On Sarah Palin, Caucus States, and Latino Voters

Because semantics matter sometimes. Your point is exactly my point, except I am saying the poster should have made it clear.

If you read my previous posts, I said that it was certainly true to say the the owner supports Newt. But the OP used the line “Free Republic supports Newt Gingrich” as a blanket statement to try to shut up anyone who wasn’t, to the OP’s satisfaction, praising Newt.

That’s wrong and worth objecting to.

All I’m saying is no one has the right or authority to speak for all freepers, and that’s exactly what is encompassed in using the words “Free Republic supports Newt Gingrich [or whoever, this is not about Gingrich per se].” Use words that avoid that, that is all.

I don’t see what is hard about the concept.

Oh, good grief. Please note that the owner's statement begins with the personal pronoun "I".

(And if you'll read through the link you posted, you'll see that even there freepers are discussing their OWN views on personally "endorsing" Gingrich, or not. I myself posted several times on the owner's original (pre-Palin) endorsement thread.)

He doesn't speak for me, nor does anyone else. And no freeper should try to speak for him OR me.

And it has nothing to do with supporting Newt Gingrich or any other candidate. I could and do agree with the owner on most of his views on Gingrich, and the owner and I have discussed my reasons for being more cautious than he has about going all in for Newt as early as he did.

But even if we agreed 100% at this time, NO ONE speaks for me and, in my view, NO ONE's "endorsement" should be used to try to shut up people who are NOT running afoul of the forum's guidelines, as established and enforced by the owner.

I've repeatedly said I'll support Newt if he gets the nomination and before, depending on how the race unfolds. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to call it like I see it -- Hell's Bells, I'm going to hold President Gingrich accountable, too, to the best of my ability. It's just that some people seem to define anything that is not slobbering praise as "tearing down" their guy.

That's a crock. Which is why I asked YOU, the poster who posted to me and thus adopted the remarks of the owner, to tell me how you defined "tearing down" and what was and was not acceptable non-praise in your view. You still haven't answered.

Again, if you are going to post someone else's comments as your own, at least be willing then to explain what you think those comments mean and how you think those comments prove your point.

In the meantime, I will continue on calling it like I see it, FWIW, because I think that's intellectually honest AND it helps the cause of conservatism.

I'm unwilling to hand the nomination to ANY of these people on a silver platter. I'm against coronations, period, for anybody. That means engaging in grown-up talk about a candidate's, a nominee's and a President's policies, approach and record. This will sometimes involve non-praise. I do not think that all non-praise is "tearing down" a candidate, a nominee or a President.

I have serious concerns about Bad Newt and it's not "tearing him down" to say so. I also agree that Good Newt has the potential to be a strong President. I made the decision to wait and see how Newt rolled out once he got the frontrunner status. That is coming about at this time.

But all of that is beside the point. This started with a poster claiming that "Free Republic supports Newt Gingrich" and you defending that blanket statement. (Again, even directly on the owner's endorsement thread that you linked to, there are freepers saying "nope" or stating their own concerns/qualified support!)

Again, as I've explained in detail in my several previous posts, no one speaks for all freepers.

All I'm saying -- and have said repeatedly in this thread -- is use different words to avoid that incorrect blanket statement. Such as the owner endorses Newt Gingrich and will use the forum to support Newt Gingrich. Fine! But, as I said in my very first post on this (did you read the history?), that is a far cry from claiming "Free Republic supports Newt" and using that to try to shut up anyone who speaks non-praise of Newt.

Thanks.

Jim,

I have been working on a volunteer basis for five years as a member of a grassroots organizatin on the immigration issue. We lobby on the Hill and in Richmond. I have worked closely with such organizations as NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies, and Representative Steve King.

I felt so strongly about the issue that I joined a number of my colleagues in 2008 following the McCain campaign for four days each in the SC and Fl primaries demonstrating against his amnesty policies. We drove over 4000 miles.

Despite my intense dislike for McCain, I found myself on the telephone in the run up to the 2008 election trying to get Reps out to the polls to defeat Obama, who I felt was a threat to the future of this country. I have been proven right.

Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.

When you reward something, you get more of it.

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.