on EVERYTHING in public life.
It is the birdbrain GOP elitists who, if they succeed at nominating Mittwit, will have re-elected Obozo. They KNOW that McCain was their last time to the well. They will NEVER buy, bully and bribe their way into the White House again and they ought to know it. You and they have a short time left to destroy Romney or face the political consequences. If Romney is nominated, the country is punished by those elitists because Romney won't be any better than Obozo and, commanding the usual gang of GOP Congressional cowards, will face absolutely no effective resistance from anyone as he continues the Obammunist destruction of the country in GOP drag. Conservatives won't be punishing the country. We will be punishing the elitists by letting Obama strip their trust funds which is all they ever care about anyhow. There will still be a GOP with its brand name relatively intact when the country collapses under Obozo. Vote for whomever you please. It is your right as an American. And mine too! Bye, bye Mittwit, Mittwit goodbaaaaye!
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.