Posted on 09/13/2011 9:51:44 AM PDT by JDW11235
“Any position taken merely for political expediency is a deal breaker for me. A position should be born from principle. The republican field at this point is devoid of principle... and that is rather regrettable.”
Agreed.
“Could it be possible that this criterion could actually cause people to support a given candidate for the wrong reasons?”
People can support others for any number of insignificant and misguided reasons. I have only been active in politics for the last 4 (general) elections or so, so I can’t reminisce about the pre-television days of many decades ago. But if you’re point is that people shouldn’t vote for people because of their looks, sure. I value wisdom and experience more than cheap talk, “Charisma” and youthful vigor.
I simply think that the candidates are catering to people’s emotions. Emotional crap is a deal breaker for me. I’d prefer to hear intellectual debate rather than debate centered on emotion. That is all.
Mitt Romney - I'll just parrot Herman Cain while I squash Rick Perry.
Rick Perry - I own the Gardasil Exec Order & TX Dream Act.
Ron Paul - I'm an apologist.
Ron Huntsman - I'm getting nowhere. Can we say that?
Rick Santorum - I want back in. Hey...over here.
Newt Gingrich - I did not do a climate change ad with that woman.
Herman Cain - I have very specific solutions...here they are:
Barack is an “Anchor” POTUS!
First, they didn’t simply attack us for our freedoms. A radical group attacked us because they hate the West, they hate Israel, and they hate infidels. America was the obvious target.
They didn’t attack us because they disagree with a particular policy. Their goal is worldwide sharia law. Their method is to kill a lot of people and create fear.
Regarding the “Arab Spring”, there are a lot of dynamics to it. There is a component made up of young people that desire freedom and economic opportunity. They may have been the impetus for the uprisings. They are different than Al Qaeda.
The other group is made up of Islamist hardliners that want to get rid of Middle Eastern dictators who have stood in the way of Sharia law, such as Mubarak and Gaddafi. The Middle East is not very cut and dry.
Sorry...wrong thread! :( not sure how that happened.
They vary in the degree in which they would implement these principals. They vary from Dr Ron Paul who advocates wholesale dismantling of the Federal Government to John Huntsman who would make some fundamental change in a few areas but leave the bulk of the structure as it currently exists.
The principals for 2012 all the GOP candidates are making clear are these.
The US Federal Government is corrupt, inefficient and intrusive. It spends far too much to accomplish far too little. The US Government requires deep serious fundamental restructuring and reform.
Nice try, good questions, however you cannot reason with Paul or his supporters. Paul is anti-Semitic and he is becomes more anti-American by the hour.
I agree with your first assessment, though I question whether all candidates truly believe your last assessment regarding the US govt.
I like Cain, but he does not explain 9-9-9 or the Chilean model. He can’t just assume everyone is as knowledgeable as he is. Well he can, but that won’t get him any votes.
The debates were my first exposure to Perry. Other than Newt he is better than the rest but has a real problem with immigration. The vaccine flap does not bother me as there is a parental opt out provision. He should not have admitted wrong doing as Bachman does not have enough class to stay away from attacking a front running Republican. I almost threw up with her "Little Innocent Girls" "schtick!"
Bachman gave a new index to politics; the B.I.(Bachman Index) which is arrived at by measuring the shrillness of her invective. The louder it is the worse the candidate is doing in the race. She should drop out soon for the benefit of the party.
Romney actually praised Perry's job creation which was interesting. Romney appears a light weight, poised but a not quite ready for prime time player.
Ok. I think I understand your view.
In sum you believe that the terrorism and attacks that we have experienced are part of an offensive attack by radicalized muslims who want to spread sharia law to every corner of the world using killing people and creating fear as their method. And you don’t believe that this is in anyway a political war that was initiated by them because they dislike such and such policy.
I think much of the disagreement between some people is that one group sees the war as politically motivated, while the other group sees the war as religiously motivated.
I am in no position to know which camp is correct, but I thank you for the reasoned response.
Freedom is not an issue in the uprisings in Moslem lands that is merely the Left’s way of disguising what it really is, an Islamist takeover. There is also a difference in the rhetoric used to give the LeftMedia a fig leaf to hide your actions behind and reality.
Democracy = Islamist takeover. Freedom = Islamist takeover.
That is a fair summation of my position.
Remember, these jihadists believe that Allah rewards them for killing non-believers. The killed 3,000 such infidels on 9/11, a major score for them. It is not because they don’t like the fact that we have bases in Saudi Arabia. Sure, they hate that we do, but the reason they hate it is because they hate us. The reason they hate us is because we are the infidel West, the antithesis to sharia law.
The IRA, the Basque Separatists, the ELF...those are political terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda is an ideological terrorist organization. Even if we didn’t have bases in the Mid East, they would still hate us because of our support for Israel. Even if we didn’t support Israel, they would hate us because we are the global power, the Great Satan.
Thank you for your analysis. What I particularly hate is that Jon Huntsman keeps telling us how we’re all curled up into a fetal position hiding in the dark. It’s actually getting to be more annoying than John McCain’s “My Friends” and almost on par with Obamao’s “Let me be clear.”
Thank you for taking the time to post all that, I found your analysis very compelling. I realize that there are a lot of dynamics in this race, but I am starting to wonder if any of these candidates will “pair up.” I’ve heard of talk that Bachmann will likely be Romney’s running mate if he makes the cut. There’s a lot I like about Cain, but at this point, there’s little that’s certain in politics. the media Foisted both Obama and McCain out of nowhere on us, and it’s hard to say who will end up in the chair. One thing is certain, we could really do ourselves well as a country to have many strong willed, compassionate, fiscal and social conservatives in the race. Sadly, they appear to be nearly exticnt among politicians.
And I hated the political double speak, and flat out refusals to give straight answers, all around.
With Islam it is the same, both Political and Religious. There is no difference in Islam.
If Islam is both political and religious, would you agree then that it would probably be foolish to ignore the political (foreign policy) reasons they would want to attack us?
I have always wondered what is meant by “compassionate conservative”.
Can you explain?
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.