Posted on 12/03/2011 11:16:13 AM PST by JimWayne
I first supported Palin and then Cain. Both have been hounded out. I am NOT SUPPORTING RINO Gingrich. I will now support Bachmann. If they hound her out, it is Ron Paul with whom I vehemently disagree on foreign policy. Sorry, that is how it is.
The other choices we have are the following: Gingrich the Global Warmist, Santorum the ethanol salesman and pork baron, Rick Perry the pro-bailout Governor and Mittens the socialist and abortionist.
At this point Tea Party gaining control of the Congress and Senate is important. If that happens, they can keep Hussein in check. Hussein winning a second term is bad but Mittens is worse for America.
I am open to hearing why I should not prioritize my support to various candidates in this order. I am not supporting any RINOs. I know I am willing to support Ron Paul in protest against the RINOs. You can convince me to not support Paul and abstain, but you cannot convince me to support any RINO.
Perry supported the bailout and Gingrich supported Global Warming. That they know to speak the right words during elections does not help. Besides, that gang got a chance when Bush was in power and both the House and the Senate were with the GOP. What did they do in terms of cutting government and gutting Global Warming grants? Nothing. Instead, they gave us Obama.
He thinks the US government somehow is the cause of Moslem jihadi terrorism.
I'm not going to defend his foreign policy stances that I don't agree with, but what's going on here at home is far more important to me.
He thinks that abortion is a states rights issue.
That's good enough for me.
No! The healthcare solution that Gingrich supported in the 1990s and that was created by Heritage Foundation had individual mandate as part of it. The only difference from Hillarycare about this solution was that the private players would be selling stuff.
You really think any of the remaining candidates would be better than Obama? Sorry, they aren’t. In fact, when push comes to shove, they will be Obama. Our choices are now RINOs or establishment politicians. Those are,no choices at all.
It seems to me you are the one who is seeking ideological purity
‘Market based solutions’? You need to wake up and smell what you’re shoveling. Creating a worldwide fascist cabal to trade friggin carbon credits is not a ‘market based solution’.
Get over it Bucky. Your favorites are not going to make it. Welcome to the club. Pick somebody else. Any of them are 1000% better than the Muzzie lovin Commie sitting in the White Hut now.
obummer is already being held in check by a Republican House and a worthless Senate. His extensive use of Executive orders is proving that’s neither a hindrance to him or an obstacle to his left ogenda.
He is anti-abortion. Haven't kept track of the first point above but will look into it. I totally disagree with him on Moslems and what you say is precisely my complaint against him. However, others are worse. We have a bunch of RINOs who lobby for Pakistan and Arab states and give them money.
For now, I think we should use Paul to fix the economy, then throw him out and deal with the Moslems.
No matter how crazy Paul is, I do not think that he will not act if Moslems attack us. He may not start wars or indulge in preemptive strikes.
Works just as well for me. Thanks.
“Policy Puritans” are about the sadist people around, they are rarely happy about anything and harrumphing has gotten to be a way of life.
Santorum supports ethanol subsidies, debt increases, Amtrak pork, community block development funding and triangulates his position on abortion. Not supporting him.
Imposing social conservatism through legislation is just as unconstitutional as imposing social liberalism through legislation
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”There's another one that is often attributed to James Madison, “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
George Washington, 1796
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams, 1798
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
John Adams, 1813
So are you saying you do not want to be a “policy puritan” but want to support Romney?
Gingrich supported the Mandate 20 years ago, along with the Heritage Foundation, as an alternative to Hillary Care. s
We do not stop listening to the Heritage Foundation because they were wrong one.
What is important is that Newt now disavows insurance mandates as unconstitutional.
What is wrong with changing your mind when you are proven wrong? He never introduced and presided over such legislation as Mitt did. He was brain storming.
Details here: ““I think a mandate per se is clearly unconstitutional because it means the Congress can require you to do anything with your own money under any circumstances,” Gingrich said.” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-talks-about-the-individual-mandate/
Would you take another look at Rick Perry? He’s been thoroughly vetted after running three times for TX Governor.
He’s got 100% rating with Right to Life and supports marriage of one man & one woman.
He’s got a real record of job creation, tort reform, and reveres the US Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment which protects State Sovereignty.
I like his plan to overhaul Washington and the 20% flat tax.
Perry wll be fine debating Zero in a ‘one on one’ setting where he’ll have time to explain his plans. Besides Zero isn’t very good without his teleprompter.
And I trust Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s endorsement that Perry will keep his promise to seal the border.
Check the video in post 42.
I agree with you that getting a more conservative House and Senate are the most important goals. I also agree that keeping the transnationalist-progressive wing from hijacking the party agenda for the next 4-8 years by stealing the nomination is actually more important in the overall scheme of things than winning the D/R intramural contest for the presidency.
That leaves Gingrich, Romney, Huntsman, and Perry completely out of the question for me. They’re also wildly unpopular among younger GOP members. Luckily the whole neocon/tranny-prog phenomenon seems to be a generational thing and as the boomers age out of the voting population, they’ll have a diminishing influence on GOP politics. The only question is whether we can hold fort long enough to allow that to happen, or whether they’ve already done too much damage to the party and the country to be repaired. The fact that both Bachmann and Cain were within striking distance of the nomination before being destroyed by the MSM and their useful idiot concern trolls, gives me reason for cautious optimism going forward.
If we can’t get a nationalist conservative nominated this time around, I’ll also be registering some kind of protest vote. If the GOP wants a future, it needs to start attracting new converts. Paul’s no conservative, but at the end of the day he is a far better ambassador for the GOP than someone like Gingrich.
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.