Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
I understand the underlying viewpoint: Trump could easily use this debate to show what an awful field of candidates is left, and use it as a stage to reignite his own run for the White House, and the National Review is thinking that this would be a horrendously bad idea.

But they couldn't say such a thing, as that’d be a reasoned viewpoint. Instead, they resort to playground name calling. And unintentionally, they draw even more of a crowd to the Trump debate, as a playground scuffle draws a crowd of onlookers.

We have an awful field. The ‘leader’ of the moment voted to help create the Department of Education. Second place proudly trumpeted socialized medicine and enshrined gay marriage into the first state. Newt might, possibly, work out, but his history shows that the people will have to constantly hold his feet to the fire to keep him from straying into Ted Kennedy territory.

So there is a serious concern in supporting a debate that might ignite a third party run for the White House.

Next time, the National Review might want to say that. I know I'm going to watch the debate.

43 posted on 12/05/2011 7:10:35 AM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: kingu
We have an awful field.

True dat. The fact Newt is the best of the bunch speaks volumes.

46 posted on 12/05/2011 7:15:14 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson