You can purchase Cheney for President 2008 gear here:
http://www.cafepress.com/progopgear.18823337
Posted on 01/05/2008 4:56:50 AM PST by Puzzleman
-- snip --
So, Iowa chose to reward, on the Democrat side, a proponent of the conventional secular left, and, on the Republican side, a proponent of a new Christian left. If that's the choice, this is going to be a long election year.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
The part I liked best was, “On stage, he’s quick-witted and thinks on his feet... Put him in a presidential debate, and he’ll have sharper ripostes and funnier throwaways and more plausible self-deprecating quips than anyone on the other side. He’ll be a great campaigner. The problems begin when he stops campaigning and starts governing.”
..I'm personally ashamed that so many, who call themselves Christians, are without discernment...
..they are misguided and easily led....like lemmings over the clift.
May God yet have mercy on our nation....
..although I fear it will be His judgment, instead.
As usual, Steyn slices and dices with an exceedingly sharp rhetorical knife to find the core truth. My wife and I had similar discussions last night concerning the Republican field, especially Huck. Fortunately, we are both on the same page on Huck: can’t exactly pin it down but the man is not worthy of our trust. Steyn’s column gives form to that feeling and gives it a name — the Christian Left.
Thanks for the Steyn post!
Rush is right, and you are wrong.
If Fred needs Rush to advance his cause for him during the republican primaries, then A) who will he get to advance his cause in the general, when a smaller percentage care about what Rush thinks, and B) he’ll suck as President, because he won’t be able to rally the troops around him in battle with Congress.
Reagan had good positions, but he would have been a total failure as President if he needed someone else to do his talking for him. A President must be a LEADER - capable of convincing others that the way he’s championing is the right way to go.
Rush isn’t lazy or weak-kneed. He’s well aware of what it takes to be a successful President, and knows the only way for it to sort out is by campaigning.
Campaigning isn’t something you do to become President. In large part, it proves you are qualified to be President. I’m not certain Fred Thompson understands that.
“I think the sad fact is that a large segment of the American people—perhaps the majority—still look to government to solve their problems.”
Over FIFTY PERCENT of Americans receive some kind of government assistance! And lets not forget about the TENS OF MILLIONS of illegals who also receive free medical care, free eduction, free housing assistance and FREE FOOD!
Who says Communism is dead!
“Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink.”
P.J.O’Rourke
That is an obscene statement. We WERE attacked, and not just once. For 20+ years, we were attacked with growing sophistication by muslim extremists. We haven't gone 6 years without another successful attack because we are lucky or because they gave up. We HAVE our freedoms - including the freedom to shop at a mall without being blown up - because we took the fight to the extremists and forced them to fight our military on their home ground rather than ours. And we have our freedom because we've allowed foreign phone calls to be computer-monitored for developing plots against us.
Ron Paul is clueless about world politics, but he sure is getting rich by playing the idiots who support him.
At any rate, the problems with both candidates will start when they begin to govern and thus I cannot support either one.
Republicans can do far better than Huck. We need someone who will govern as a both a fiscal and social conservative.
Rush is pushing conservatism, not any one person.
If any of Rush’s listeners are confused about who is a more conservative candidate than the rest, then even Rush’s listeners are no better than the sheeple who follow the MSM.
Do your own research and make up your own mind. Why are you looking to someone to fill the void between your own ears ?
Rush will not say it because of his pledge or eleventh commandment. As an EIB schooled eighteen year, fifty two week, five day, three hour, missing no more than fifty shows in that time I can state without any doubt Rush is a Fred Thompson supporter.
Wow, great post.
Brilliant!
The Christian Left means that do-gooding, micro-managing Methodists like Hillary and Baptists like Huck with their Utopian visions of how life in America should be are more dangerous than number-crunching atheists named “Scrooge”. It’s enough to make one pray for separation of church and state!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You have to listen to more than just Ron Paul’s soundbites to understand what he is saying. What he means cannot be condensed into 30 seconds.
1. He does not believe we still need troops stationed all over the globe. I’ve asked myself that same question - what are we doing in Germany and Japan, for example, 60+ years after WW II ? We have a blue water navy - if need be we can project a helluva lot of power with the navy. Fighting Communism ? Reagan took out Communism by making them spend billions and billions on their arms and empire and causing the collapse of their economy. I ask you - is there any parallel to today and our economy ?
2. Secondly, he doesn’t believe in nation-building and certainly doesn’t believe it’s the job of the Army to build schools and such. We need our borders defended - not to have the Army defend some other country’s borders.
3. He makes a plausible argument that the defense of our interests stops at our coastal waters and borders. Neither we nor any other nation need the job of defender of the world or executioner of the intolerant. That includes involvement in the UN. We can more easily lead the world to freedom by example rather than by force. And if, like 9/11, we are attacked at home or to our commercial interests abroad, then we, like Jefferson, should take the fight to “the shores of Tripoli” - and then come home after we have pounded them to death. An example - did we invade Libya ? No. Then how did we make it uninviting for Libya to continue its weapons programs ? We took out Afghanistan as retaliation for 9/11 - and along with the Taliban, Quaddafi capitulated voluntarily.
4. He’d close our borders and defend them. If we had a trackable visa program, orderly and lawful immigration enforcement, and closed the borders/built the fence, do you think we’d have had 9/11 happen ? Maybe not - all 19 hijackers had overstayed their visas and had forged documentation/drivers licenses to enable them to stay here.
So, while I don’t agree with everything he says, when he says we caused some of the hatred against us over the course of decades of involvement in the ME, I believe we did. Does that mean Islamofascists have the right to attack us or that we should turn the other cheek ? No of course not, but let’s be honest about why they attack us. They hate our way of life, they hate and have declared war on any religion other than Islam, and they resent Western meddling in the politics of the Middle East. We can get plenty of oil elsewhere than the ME as well as drill here at home - let’s let the ME implode and collapse under the weight of their 7th century beliefs without robbing American taxpayers blind to build up other countries.
see my post #30
You're nearly 2 decades behind the curve. Do you consider the Bushes anything but moderates?
Check out http://www.rushlimbaugh.com and read or watch...
Monologue: It’s Back-to-Basics Time for American Conservatism
Watch Rush on Fox News Channel
Populism Is Not Conservatism
You’re nearly 2 decades behind the curve
truth bump
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.