Posted on 12/14/2011 4:23:06 AM PST by expat1000
Indeed it is. This is what separates him from the Slickmeister. The Slickmeister could come off as a likeable centrist, not an arrogant Marxist.
If Obama didn’t have an automatic 30% approval rating,he’d be near single digits in approval!
Obama must go, and any of our candidates would be a vast improvement over what we have now. But I’ve lost my excitement and enthusiasm for the election because I’m not crazy about any of the names left. Kind of the way I felt when Fred Thompson dropped out in 2008. I disliked McCain even more that most of us dislike Romney today and I felt like a deflated balloon. We all did. Yet, something changed in that election that brought back the momentum and excitement, and it even had many of us reach for our check books to send the McCain campaign a little something, or ask how we might volunteer. If you look back on the 2008 archives of FR you will see how enthused we were. So what happened? PALIN. One of the smartest picks of a VP in presidential history.
If McCain did not run such a horrible campaign following that pick Obama would still be just a Senator from ILL.
We can only hope that Newt, Mitt, or whoever can really give the VP pick some thought and think back to 2008. There are a number of names that would give us that feeling back.
And what's the alternative??? The GOP is just as guilty if not more for allowing and encouraging the jobs that these people used to work at to go to Mexico and China...
So what's the difference??? The GOP will kick these people to the curb and drive over them???
That's the way the Democrats see it because that's what the GOP pretty much claims...
Neither party has any plans out there to bring jobs back...
***Neither party has any plans out there to bring jobs back...***
Newt and Huntsman discussed the China conundrum in great detail during their C-Span debate. They presented sound solutions.
There is a video available if you missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH0drHeIfcQ
That video is short - sorry.
Just google Gingrich Huntsman debate and find the longer version.
I have thought this for a long time and still think it. In the end we will see who wants Obama out bad enough to vote for the last man standing.
I see very little chance for anything but collapse.
LLS
My pet Lepracaun, who has never left Ireland, could beat Obama.
My pet Lepracaun, who has never left Ireland, could beat Obama.
I love how the Establishment is trying to decide who our choices are BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE HAS BEEN CAST.
The idea of the primaries is to get the best candidate you can. Fundamentally, that would mean a conservative, a limited-government person who will at least try to move the ball our way for once.
Newt and Mitt are both progressives and progressivism is the enemy of human freedom. As a traditional conservative, if my ballot contains two progressives and a libertarian, I’ll opt for the libertarian — and it’s not even close. For all my disagreements with libertarians, they’re limited-government people. Progressives (even “right-wing” progressives) are NOT.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Romney come in fifth in Iowa. (Maybe even lower if Cain’s people decide to stick with him as a protest of the way he was treated.) I can see any or all of Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum finishing ahead of The Mittster.
Mitt has another, unacknowledged problem among conservatives with long memories: his father, who was an out-and-out liberal Republican and Nelson Rockefeller’s stalking horse. In this case, the apple didn’t fall very far from the tree.
If the Republicans nominate a “progressive”, they WILL LOSE, just as they did in 2008. The three big Republican victories of the last 30 or so years were achieved by running as unabashed conservatives.
Which is something like saying that they're better than cancer. That's not a very high standard.
I wonder if the next president will find themselves under pressure from newly mined congressmen and senators to act on conservative issues and approve initiatives we hold dear lest they find themselves in opposition to their own party?
Bush was rarely in the news when he had a majority and I would prefer a president who isn’t a glory/camera whore/hog.
If Clinton can be forced by voter consensus and political opportunism, what then of a President who again has clear majorities which mitigate challenges from a certain party?
We must support a strategy that focuses on super majorities of both houses. New reps will be of the tea party or more closely represent our ideals, hopefully forcing a new president to pick a side and it ought to be for his team.
Example:
Romney is just as inconvenient a choice as a general McClellan was for Abraham Lincoln and since we can’t very well fire him, perhaps we can force the ludditte into action by voter pressure and house pluralities.
I hate to think of Romney in the White House and will oppose him even in the general(my thing) and my visceral disgust that he might even be considered but wanted to pose the thought.
Sorry the post isn’t as cogent as it should be. I’m posting from one of these stoopid smart phones and need to learn how to use it.
I wonder if the next president will find themselves under pressure from newly mined congressmen and senators to act on conservative issues and approve initiatives we hold dear lest they find themselves in opposition to their own party?
Bush was rarely in the news when he had a majority and I would prefer a president who isn’t a glory/camera whore/hog.
If Clinton can be forced by voter consensus and political opportunism, what then of a President who again has clear majorities which mitigate challenges from a certain party?
We must support a strategy that focuses on super majorities of both houses. New reps will be of the tea party or more closely represent our ideals, hopefully forcing a new president to pick a side and it ought to be for his team.
Example:
Romney is just as inconvenient a choice as a general McClellan was for Abraham Lincoln and since we can’t very well fire him, perhaps we can force the ludditte into action by voter pressure and house pluralities.
I hate to think of Romney in the White House and will oppose him even in the general(my thing) and my visceral disgust that he might even be considered but wanted to pose the thought.
Sorry the post isn’t as cogent as it should be. I’m posting from one of these stoopid smart phones and need to learn how to use it.
Exactly why we need to seize the opportunity and nominate a real conservative, not a Biog Government “conservative.”
Exactly why we need to seize the opportunity and nominate a real conservative, not a Big Government “conservative.”
History from Nixon to Ford to both Bushes shows that "progressive" Republican Presidents pull Republican Congresses to the left, rather than Congress pulling the President to the right. ("Well, we have to support our President," don't you know?)
I had thought Bushes as I was writing but still “just wondered”.
Ford isn’t really a good example as he was merely a place holder whose political imperative was congeniality of sorts.
I can see your point about Nixon but I’m gonna think about him.
I just can’t believe Romney is even in this race much less even some sort of after thought.
He has no interesting positions nor any I recognize as representing my ideals of political policy.
Males me sick to think this Oklahoma Weathervane is allowed to get this far.
Then again, this election more of a lottery than one of choices.
“Somebody’s going to win...maybe you!”
Barry is that vulnerable and that why we have so many candidates.
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.