Posted on 01/22/2010 5:14:01 PM PST by BookaT
B U M P
“If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.”
Don’t forget the 40 million relatives. They get in too!
As a Arizonan and former JD constituent, I wonder why a Californian is so invested in trashing JD. And I wonder who you supported in the primaries in 2008? Someone who is NOW a Californian?
As a strong Sarah supporter (see my tagline), I’m disappointed in her support of Juan mccain. Yes, I understand loyalty but she should FIRST choose loyalty to America and conservative values in our Constitution over loyalty to a politician...and a RINO liberal one at that!
“Again, the purists will eat all the other purists.”
Is it being a purist to stand up for the best possible representation of Conservative principles for the Republican candidate for this seat? And we’re talking about the primary no less. It’s not as if McAmnesty has gone through the primary and we’re here opposing him. If fighting for Conservative principles makes one puritanical (I guess that’s your implication??) - then so be it.
That’s what Free Republic stands for - or haven’t you read Jim Rob’s posts?
Sure wish Palin would stay out of this till fall.
+++++++++++++++
That’s her best option. She should change her mind and say so publicly. It won’t be bad, just say, ‘While I do appreciate much of what John McCain has done, I’ve decided to let the people of AZ make their decision and I’ll support that decision!’
Easy. I’ve figured it out in one sentence. She can use two or three if she wishes. ;P)
“And just for those who are thinking about sending money to him, consider the fact that his PAC raised just over $500,000 between 2001 and 2005. His wife got over $100,000 of it, and administration costs were 46%.”
What was the name of his PAC. I’d like to do some research on it...or I’ll look it up...:)
On the other side, you’ve got McAmnesty’s wife and daughter crusading for gay marriage...
Hmmph.
From 12/2007:
http://anticorruptionrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/12/no-formal-investigation-of-former-rep.html
This is an interesting Blog with some pros and cons to JD and wife’s potential conflicts of interest with Abramoff money. I’ve made no conclusions. There’s an interesting back and forth in the comments section too.
“And just for those who are thinking about sending money to him, consider the fact that his PAC raised just over $500,000 between 2001 and 2005. His wife got over $100,000 of it, and administration costs were 46%.”
From http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/07/dirty_money_and.html
“In the period between 2001 and February 2006, inclusive, TEAM PAC took in $538,109. This puts administrative costs for TEAM PAC at around 30% of contributions over a five year period.”
He may have asked. If so, she couldn't say no.
Conservative principles are based on Christian principles. Her "supposed loyalty" is based on that most important of Christian principles: love. We must accept that Sarah is her own person. She has a true "servant's heart." She will always do what she believes God is asking her to do -- no matter how difficult.
In other words, she knows that God works in mysterious ways. Who would have thought that BO's election would be the catalyst to bring out so many wonderful Conservatives as candidates.
Hey Rabs - Ping!
Har, I’m just glad to see a reasoned challenge to McCain.
“Sure wish Palin would stay out of this till fall.
+++++++++++++++
That’s her best option. She should change her mind and say so publicly.”
I don’t agree. I thought Michelle Malkin framed the dilemma for Palin very succinctly in a recent column when she said:
“Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement. At least she has an excuse: She’s caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place.”
The problem is that the “loyalty” is a character trait. One’s position on partisan issues, as important as it is, is less important that one’s character. I cannot imagine that if Reagan had been selected for Vice President in 1968 (for example) on the Nixon ticket (as he very nearly was) he would have declined to campaign for Richard Nixon in a primary against a more conservative candidate for the Senate from California in 1970 had Nixon lost. To Reagan (and apparently to Palin) loyalty (as well as gratitude for a good deed) is a cardinal virtue.
That said, while I believe Sarah Palin did the conscientious thing in agreeing to campaign for McCain (AFTER he requested her help), if I lived in Arizona, I would vote for Hayworth.
...your history page starts with a post on January 21, 2010?
You know, I don't know why that is. I noticed it yesterday when I tried to search for a 2007 post. However, if it's all that important to you, check your own posts because I have responded to you on FR at least once in the past.
However, as a Californian for the last 32 years, I didn't realize I couldn't comment or "trash" someone from another state. Is that a new FR rule?
I was a Fred Thompson supporter prior to the primaries.
I will go back to my original post on this thread which questioned why the excitement over a GOP Congressman who couldn't hold his own seat in a GOP constituency. There is ample evidence that one, just one of the issues in that campaign was the matter of earmarks, for which Hayworth had a certain affection. He along with many other GOP congress men and women who favored earmarks lost their seats, including Richard Pombo, who, BTW is from my state of California, and Ann Northrup.
Bruce, I understand that, but your “purism” is different from someone else’s “purism”. I guarantee you that there are but a few posters here who would agree with every single one of your principles, and if you ever expressed one that someone disagreed with, they’d let you know. In fact, I’ll bet that’s probably happened.
It’s being borne out in the fact that Tea Partiers are actually going to protest the Tea Party Convention.
That’s what we conservatives seem to do here...eat our own.
Norge post in 2009: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2374290/posts?page=8#8
Norge 2008: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2374290/posts?page=8#8
Norge 2007: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1871373/posts?page=7#7
Norge 2006: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597950/posts?page=4#4
Norge 2005: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453024/posts?page=15#15
Norge 2004: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152264/posts?page=40#40
You may already have gotten it...TEAM PAC.
Thanks.
If conservatives are going to disqualify any former congressman from consideration in this election cycle solely because of earmarks, there had better be a huge pool of political virgins out there to choose from.
Apparently the FR search feature had a glitch on your history...I always check posting histories, and especially now when we are being inundated with trolls and multiple ID supporters of failed RINOs from the last presidential campaign.
You are free to support/slam anyone, regardless of your state. Some posts seem pretty personal from the anti-JD crowd, so I wonder why that may be.
If you can figure out that you once posted to me, you have a great memory. I couldn't begin to guess how many FReepers have posted to me "at least once in the past."
If you were a FredHead, we were on the same team.
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.