Posted on 09/11/2010 2:10:28 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Right. Armey is is a fraud and a has been. He runs his Freedom Works PAC.
He’s jealous of Sarah and Tea Party Express.
I cringe every time I see Armey on TV trying to act like he’s a Tea Party leader and spokesman.
Maybe some of Huck's followers, but you are painting the religious right as choosing only him which is wrong in every way.
Sarah has a huge following from what you call "the religious right" and I would guess it's larger than Huck's.
Her appeal is that she unites the three pronged coalition that Reagan did, plus she brings the TEA party into the tent. That's a winning combination, big time.
“Would someone please tell me how Dick Armey has managed to insinuate himself into the Tea party movement? He was never much of a conservative and used to say stupid things on a regular basis”
Armey is the opposite of what the Tea Party needs. He’s hijacked the name, and the so called TP ‘leaders’ need to distance themselves from him YESTERDAY...he will destroy its efforts. If he like s Demint, that is a concern.
Values Voters are holding their convention/summit September 17-19 and although Sarah is on their ballot, she is not attending, but Newt, Huckabee, and others are attending and speaking to the group.
Sarah, of course, is speaking on September 17, to the Iowa Republicans at their RWR dinner.
luckybogey is right, in that Huckabee thinks he can capture the enough of the Christian vote from Sarah to keep the nomination at bay from her.
I think he’ll be surprised, because men can only talk “pro-life” whereas Sarah lives it.
Only a small minority of evangelicals that don't believe women should be in politics will overwhelmingly choose Huck (and not even people like pissant would choose Huck). It's well known in Christian circles that she is a strong believer.
Her appeal also goes far beyond the evangelical right, she brings in voters from the entire coalition of right leaning people.
Huck doesn't.
“Freepers also should not misquote Milton Friedman. Just because wiki contains an unsourced sentence does not make it correct.”
Hard to misquote when you don’t quote at all. Friedman, according to the clip you produced in favor of more or less open borders provided there is no access for illegal to government bennies, which he would like to curtail or eliminate for everyone. He wants to return to pre-1914 situation of open borders. Open Borders/No welfare.
But the situation has changed. Even with government benefits off the table, there are national security concerns, as well as economic concerns, associated with unrestricted immigration, apart from budget busting social welfare payments. Americans and legal immigrants should have the first claim on such jobs. That may not be consonant with a pure free market, but it is a legitimate decisions that I think nearly every conservative would agree with. And it is the law. Libertarians would disagree, of course.
And Friedman was a libertarian. A great economist and a prescient thinker, to be sure. I remember reading Capitalism and Freedom in college years ago and being impressed with its lucidity in the midst of so much collectivist mythology (as Reagan used to call it). Friedman contributed much to conservatism, but like everyone, he was not perfect. Open immigration was a bit of a blind spot for him, as was abortion (which he also favored on libertarian grounds).
“I also suspect these same “social conservatives” will have issues with Sarah once her “Libertarian” views become more known to the general public.
If Sarah does run for President, the Huckabee followers, Bible thumpers, and “religious right” will attempt to take her down. Count on it...”
I disagree. True, her leanings are libertarian, but she is in no measure an unvarnished libertarian . She believes in the Sanctity of Life (and her endorsements uniformly reflect this), secure borders, and a robust national defense. She is beloved by social conservatives and religious conservatives, as well as the economic conservatives. She alone among the current field is able to reassemble and cement the old Reagan coalition of national security, economic and social conservatives, because she is trusted in all three camps. That is why the left and the GOP Establishment is working 24/7 to undermine her and leaving the field wide open to a less threatening candidate.
Politics and the pulpit are terms that have little agreement. - Edmund Burke
http://www.famousquotesandauthors.com/topics/clergyman_quotes.html
Conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism, libertarian conservatism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military. Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Contemporary American conservatism traces its heritage back to Anglo-Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, who developed his views in response to the French Revolution. US President Abraham Lincoln wrote that conservatism is “the adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried.” US president Ronald Reagan, who was a self-declared conservative, is widely seen as a symbol of American conservatism. In an interview, he said “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Organizations in the US committed to promoting conservative ideology include the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. US-based media outlets that are conservative include Human Events, National Review, The American Conservative, Policy Review, and The Weekly Standard.
In the US, social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the family, church, or locale. Social conservatism may entail defining marriage as relationships between one man and one woman (thereby prohibiting same-sex marriage and polygamy) and laws placing restrictions on the practice of abortion. While many religious conservatives believe that government should have a role in defending moral values, libertarian conservatives such as Barry Goldwater advocated a hands-off government where social values were concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Romney's is not. He's moving hard and fast. We are trying to get ahead of him.
There are no primaries "today" so save your concerns.
This is headed for a series of coronations unless we can stop it.
And the "we" you are talking for is "you."
Y'all might just be surprised at the number and names involved.
you can keep abreast of all her news>
No thanks. We are abreast of grassroots GOP from regional down to the voter. It's open field running for Romney. We're going to stop him. We'll take whoever can help us. I'm not a member of any fan club. We want Sarah in the game but there are other possibles.
Anyone who hangs their hat on anything from Diogenesis is a moron
Huckster has some baggage that he didn’t have the last time he ran, namely, the clemency Maurice Clemmons, the cop killer of 4 WA state police officers when he was “Governor” Huckabee.
If you have something to say then say it, don’t post links at me.
This is a misleading and out of context quote. Reagan did have a libertarian streak as do most of us as conservatives, but he also knew the limits of libertarianism and never centered his philosphical beliefs there. Even in the interview he distances himself from purist libertarians. Certainly his social and moral philosophies were not libertarian at all. Neither was his foreign policy.
Agreed. He’s lost a lot of luster even among his so called base. His book didn’t do very well, it was dwarfed by Sarah’s; even Huck’s base bought it more than his.
The other thing is SarahPAC has employed Pam Pryor(sic) and one other (her name escapes me) who have “connection” into the Evangelist community and such. I just don’t think people realize this. I’m sure these two have their own network Sarah can tap into.
“While many religious conservatives believe that government should have a role in defending moral values, libertarian conservatives such as Barry Goldwater advocated a hands-off government where social values were concerned.”
That is true. Goldwater did support a “hands-off view” where social values were concerned. In 1964, he LOST 45 states in the biggest landslide in U.S. History.
Reagan on the other hand believed that the government should not take an a “hands off approach” and he sought to stock the federal bench with constitutionalists and to promote a rollback where possible of creeping social liberalism using the levers of power to do it. In 1980, Reagan WON 44 states and a mandate as imposing as FDR’s in 1932. That mandate and the power of the (libertarian economic and social conservative) coalition he assembled was reconfirmed in two succeeding landslide elections.
Which route do you recommend? The libertarian Goldwater or the eclectic constitutional conservative, Reagan?
These moderates are so desperate that they cling to that quote like a life jacket, that quote was from a 1975 interview with libertarians themselves, after that quote Reagan proceeded in the interview to softly distance himself from them, they kept having to bring it back to economics to avoid embarrassment.
For a cold splash of reality, look at how the anti-social conservatives vote, they vote liberal. They are the heart and soul of liberalism.
Making headlines? Speaking to whom, aside from VV?
Think he can "buy" the Value Voters Straw Poll?
Meghan McCain joined his "team."
Romney threw a fund raiser for Jim DeMint, so he's likely going to get his endorsement (again).
Do treat the forum to some of your "names" since you state "we'd be surprised by the number."
Romney is no where. He has zero impact. Is the new strategy of the Romneybots to post threads officially disagreeing with Mitt but trying to promote him as some sort of electoral tiger who is setting a trap underneath the radar.
Anybody who would buy this would have to be fresh off the turnip truck and easy prey for one of the infamous PPP Democrat push polls. Around here, they are wasting their time.
I hope you realize you’ve gotten completely off course.
Ninety-nine percent of members here are all for stopping Romney.
Your argument with me started with you stating that Sarah “had” to take on Armeny “right now”, and you’re wrong about that.
Nobody dicatates to Sarah and Armey is not worthy of a response or an acknowledgement, unless Sarah herself determines otherwise.
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.