Posted on 12/16/2011 4:51:35 AM PST by Jabba the Nutt
Michele Bachmann needs to connect the dots. She set the table last night at the debate, now she needs to close the noose.
Bachmann attacked Newt for stepping in, when the Republicans were going to take a vote to prohibit using party funds for GOP candidates, who support Partial Birth Abortion. Newt said at the debate, that he wasn't going to support "a purge" in the party. Newt, it's not "a purge". GOP candidates wouldn't be sought out and removed from the party, candidates whose judgment was so poor as to support the barbarism of Partial Birth Abortion just wouldn't get Party funds. David Duke was denounced, when he ran as a Republican in Louisiana and denied Party funds for his racist views. Partial Birth Abortion doesn't cross the line in Newt's opinion?
Ha ha ha ha! Listen, it’s a family show, I had to change where she was going to kick him!
What decisions will Gingrich make as President, when he'll have all the reins of the GOP in his hands. What direction will he take the GOP? Toward his personal conservative views or toward what he thinks is politically necessary? Same question as where he'll take the country.
I don't know. I know the amoral political path ain't for me. I also don't think the amoral political path is also the successful political path as in winning elections, as we're being sold here.
I have a pal, who registers in whatever party, where his vote could make the biggest impact. Jump in and make a choice.
My question for Newt is his political judgment: David Duke beyond the pale, Partial Birth Abortion supporters to be funded.
This also applies to Mitt. Where was Mitt in fighting TARP, Porkulus, Federal Reserve, fighting ObamaCare, supporting the Tea Party. Mitt's only cause that he supports is Mitt. What will Mitt's political decisions in directing the GOP, once he's the nominee and President. Will his decision turn the country around? Will he help grow the GOP? Will his decisions be informed by principle?
I don't know and I have my doubts. I haven't seen any positive signs in Mit record, Newt has some positive indictions and negative.
Personal attacks rule # 1 of democrat troll !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I stand by my argument.
Trolls can not stand the heat.
Death to political trolls, tyrants, and corrupt politicians.
Personal attacks rule # 1 of democrat troll !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I stand by my argument.
Trolls can not stand the heat.
Death to political trolls, tyrants, and corrupt politicians.
Yup.
It's up to the party members to police the ranks and enforce the ideology, not the party leaders.
I don't want a GOP where the leaders decide who gets funded and who does not.
Today they do not fund candidates who support abortion, tomorrow they do not fund candidates who oppose gun control.
I'm not advocating that the Party determines who gets funded and who doesn't. The Party spends its own funds to support candidates. The Party decides which candidates it will give its limited funds to.
The Party uses some criteria to decide how to distribute those monies. The Party determined that David Duke was beyond the pale. Not only did they not fund David Duke, they made clear that the Republican Party did NOT support David Duke. American political parties can't expel people from membership or claimed affiliation or they would've sent Duke packing. They did what they could.
IMHO, support for Partial Birth Abortion is beyond the pale. The Republican Party ought not give funds to candidates, who support Partial Birth Abortion. Newt disagreed.
Would you fund a candidate, who supports Partial Birth Abortion? If no, does that make you some kind of a member of a totalitarian party?
It this finally clear enough for you? How old are you? You sound like one of the #Occupy protestors.
well, she made Newt out to be a liberal when he really was the main force in winning back the congress for republicans after 40 years! No small task. And they balanced their federal budget...and he did not vow to to help candidates who were for allowing abortion to be legal...Newt explained it and she mischaracterized that. She made some other factual misstatements that Newt called her on and I cannot remember what it was right now. She means well, but Michelle makes out of context and extreme statements at times that would not be so if they were accurate! Soemtimes they are, and sometimes they are not. I also think she sounded immature reacting to Newt and saying she is a serious candidate...why on earth would she need to say the obvious? Unless maybe she lacks something serious...
But my main critique of Bachman is that she is a bit slow and lacking charisma...like a bit mechanical in her speech. I believe that and her over the top critique that doesn’t quite fit of Newt is why she never has picked up much support.
This is from Blog for Victory and is very true. There is plenty of judgment flying around about Newt because he has said odd things at times. But is actual record is outstanding...Gingrich, on the other hand, is well known to many conservative leaders who recognize that, despite his self-acknowledged errors and flaws, he is the one candidate who has a real record of implementing conservative government.
Balancing the budget, welfare reform and a host of other conservative initiatives that Gingrich championed as Speaker are not mere campaign rhetoric — they actually happened.
I think calling Newt liberal is off the wall judgement...
That is a good point. Thanks
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.