Posted on 02/03/2010 7:59:12 AM PST by Sub-Driver
At this point, IMHO, no person has emerged who exhibits, by his/her actions and words, that the ideas of liberty are so deeply ingrained within that person and come so easily in response to challenges concerning our great threats to liberty that one can, with confidence, make that conclusion.
Personally, I would like to see such a person lead a national discussion on the principles underlying our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, thereby displaying a deep and abiding understanding of and faith in those principles as being enduring and "self-evident" truths.
Most, at this point, just talk about today's "issues." What voters need to hear are discussions on the nature and principles of liberty by which the potential candidate will measure his/her handling of current "issues."
Maybe the next leader has not emerged. In the meantime, "liking" is not an adequate measure for the serious leadership America must have if the world is to continue to see it as a "beacon of liberty." There is no better proof of that than the situation we have now.
"Issues" come and go. Principles were and are the same, from generation to generation.
Thanks. I see from your “page” that you appreciate the principles by which we should measure the people we entrust our government too. Let’s hope others will come to go by that standard—not the “likeability” gauge, an unreliable tool.
What I was referring to is the method the parties seem to use when picking the candidate. I don’t care who’s “turn” it is to be President.
For the love of our country send us someone with telegenic qualities. NO MORE McCain's or Dole's who come across as BORING and having no personality. We need a cross between RR and a fire in the belly preacher. They have to have FIRE in their bellies. Not be some boring stiff looking person with no personality.
Pretty good list, but I haven’t given up on Duncan Hunter. I’d love to see any of these people debate 0 and eat his lunch. I don’t think 0 could last 5 minutes with most of the people on that list before he is exposed as a bumbling liar, hypocrite, phony socialist.
One might ask: so why didn’t that happen with McCain? After all, McCain can do pretty well on his feet. Well, the simple answer is, 0 had no record, only grandiose rhetoric. It’s hard to argue against grandiose rhetoric because the most you can really say is “aw, c’mon, you don’t really mean all those noble and courageous things you’re saying”. Not a lot of bite there. But when you can confront him with his record, after a term in office, and show how he lied in virtually every campaign promise, how he dithered and bungled virtually every policy decision and how his administration was filled with kooks, radicals and lobbyists, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
I don’t think 0 has ever faced the test of really being verbally ripped to shreds; he’s always been carefully protected, not only by handlers, but by the media that was supposed to be covering him. I don’t think he’ll hold up well at all.
Sorry about the delay in responding. I got waylayed by the flu.
Haley Barbour is in his early 60s. After the incompetence of the amateur-hour Obama Administration, someone with a solid body of experience will look good. The fact that the candidate's appearance re-enforces that idea (to a reasonable degree) will probably be advantageous.
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.