Posted on 12/18/2011 10:55:03 PM PST by neverdem
Knute Romney is not going to win one for the Gipper.
It's deja vu all over again: as in 2008, the two frontrunners are not conservatives. The recent National Review editorial, despite reading as if it were written by a committee, was nonetheless correct. Newt is not a conservative. It's easy enough to count the ways, but there is one albatross that's particularly heavy and odoriferous: his tie with Freddie Mac.
The $1.6 million is not just part of his baggage -- of which he has more than the Partridge family on tour. "It's the economy, stupid" may be a motto for the ages, but it's going to be particularly spot-on in 2012. This election should be a referendum on the four-year recession. Blaming high unemployment, anemic growth, a swooning stock market and a moribund housing market on Bush, "deregulation," and the 1% may not play with informed voters, but we're a minority and this is going to be BHO's theme song. Let's not forget that Roosevelt -- the brilliant con artist whom Newt admires -- was reelected in 1936 with an unemployment rate of about 17%.
To win on this issue, the GOP needs someone who can connect the very large dots in the mortgage and credit meltdowns of 2008. That means, to shift metaphors, someone who can point to the fingerprints of the feds and quasi-government agencies. Someone who can talk about the role of the SEC, following Basel II, in lowering leverage requirements for investment banks in April of 2004. About Clinton weaponizing the CRA and, later joined by the Bush administration, pushing banks to write...
--snip--
If Newt can rise from the dead, Michele can, too. At least in the primary elections, we should be willing to vote for someone without first having to swill Pepto-Bismol.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I have thought the same all along.
I guess you didn’t read post #7.
I was the first, if not one of the first to post the Bloomberg stories when it first came out. I hope you read it: the Freddie Mac officials state they hired Gingrich to de facto lobby Republican members of Congress.
Besides, post #7 doesn’t address my point to you at all.
My question is this: would you dismiss Gingrich’s activities if he had done, or not done, EXACTLY the same thing as a consultant for Planned Parenthood instead of for Freddie Mac?
What’s your answer to that, please?
Would you say, “so what, he didn’t do much if anything for Planned Parenthood, he earned only chump change from Planned Parenthood, maybe he even took Planned Parenthood’s money in order to tell Planned Parenthood stuff they didn’t to hear!”?
What’s your answer to that, please?
"Or not done"..?
I'm having a little difficulty making sense of your question, but I will say thay if Gingrich had lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood, then OF COURSE I would dismiss him. I think you're trying to make a point, but damn if I can figure out what it is.
If Newt took Planned Parenthood's money and then told them to go pound sand, I would applaud.
Suit yourself. Really.
Any results?
It better be, because it is at least plausible. Beck is far from being tightly wrapped, and he might think it is part of his crusade to steer the election toward someone who shares his faith.
This in itself is not horrible, just stupid. We have about a thousand "Christians" right here on FR who try to do exactly the same thing.
But Beck lost a lot of brain cells to his drinking days, so nothing is beyond the pale, and his judgment is probably not the best.
“private enterprise”, lol.
Of course.
Why do you suppose Colin Powell endorsed Ubama? Same thing. Some things trump common decency.
She voted against the bank bailouts. ‘Nuff said.
They always charicature female conservatives. Look what they did to Palin.
Maybe, but what doesn’t turn you off about the other candidates. Bachmann’s flaws are minor compared to all the others. She IS the most conservative.
It seems pretty obvious that some of the supporters of Perry or other candidates are people who work for their campaigns or are in on the gravy train in some way. They are more than just passionate believers in their candidate but are more like cheerleaders expecting some reward when their candidate wins.
About Michele’s shrill voice—Margaret Thatcher used to have a high pitched voice until she trained herself to speak in well rounded tones. Michele should get a voice coach to help her out. I know it is a small thing but people react instinctively to a “leader” persona. I deeper voice projects an image of authority.
What’s frustrating, is that some of them act as if any GOP candidate, who is not THEIR CANDIDATE, is the most miserable human being who ever walked on Planet Earth.
Don’t they know they come off as disingenuous when they do that? If they want to criticize, discuss, or show the differences in the candidates, fine, but when they exaggerate a candidates flaws, they lose credibility and don’t help their candidate either.
neverdem,
Have you read this article re: Michele Bachmann
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/new-york-to-iowa-why-i-traveled-to-help-michele-bachmann/
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.