Posted on 12/15/2011 9:22:13 AM PST by conservativeBC
Edited on 12/15/2011 9:28:27 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A large number of big name conservatives recently came out in support of Michele Bachmann.
Steve Williams at examiner.com did a nice job of piecing together quotes as to why these people want Michele as President of the United States.
Rush Limbaugh - "She's not seeking fundamental transformation of our country. She seeks to uphold the country and the Constitution."Glenn Beck - "There is somebody I think that is exceptional and truly comes the closest to embodying the spirit of Lincoln or Washington in this field. And I believe that it is Michele Bachmann."
Mark Levin – “If I had to vote right now, I’d vote for Bachmann or Santorum” [having listened to Mark for a long time, I’m confident that if he really had to, he’d choose Bachmann]. Several times in the past month or two.
Peter Schweizer (discussing Congressional insider trading) – “There are some Congresspeople who out of principle do not trade stock. Michelle Bachmann does not trade stock, for example.”
Pamela Geller - As the fog continues to clear, Bachmann stands head and shoulders above her competition. I like how she thinks. And I staunchly support the majority of her positions. She'd be a great president. I want her to win.
She doesn’t compute with FR’s principles. I don’t recall the details.
I'd still like someone to uncover where all the crap thrown at Cain came from. If it was a Republican or anyone even gave an assist, that person would be dead.
None of the other remaining candidates has the correct conservative position on all the issues (economic, social, foreign policy, immigration). Bachmann is the only remaining candidate who is tough on the issue which is going to decide the future of the Republic: illegal immigration. The desertion of Bachmann by conservatives, in favor of frauds & poseurs like Gingrich, makes me wonder if the conservative base (not just the Pubbie establishment) has a death wish and a loser complex.
You are not a minority. Despite the polls, Bachmann has a lot of support. She seems to be the only true, consistent conservative in the race.
I think she will pull a “Tebow.” She may be down 2 scores with 6 minutes to play, but be sure to watch until the end of game!
Then in the last debate she coudn't bring herself to praise anyone on the stage so she praised Herman Cain, in a blatant attempt to woo his voters!
This after sneering at his "999 is 666 upside down"!
The reason that he cannot win is not because of him, it is because of the voters. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson could not win today, and IMHO Kennedy probably could not winner.
Imagine if the country was founded now ... the capital would be Obama DC
Horrible reportage in this so-called article.
Levin definitely said he was not “supporting” anyone.
You miss my point. She has demonstrated herself to be disloyal and inept. I would rather have some of my agenda placed in competent hands, than all of my agenda turned over to someone so manifestly unstable, disloyal and ineffective.
I agree with you.
This bit of stupidity finished her with me:
“I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate,” Bachmann said. “She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter.”
“Bachmann is the only remaining candidate who is tough on the issue which is going to decide the future of the Republic: illegal immigration. “
Amen. Everything else can be changed later. Even ObamaCare may be repealed later. Judges can eventually be changed.
Illegal immigration is permanent. Legalization of illegals invites more illegals, and the fraud would be astronomical (everybody provides some ACLU-provided paper “proving” they have been here 20 years). Then, CA citizen boards (with people who may be illegals themselves) grant amnesty to 100M illegals. Now that’s outright lunatic idea.
There are already calls for voting rights for illegals. If they get legalized, just wait for cries for further voting rights.
“Bachmann is the only remaining candidate who is tough on the issue which is going to decide the future of the Republic: illegal immigration. “
Amen. Everything else can be changed later. Even ObamaCare may be repealed later. Judges can eventually be changed.
Illegal immigration is permanent. Legalization of illegals invites more illegals, and the fraud would be astronomical (everybody provides some ACLU-provided paper “proving” they have been here 20 years). Then, CA citizen boards (with people who may be illegals themselves) grant amnesty to 100M illegals. Now that’s outright lunatic idea.
There are already calls for voting rights for illegals. If they get legalized, just wait for cries for further voting rights.
>>I listen to Rush Limbaugh each and every day. At no time has he endorsed Michele Bachmann or anyone else.
However, the quote attributed to Rush is correct. He said it. Not an endorsement, but he did say it.
Bachmann is my #1.
I tend to vote for who I perceive to be the one that most thinks like I do.
I do this because regardless of what subjects are discussed in the campaign, something new always comes up during the administration. If they think like I do, they’d more likely approach this new item the way I would.
In Romney’s case, I don’t care what he says about Mass healthcare being a state issue vs obamacare as a fed issue.
The fact of the matter is, instead of pushing a free market solution, he pushed a government one. So the next time he’s confronted w/this choice, he will likely act the same.
I don’t like compromise for the sake of compromise. I think politicians do this only because they get to attach money to new laws.
So I don’t accept arguments like, well it was “the best we could get” for the healthcare case because it would’ve been better to veto such “compromising” legislation.
Bachmann however is accused of not accomplishing much, because she often votes no on legislation.
I think that’s a good thing. If the compromise screws the people, don’t vote for it.
I tend to think we’re better off the less congress “accomplishes”.
By your own admission, you copied the work of the Washington Examiner writer, but not in its entirety.
You omitted Rove to cite one.
Pamela Geller is not part of his work and you show no link for her. Why is that?
Ditto for the Schussel thing, but she doesn’t matter.
>> Michelle ....
Maybe she’s got a shot, though the press has had some success at projecting her as incompetent, insane, and ignorant. >>
And maybe she helps that along a bit? I will vote for her in a skinny if she gets the nomination, but she does not strike me as that brilliant and I know she’ll over reach for an applause line at every opportunity - even when she knows she’s stretching the truth.
...witticisms... ...vaccine....
I guess it depends what’s important to you. The occassional gaffe, or core beliefs.
Obama was quite a smooth talker during his campaign. Did folks who seriously hold gaffes against Bachmann vote for him last time?
Honestly onyx, I was done with Bachmann after the smarmy hatchet job on Palin through her cat’s paw Rollins.
First because it is contemptible to use proxies for dirty work.
Second because it was personally treacherous to attack someone who had been an essential supporter for Bachmann’s reelection and continuing popularity.
Third because it was so unutterably stupid. Palin was a potential rival, but not a present adversary, so the attack was unnecessary to start with. It was also stupid because at that time both Bachmann and Palin shared an almost identical base. The hatchet job OF COURSE drove a portion of her base away, taking votes, volunteer time and donations with them. People in her camp and some on this site were saying, oh, there can be only one and in time it will all be OK and you will support her. Stupid decision, stupid execution, stupid expectations.
The argument remains: “Oh, but she will be an effective candidate and president. She will not compromise on her conservative principles.”
She was punked by Boehner.
Punked. By Boehner.
‘Nuff said.
That's because conservatives are racists, homophobes, misogynists, anti-poor …. /s
I remember when Ronald Reagan said something like 'someday there will be a woman president, and she will be a Republican'
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.