Posted on 12/29/2011 6:19:22 PM PST by Bigtigermike
June
September
November
These are the few peep squeeks she offered? Except for the Romney smooch, she offered nothing substantial against Romney in any of the debates, and the weak “frugal socialsist” smear, she generously applied that one liberally to all of the top tier, but never exclusively to Romney, who IS the socialist.
Perry has gone after him.
I wavered between Santorum, and Bachmann, as my first choice, and one of the principal reasons why I decided to support Santorum was because she criticized the others, but only criticized Romney once (as in Newt/Romney).
She is still my 2nd choice, though, as I think she would make a good POTUS, but I gave the little bit of money I could give to Santorum.
Ford was Minority Leader of the House, so that trumps Bachmann by a mile.
You’re right...I stand corrected.
Ya think?
When she went on her “Newt Romney” tirade not only did she make herself look like a fringer, but was at 33% and Mitt was at 25% in the polls, so she was majorly pissing of 58% of the voters to score points with the uber-cons. Not a good strategy. That’s the sort of stuff you leave to TV commercials from faceless announcers.
Sometimes, political folk get SO caught up in the race, they can't see beyond "She/he has my positions on abortion, taxes, whatever--she's/he's for me!"
The worst thing about Michele Bachmann, to me, is that I had to admit Chrissy Matthews was right about her. THAT I cannot forgive.
Those are just a few of many examples. She’s gone after Romney as hard as she’s gone after anyone. Some people want to spread the notion that she hasn’t, but that is a flat-out lie.
balloon head, strangely, it fits...
Perry's "attacked" Mitt. Some highlights:
Carbon Copies [60 second video campaign ad]
Mitt: That's -- I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals. [video clip]
And Perry's gone after Mitt (A LOT) on hiding his support for mandated health care (remember the $10,000. bet?).
Santorum and Perry did and Newt is more of a subtle way. MB not only didn’t but made interference for him. I was aware of what was going on in the beginning and was watching her play interference many times.
Once was when Santorium was going after him regarding Romneycare - she interrupted and ‘addressed’ Santorum. She was brought in (by Mitt) for just this reason - to protect him and so he doesn’t have to ‘argue’ but looking presidential. Also, at the time to counteract Sarah because it wasn’t know if she would run and, again, so Mitt can look presidential while MB was the pit dog. Why do you think she went after Perry so hard - to knock him out because Perry came in leading. Was she ever asked to bring ‘that lady’ that approached her forward that claimed the shot made her daughter retarded? MB is a liar and she was utterly nuts that night. She didn’t come in expecting to win - she has no accomplishment - it was for Mitt’s sake. And then she says ‘she’s a serious candidate’ - if she had to say it.....
She has NOT! I watched her in action because I was aware of what was going w/her early on.
Good for you! Excellent work bump!
(Unfortunately, even here at FR, it’s the headline people will remember.)
I really admire your tagline, and I follow that gentle reminder every time I see it in the forum. Thank you.
Isn't that a tactic of the Left? -i.e., repeat the lie often enough and folks will believe it. I thought we were better than that here. It disturbs me greatly to see what the Republican Party has done to its own voter base this cycle.
There are some at FR who love Sarah so much they snipe and ankle-bite (to use their words) at Michele Bachmann tirelessly. They say things like she’s crazy, an ankle-biter, she’s trying to knock out all other candidates in order to help Mitt Romney, she wants to be Romney’s VP (I guess her Congressional voting record would just be forgiven by the liberal Republican machine ?), she has a big head, she has crazy eyes, she’s nuts. Perhaps she’s working for Obama, and wants to be his VP.
But they never can come up with any signifcant evidence showing that she’s liberal. In fact, she’s arguably the most conservative candidate. So why would people who purport to actually want a “real conservative” President turn on the most conservative candidate in the Republican primary ? Why would they throw their support behind old-school politicos who are part of the big-government party establishment ?
They are the “anyone but Michele” crowd. They’re like a crowd of gossipy, mean teenage girls. Now that their favorite, Sarah, has opted to not run, they refuse to face reality that Sarah has made that choice. Sarah herself has expressed much more positive sentiments regarding the likes of Michele and Rick Santorum than she has for Mitt and Newt. But nevertheless, they see Michele as somehow “taking Sarah’s spot”, she’s the conservative woman in the campaign. As if somehow Michele should have stayed out of the race and preserved Sarah’s place for her to take, that of “the” woman conservative. So even though it’s painfully obvious that Sarah would rather that her supporters NOT vote for Newt Romney, but vote instead for Bachmann or at least Santorum, her supporters are so “loyal” that they would rather Newt Romney was elected so the Holy Grail of being the first woman Republican President can be set aside for Sarah for some future election. One that she has, mind you, not expressed any plans to actually participate in. These folks are like the person who never got over their high-school sweetheart 20 years later, sitting there, single, still waiting for everything to somehow fall into place so their dreams can come true. And they are so sure of it they would never dream of marrying anyone else, even after the sweetheart has married someone else and has children. Wake up folks, even Sarah would say that all of America’s future is not about her personally. We have to deal with this primary, not some imaginary one.
Sarah’s first speech, when she accepted the VP nomination was tremendously inspiring. Most unfortunately, it was so inspiring that the 2012 election may well be lost by Mittens or Newt, who may win the primary then fail to inspire conservatives to vote in the general election. Or what’s just as bad, the 2012 election may be won by Mittens or Newt, and true conservative principles will once again be relegated to yelling from the political sidelines for 4 years. All this because some have the glory of that inspirational speech burned into their brains to the point where any other female politican is worthy of their scorn, so when raging left-wing radicals level base insults at Michele they actually join in.
Deep inside the support of Newt is undoubtedly the remembrance of the glory years of Reagan. Bringing back a sharp-witted hero of bygone days is a great way to somehow return to a vague recollection of some “conservative” glory in the minds of some, even if “socially conservative” principles have been under attack by the Federal government since WWII.
Many conservatives can easily see the big-government stance of Romney - he has the millstone of Romneycare around his neck. And he’s from one of the immoral twin cities of the northeast, Massachusetts. So he’s the obvious wrong choice for many who long for some post-establishment era of conservatism and can easily recognize that he is far from a staunch defender of those “socially conservative” values. Smooth as he is, many conservatives are simply not buying what he is selling.
But the question then becomes who to support ? Or should we simply go up to our room and sulk since the favorite friend is not coming to the party ?
This is a classic case of what happens when personality is held in higher regard than political reality, not to mention principles being set aside so things will “come out the way we want them to”.
Why people don’t look at it very simply and analyze without emotion I’ll never know. Instead of coming up with all kinds of excuses about this or that candidate being “electable” or not, or perhaps beserkly supporting a candidate from one’s home State, try just looking at their VOTING record. If one desires a Christian conservative President who does not waver, honestly admit who that best candidate is based on their record. Then support them and vote for them when they run for office. After all, in terms of protecting our freedom, it’s the legislation that is signed into law that matters. Just what would these Republican candidates sign, and what would they veto ? It’s a rhetorical question, meant to make us really think about our precious freedoms that are being removed from us a little more every day.
Thank you for a thoughtful post.
Among the “stupid” things that Michele Bachmann has been attacked for was her comment that we should even drill for oil in the Everglades. I wonder how many of those brave posters had the courage to acknowledge that Bachmann was actually correct and that there are already drilling rigs in the everglades? When they point to her “record of failure” I see a woman who has refused to sell out just to get something passed in the house.
People really need to take an honest look at themselves and ask themselves why so many of the original tea party supporters are now on the ever expanding enemies list.
We need moral courage among ourselves to bring moral courage to Washington DC. Shifting ideology according to who we support at the moment isn’t going to do anything but continue us down this road.
I cited examples, and there are others. To deny it is just not factual.
Absolutely false statement.
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.