Posted on 01/05/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Tea party favorite and pro-life conservative Sarah Palin and her family were viciously attacked to the point she chose not to run.
Congressional Tea Party Caucus leader and constitutional pro-life conservative Michele Bachmann had early promise, but I guess came across as too "shrill" and consequently her numbers driven down to the point she exited.
Successful pro-life conservative Texas Governor Perry hit the race at the top but due to missteps and less than stellar debate performances soon fizzled and is now all but gone.
Pro-life conservative businessman Cain and his famous 9-9-9 plan had promise, but was driven out due to indefensible allegations.
Pro-life Reagan Revolution conservative Newt Gingrich reinvigorated his campaign and soared to the top of the national polls, but was unacceptable to the establishment and apparently also unacceptable to the "true conservatives" among us and his numbers are now plummeting
You'd think "unquestionably" pro-life, pro-family conservative Rick Santorum whose recent surge took him to a tie in Iowa and who's now surging in the national polls might be good enough to stand against Romney for the base, but looks like there are "true conservatives" now attacking HIM as not good enough.
Well, drive them all out and who's left?
Huntsman? Who? Moonbat Paul?
Ideas anyone? Should we all continue attacking the conservatives we don't like until we drive them all out?
Personally, I could easily have lived with Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt or Santorum and would be proud to enthusiastically support any of them, warts and all. Any one of them is infinitely better than Obama or Romney.
But if we don't land on one soon and raise him up over Romney, guess who we're going to be stuck with? And it ain't going to be pretty. And if abortionist/statist/progressive Romney (or moonbat Paul) is the one, might as well get used to four more years of Obama. I won't vote for or support either one of those two.
I'd suggest that we all stop trying to tear down the other conservative candidates in the race and instead concentrate on trying to build up our own personal favorites. Who knows? May even discover an acceptable conservative (if not a great conservative) in the bunch. We've never had a perfect conservative yet. Not even the magnificent Ronald Reagan. We and they all have warts.
But we do want to have a candidate with at least an actual CONSERVATIVE record and not an out and out liberal progressive RINO. So let's compare their records and their actual conservative accomplishments but not try to destroy them personally.
God bless and may the best CONSERVATIVE be our nominee.
Which is why Newt is so right about the other branches needing to find a way to execute more authority over the judicial branch. We shouldn’t have to live in fear of being dictated to by this unimpeachable panel of elitists. Yet it is these very necessary creative ideas that get him labeled as “zany” and not enough conservatives defend him.
Which Justices are expected to be gone in the next 4 years? I thought Ginz was one so that wouldn’t change the balance of the court, just refresh it for a while. Don’t forget to think long-term so, if we had a conservative president in 2016, how much time might it take for some of the liberal justices to pack it in?
Still stuck on the concept of 100% ideological purity, eh? Newt may be a flawed conservative, but he loves this country and its Constitution, and will fight the leftists like no one else on our side.
He's also had a whole lot of experience in the halls of power, and knows how the Washington game works. Even better than Santorum, who was never in a leadership position in Congress (as far as I know).
Santorum may have come within a few votes of winning Iowa, but I'm afraid that's his high water mark. He's been at or near the bottom in polling since the primary contest began, and will not catch fire hot enough to win a plurality of the primary contests.
That leaves Newt as the only viable alternative. He's going to do well in South Carolina and Florida. I believe his momentum will pick up from there, and that he'll knock Romney out of the running before it's all over.
“Personally, I could easily have lived with Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt or Santorum and would be proud to enthusiastically support any of them, warts and all. Any one of them is infinitely better than Obama or Romney. “
Amen! We’re kicking our own asses.
One becomes VP and the other gets his pick of an Admin. Job
They can decide who should execute, who should be the face of the admin, who should integrate and improve while cutting departments. And offer Paul Sec of Treasury. That’ll shut him up.
Wrap this UP!
Me too!
Grant? Surely you must be joking. Flawed is an understatement, extraordinary a joke.
Sorry, but you’re with the wrong Rick. Switch to Santorum 2012.
The electoral process is inimical to our cherished American exceptionalism. Americans have come to expect a standard of behavior from those who present themselves as presidential candidates. American exceptionalism is key——voters can and should reject those candidates who do not meet the standard.
Newt’s front-runnning status is undoubtedly fueled by his debate responses. Of all the candidates, Newt, alone, has exhibited a formidable presence, and a studied detachment. Newt’s winning Americans over with his profound knowledge of (and a good-natured willingness to explain) govt minutiae to attentive voters.Newt allied himself with Reagan into building the Reagan Coalition. The resultant Reagan Revolution had enornmous consequences: the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, a shrinking government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy. The ACU gave him a 100% rating.
That glad handing non chicken skin eating douchebag will NEVER be POTUS, and third party candidates to stop him could include Palin , Gingrich, and Trump.
Better to let the communists own the collapse than put some blue blood corporate raider crypto-crony capitalist bourgeois con man in the White House.
Obama reelected only speeds up the inevitable collapse and reset.
The US Federal Government post Civil War has turned into a criminal enterprise run by lawyers and bureaucrats for their own perpetual enrichment at the expense of the productive class.
It has also ceased to be a representative Republic and has turned into a sure to fail Democracy.
The Founders didn't put a right to vote into the Constitution for a very simple reason; they didn't want imbeciles, those under 21, and lazy parasites to be enfranchised, in fact warned against it, leaving the States to determine who could cast ballots.
"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." James Madison
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams: letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.:Thomas Jefferson
This government must be reset with all Amendments other then the original Bill of Rights repealed.
The franchise must be limited and determined by the states.
Incorporate term limits, rotate the Capital amongst the States, and ensure dueling is legal so big mouth politicians will think twice before telling outrageous lies and slanders.
Black Elk posted this on another thread and I suggested that he post it here, but since he hasn’t yet (maybe he’s offline) I’m going to post it myself. Fits in well with your position IMHO.
I have to give you a longer answer than you might prefer. The question you are asking necessarily requires a subjective answer. It depends on my preferences as to politics, personality and personal qualities of the candidates.
First, if I could construct a candidate from the ground up, what would his/her qualities be?
SOCIAL ISSUE CONSERVATIVE: My ideal candidate would first of all be a noted social conservative since those issues are most important to me. It would be ideal if the candidate were a committed member of a socially conservative church. I am a Roman Catholic but I can easily support candidates who are Evangelical, Missouri Synod Lutheran, Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox Christian, Orthodox Jewish. Being a pro-life hard-liner is an absolute necessity. So is being committed to marriage as traditionally understood (one man, one woman. ideally but not necessarily for life at least). I prefer candidates who are so married and who have responsibly raised a generous number of children. As Commander in Chief, the candidate must be committed to restrain military abortions to the extent possible and to discourage the homosexualization of the military (or diplomatic corps for that matter). The candidate’s other views should be consistent with the aforementioned. It is also vitally important that the candidate be credibly committed and have (preferably) a track record of resisting judicial tyranny and of supporting the nomination and confirmation of judges absolutely committed to the values of Judaeo-Christian civilization.
On these issues, Mitt Romney has largely walked the walk in his personal life, remaining married to one woman for forty-two years by whom he has had numerous children of whom he may well be proud (at least insofar as I have seen them). Unfortunately he has NEVER walked the walk in his public life. His failure on these issues as Massachusetts governor was epic and that was because he did not want to succeed on these issues. Ron Paul, whatever his personal life, disqualifies himself by his commitment to doing NOTHING to advance social conservatism and hiding behind the Tenth Amendment as an excuse for inaction while social conservatism is being attacked with D-Day fury by SCOTUS and other courts. Huntsman is “gay friendly.” Newt Gingrich is infinitely more trustworthy on social issues because he understands and agrees with social conservatism and has the track record to prove it. Ditto Perry and Santorum. Newt has obviously not walked the walk in his personal life but I can overlook that since God forgives sins and I am convinced that Newt has sought and received forgiveness. Rick Perry has walked the walk both in his personal life and as Texas governor. Long married to Anita and no one else and has children. BTW, I don’t make distinctions between those who are birth parents and those who, perhaps unable to bear children of their own, have generously brought adopted children into their homes. Rick Perry made one mistake with Gardasil but it seems to be his only social issue mistake. Perry has made significant progress in defunding the Planned Barrenhood organization (the flagship organization of so many evils) in Texas. Santorum, in his time in the US Senate, was nothing less than the leading champion of social conservatism in that body. He even took on the Catholic Church leadership for raising large amounts of money for the Campaign for Human Development which funds pro-abortion and anti-family lobbying groups. He has about eight children, home schools, and has never wavered on social issues. Advantage: Santorum. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are both verrrry good.
MILITARY/FOREIGN POLICY: All three (Newt, Perry, Santorum) are quite trustworthy on matters military and unlikely to either ignore threats to our interests or to fail to rebuild our military. Goal: A substantial military, equipped well-beyond current levels, ready, willing and able to repel any attack and to attack anyone needing to be attacked: short, swift massive victory and get the hell out. Great Britain and Israel and other allies WILL continue to exist and any attacks upon any of them will be avenged. A military not only second to none but so far ahead of whoever is next that no enemy will even consider harming the US. Interventionism and not isolationism. All three are quite good and I perceive no advantage among them. Newt might be marginally lest interventionist but not enough to matter.
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS: All three are fine on these issues and Romney is not at all trustworthy whatever he may self-servingly say. In vetting federal judge nominees and particularly SCOTUS nominees, special attention must be paid to the potential nominee’s commitment to read and apply the Second Amendment as written. Perry may have a slight edge on this issue as people have credibly observed that, if Perry becomes POTUS, he will pack seerious heat and protect the Secret Service agents attached to him rather than vice versa. Although Newt and Santorum may shoot and hunt occasionally, Perry is the real deal as a gun guy.
ENVIROWHACKOISM: Newt is a bit vulnerable on this sort of issue because he just cannot resist thinking out loud and because he always wants to appear to be cutting edge. We can do without that. Perry and Santorum are a LOT more interested in creating decent-paying jobs for ordinary Americans than they are in the destiny of the furbisher lousewort or other obscure flora and fauna whose interests are forever invoked to reduce non-elite Americans to freezing to death in the dark in our environmentally sound but unheated thatch roofed huts. Advantage Perry and Santorum.
REGULATION: Perry did not create all those jobs by regulating otherwise free enterprise. Newt and Santorum spent a lot more years as legislators and have undoubtedly favored regulations more than Perry has. Advantage: Perry.
TAXATION: I am a conservative and not some sort of fiscal radical. I have an inherent distrust of shiny new tax schemes. The ultimate objective should be to reduce unnecessary (underline: unnecessary) spending to allow tax reductions. I would require Congress to make good on the IOU’s that are the only contents of the “Social Security Trust Fund.” I would end the fraud that Social Security is an insurance scheme and the myth that we who collect have “earned” our checks. Social Security is and always has been a welfare program under the appearances of insurance. Let’s formalize its true nature by paying SS out of the general fund as the “fund” dwindles. Ditto Medicare. None of the three candidates under consideration would go that far. Abolish the payroll tax. Ditto. Santorum’s gut instinct is to follow Catholic social policy and he is probably closest to my view on this but not very close. Newt and Perry not so much. I don’t want any other schemes for significantly shifting the tax burden to those of modest means. No VAT, no Flat Tax, no Fair Tax, no National Sales or Property taxes. No reducing or eliminating home mortgage deductions, exemptions for each child, earned income credits or whatever other tax advantages may accrue to conventionally married husbands and wives and their children. We should concentrate as much in the next ten years (and the foreseeable future?) on treating people of modest means as generously as we have been treating the trust fund babies. My gut tells me that Santorum has the advantage on this one. Feel free to disagree for whatever reasons of your own.
FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE GOP: Since, according to Thomas Edsall’s famous recent op-ed in the New York Times, the Demonrats have determined to abandon the white working class, I prefer that the GOP relentlessly campaign for their loyalty. In doing so, we will inevitably also recruit non-white Americans of modest means. We are not going to attract the sociologists, the leaders of gummint unions, the Scientologists, the sexually perverted/American community, the feminazis, the welfare folks who are satisfied with everything but the size of their checks and the breadth of their entitlements, the pacifists, envirowhackos, and various other subgroups of the weirdo American community. We need to aim for a future of a GOP dominated by normal folks: blue collar workers, small business owners, people without college degrees, independent contractors, respectable retirees, conservative blacks finally fed up with decades of social and economic disintegration dealt them by Demonrats, Hispanics (especially the socially conservative ones who also insist that their kids be fluent in English and not servants of poverty pimps), Asians, Indians (from roots in India like Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley), people of commitment to conservative religious faiths, right to lifers, gun folks, conscientious parents, homeschoolers, the sort of disenfranchised people who are the backbone of the Tea Party: not trendies, not fashionables, not Code Pinkers, etc. I trust all three candidates on this matter of future demographics. Most of all, I trust Santorum: advantage Santorum.
OTHER ECONOMIC ISSUES: I do not believe as strongly in fiscal conservatism as do many here. I tend to agree with Lincoln (did I really say that?) and with Pope Leo XIII on the question of subsidiarity. Generally keep government functions as local as possible but the central government CAN and (perhaps) MUST do some things that we cannot do for ourselves. Many here would call that a liberal view but I would suggest that it is a view shared by many of the Founding Fathers. It has been suggested that Santorum holds some “communitarian” views (see Amitai Etzioni) and that may be mildly true but community has advantages over fang and claw individualism and need not be taken as far as Etzioni takes it. There will never be another Ronald Reagan or Mother Theresa or Padre Pio or Bill Buckley or Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich von Hayek. There IS now a Rick Santorum and attention ought be paid. WHO CAN WIN: If Romney is nominated, he will lose exactly as McCain did. Conservatives will avoid voting for Romney out of disgust. Therefore beating Romney is job #1. Even with Cain and Bachmann out of the race, we still have given Romney the advantage of running against Perry, Santorum and Gingrich, all conservative and all with dedicated constituencies who divide the conservative vote. Paul will take some “fiscal conservatives” from Romney but not many given his fruitcake foreign policy ideas. He brings Demonrats and college radicals into GOP caucuses and primaries as a sort of Woodstock reunion. WE need to coalesce around one candidate now and stick with that candidate. Once Romney is defeated, Obozo is next along with his Congressional and Senatorial allies.
CONCLUSION: For all of the foregoing reasons and because he currently is drawing more support than the other two, if the primary were today, I would vote for Rick Santorum and pray that God will protect us one more time. Ask me in a few weeks and unseen events may have changed my mind, but, if I change now to Gingrich or Perry, it will be only for pragmatic reasons that one of them has resumed a credible and apparently lasting lead over the other two. My personal judgment is that Santorum is the best of the three and the best alternative available to us.
Thanks for asking.
Black Elk
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2828719/posts?page=145
Precisely my rationale for supporting Newt as well.
Is it really our people taking them out? I haven’t paid attention to screen names and such but it seems like a great way for Obama or Romney to take out the competition, to plant trolls on the boards.
I’m probably wrong, hope so.
If it’s Obama or Romney as the next president, just pray (and donate) that we take the Senate and gain in the House. If we do that, we’ll be okay — sort of.
At best Romney is a Clinton-like figure, totally dishonest, without convictions, will say anything to get elected, and will shift his positions to go wherever the polls go. You might say that’s less risky than a pure liberal, but how do we know which way the polls are going to go? He already abandoned Kasich when his union fight was unpopular, he wants to keep Obama’s higher taxes on the rich, he defends everything liberal he did in Massachusetts because it was “popular,” etc. Romney is not a guy who is going to move the country in a conservative direction, maybe not in any direction at all. It’s more likely that he’ll go whichever way the wind blows.
However, we can be sure he will keep the status quo alive and well for the elite ruling class which he is a member of. Those are probably the only core convictions he has.
I’m on a tablet and don’t know how to copy and paste but YES!
Especially the part about letting the Communists own the collapse.
Much later tonight I’ll try to Chevy in and explain.
.
Oh, no, he's now just 8 points behind Romney NATIONWIDE! Santorum 2012. He's really passionate, committed, and articulate. Give PA another chance to redeem itself!
I understand the frustration. But the damage that zero has/is doing is going to take nothing less than a COMMITTED Republican.
Anyone less will not have the nerve to do what we all know needs to be done.
In other words, we need an ass-kicker with balls of steel, who can also get elected.
I announced my support for Newt here right after Sarah's announcement. I still believe he has the right skill set to manage the Presidency and the Executive Branch, should he win. I am happy to vote for him next Tuesday.
I'm sorry, I just don't see Santorum in the same way.
We may not have to deal with Obama this coming fall 2012. Here’s why:
IS JOE BIDEN GOING TO BE OUR INTERIM PRESIDENT...
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
AP - WASHINGTON D.C. - {excerpt}
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College ... Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
Anyone who says that Santorum is “not good enough” wants God Himself to run. Santorum isn’t just good; he is great. Remember, even the great Pres. Reagan blundered occasionally, both as goveror and President. Bob
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.