Skip to comments.We're Not Electing a Messiah
Posted on 11/25/2011 4:30:57 AM PST by radioone
No one is perfect. No one. Not a single one of us has led a completely blameless life. We've all said something that we wish we hadn't. We've all lied, cheated, or stolen. We've all done or said hurtful things. Imperfection is a reality of the human condition. We know and accept that we are flawed. We realize that our parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors are flawed. If we accept this as true, why do we expect more from our potential elected leaders?
Every day, you can turn on the cable news, or go to your favorite news or blog sites, and hear all about the Republican presidential candidates and how imperfect they are. We all know about the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain. Most agree that these charges have probably been completely fabricated. That being the case, we are then subjected to constant criticism of his campaign's handling of these allegations. Now we get to hear all about his flubbing of a question on Libya. The mainstream media has force-fed us clips of Rick Perry having a bit of a brain freeze during a debate. We know all about Newt Gingrich's past marital problems. He appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi, and he's criticized Congressman Paul Ryan. We hear these attacks daily from both sides of the aisle. These stories are designed to convince us of something that we should already know: no one is perfect!
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Rick Perry's repeated line of trying to make DC as inconsequential in our lives as possible resonates with me.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned, its that those who scream the loudest that no one is perfect, are generally supporting the most imperfect.
This isn’t a new argument and not all of us are stupid.
We are electing a PRESIDENT, not a MESSIAH, get over it folks.
No dog abusers as President.
No “unit” abusers as President.
NO more Flip flop panderers as President.
NO MORE INELIGIBLES.
And no more Presidents who think they are divine.
What we are - or should - be doing - is de-electing a stain...or "eradicating" if you prefer.
There is no Jesus candidate, look at the bigger picture, defeating the criminal enterprise is first priority. We need something we can work with who will follow the rule of law
We’re nominating a RINO not a conservative so get over it. /sarc
Obamacare has got to go.
So far only Michelle Bachman has really attacked Obamacare and she has no chance now of winning.
We know Romney will not do away with Obamacare.
Ron Paul is a nut.
That leaves us Perry and Gingrich. and Gingrich is in favor of the mandate for everyone to have healthcare.
Typically, I would agree. However, we have many here who also say they would stay home unless candidate X is nominated.
For me, the only absolute "no" is Romney. Of the others, I could hold my nose for a few and fully support others.
Perry has made few strides to regain his momentum, and Romney will never get my vote. It’s Cain all the way for me.
Bingo!!! The holier than thou types are gonig to give us obama again on a silver platter.
This should be good. Watch what happens when you present an irrefutable argument and the most guilty come around to try and deflect and rationalize their actions. Already seen one say “that’s because your candidate is less perfect than mine...” Pass the popcorn...
We need someone with a proven record—Perry comes the closest to filling the bill.
Newt didn’t have marital problems. They are moral and ethical problems. It’s not unusual for a man these days to have had an affair. It’s not usual for it to be to the extent Newt did. Newt’s AGW position isn’t normal for a smart conservative. His support of Scozzafava and the way he criticized Ryan’s plan are not consistent with a conservative. Newt’s core is not conservative. It’s not eating our own to point out that big government GOP establishment types aren’t one of us.
This is an unfair statement. I’m not sure who you’re accusing of being the most imperfect because I can’t tell. They all seem to have pluses and minuses. The most perfect is not obvious.
So you’d be fine with four more years of Obama? I mean, he’s not perfect but who is?
Both Perry and Bachmann are getting renewed interest from me. Bachmann needs to put her she-cat claws away and quit attacking the front-runners, but Perry is doing a nice job rehabilitating his image. My pecking order right now is Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Romney, Paul, Huntsman, but that changes almost every day.
All I’m hearing is the same old “no candidate is perfect argument” that we’ve been hearing from moderates for as long as I can remember.
Exactly. Why can’t the “moderate” wing ever hold their nose and vote for a conservative? This argument comes out when we’re having a RINO shoved down our throat and we complain about it.
Pah. All of the candidates have flaws. What is important is figuring out which flaws are telling about a candidate and which ones are not. Newt has become an absolute creature of the Beltway, feasting at its corrupt trough And his affairs to me show a man with no sense of restraint to fulfill his desires - they are quite telling.
Perry at least understands the 10th Amendment, Newt appears to have no comprehension of the concept that there should be Constitutional limits enforced on federal power. Once again, Newt projects an image of not having a sense of self-restraint.
So since both have raised the specter of humanity in dealing with illegal immigrants, Perry wins the nod when compared to Newt IMO.
Newt is the last of my anti-Romney choices (excepting Paul and Huntsman, of course). I don't see him being the type of candidate we need to alter how the Beltway works. Santorum is also Beltway-addled. To me, the only candidates that understand the Tea leaves are Perry, Cain and Bachmann.
False argument: Attack the messenger.
No kidding, if the GOP gets any more moderate they’ll be in Clinton territory. If they want to moderate someone so badly, they should moderate the party that actually needs it.
His worshippers and the main stream media thought that they were when they put obama in the White House. Their message was that he would transform the world into a place that would make the Garden of Eden a slum in comparison.
One man’s RINO is another man’s conservative.
Can we get Lieberman to run for our side ? He’s right down the middle so a lot of Independents and Democrats would vote for him. Maybe a Lierbman/McCain ticket. Some Democrats don’t like Obama - but a lot still do. If we could get Obama to switch to the Republican party, then really turn out as many mainstream liberal Republicans as Karl Rove, Bill O’Realy and Ann Coulter can convince to come out, we should be able to “convert a lot of liberals”. What a coup ! We’d almost guarantee that we’d beat the Democrats ! We just need to promise something to the unions and do some puppet-master-behind-the-scenes thing with Bloomberg and the OWS people. /sarc
“Right now I see two former governors who have a record of governing and they are Romney and Perry.”
Three former governors, with a record of governing. Three! :-)
Because they are people we are supposed to look up to?
You have a reading comprehension issue, pinhead. How did you make the leap from "All candidates have flaws." to "We should ignore all of a candidates past history." Why do think all three of your candidates are languishing near the bottom of the pack, when they once led? No-one can meet your standards...
Falsed argument:Ad hominem. We really should ignore you...the site would be better for it.
It depends what people mean by “no candidate is perfect”. Logically, that is obviously true, because we are all flawed, but if they are using that argument to excuse some heinous act or moral shortcoming, then I’m afraid it doesn’t wash. These candidates are aspiring to the highest political office in the land. They SHOULD be held to a high standard of conduct.
When I look at our current crop of candidates, I see some really good conservatives. Romney is probably the most liberal of all but the rest have good conservative backgrounds.
Do they have flaws, you bet. Any of them.....!!!....any of them is far more conservative than some of the folks we have had running in past elections.
George W. Bush and John McCain would be considered ultra liberals when compared to most of these folks. I think our current crop is a good group and we need to stop disparaging our own.
Question. Who is your perfect candidate? Do you think half of FR would agree? What's your biggest hot button? Amnesty/Border Control? If so, other than sealing the borders and getting rid of the most obvious criminals, what would be a workable plan to prevent any sort of anmnesty by getting rid of 10+ million folks? What kind of repercussions might be expected (fighting in streets, etc.)? If repercussions occur, what powers would the Feds have to assume to control it?
I'm a proponent of sealing the borders and getting rid of the worst elements, but cannot fathom a plan that would be viable to actually get rid of everyone that is not here legally. How much manpower needed oever what period of time? What tactics? Would Mexico rebel and not accept them? What response to that?
I keep hearing rants on "no amnesty", but have yet to see an actual visualization of a plan (other than folks seeming to think it "will just happen" if they get the "perfect candidate" in.
You can go suck eggs, shill. We’ve seen how you are willing to suspend your brain to bash those raising sensible critiques of Newt.
The messiah maynot be running but we do have a preacher.....GO CAIN!!!!!!!!!!
The messiah maynot be running but we do have a preacher.....GO CAIN!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, to correct myself, and to be absolutely fair there are actually five candidates in the race who have executive experience: Romney, Perry, Huntsman, Roemer and Johnson.
Our crop of candidates are nowhere near as weak as the media will have people believe.
I'm with you, but I'm just a little more stable in my picks. As we near the real "post time" for this process to become official and underway, the numbers begin to get clearer and more set. Those who really need the traction either have to start getting it or step aside. Those numbers are what will ultimately determine the nominee. The perception of strength is often more of a decisive factor than the reality. Hate to say it but that's a fact.
On the plus side, so far it seems to me that the money and organizational issues that the press keeps crowing about is not having much effect on the process. I think that's because the American electorate has finally awoken to the manipulations of the press in favor of liberals on both sides. When the press starts taking shots at views that are contrary to conservative thought, organization, money available and etc, I start taking a harder look at that candidate, especially if there has been a surge for them in any substantive poll.
That's why Huntsman is off my radar. If Bachmann does well (even third) in Iowa or NH, she'll be one I'm looking at more carefully. Same for Perry or Cain. But I'm betting on Gingrich right now. I really want somebody who's not going to stumble in a debate and I know Gingrich, Cain or Bachmann will wipe the floor with Obama. I can't say that for Perry.
It's stupid, but a good number of brain dead voters will base their votes on debate performance alone in the general.
Seriously? Nice dodge, bill clinton. Let me try again to make the point.. Perhaps we should be looking at the totality of the candidate...their overall value instead of focusing on the flaws and disqualifying every one for one thing or another. Let me give you an example... Did Newt endorse Dede Scozzafava for Congress? Yes he did. Did I agree with it? No I didn't? Is Newt better than Obama for President. Yes he is. Would I rather have Newt or Obama? Newt. Should I go on FR and try to convince everybody Newt is a scumbag? No I shouldnt. Why? Because it strengthens Obama. Now you try it...
The range of possible issues is so vast, and the shades of opinion on each are so numerous, that it is impossible to find a candidate who will exactly match your own stances. Unless, of course, you stand for office yourself. I’ve found that no one reflects my opinions so perfectly as me. I find myself in pefect accord. I never realised what a genius I was until I checked through all of the issues and found how much I agreed with me. :O
NO and HECK NO am I going to re-elect Obama!
IMHO I am also fed-up with the personal attacks that had taken place against Americans of PRINCIPLE such as Herman Cain. Not only were the attacks against Mr. Cain WERE WRONG to begin with, but they were very, very divisive as well.
False argument : Ad hominem. Just had two over-easy, thanks. Just because I shilled for Newt, as far as you know, doesn’t render my point either true or false. It will, however, give you an excuse for not having to address the issue and do the hard work of thinking.
AMEN to that!
I think Bachmann and Santorum are pretty near perfect. Cain is relatively perfect too because those sexual harassment BS stories suddenly stopped. Why? Because it was a lie!!!!!
I see no reason to abandon him (Perry).
Abandon? After his first debate, I never supported him and never will.
Glad to see you’re perfect and you know who is perfect. So tell the rest of us heathens who is perfect. I can’t tell.
The perfect team:
Newt - because he knows how government works.
Cain - because he knows how the private sector works.
Newt can present the ideas and Herman can make them work for a conservative result.
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.