She went after mitt only “once” real hard in a debate....other times have been repeated attacks against the others. It makes one wonder
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.
I noticed and commented on Bachmann’s not going after Romney before it was ever brought up in the media.
That one came from the grass roots up, so it has nothing to do with repeating the media line.
After the Iowa Caucus, she is history....unless she comes up with a pile of money from some philanthropist who want to throw good money after bad. Or perhaps someone else with an ulterior motive for keeping her in the race.
Well said.