Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Race Has Become Search for Perfect Candidate (Doesn't Exist and Isn't Necessary to Beat Obama)
RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 11/30/11 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 11/30/2011 4:49:04 PM PST by Evil Slayer

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I haven't shared with you my thoughts on this Herman Cain situation, the latest. (sigh) Well, this is a frustrating thing. In fact the entire circus that is now... Well, it's now becoming a circus. This whole Republican race, it doesn't matter where you go -- I don't care what website you go to, I don't care what network you tune in -- all we're hearing is all the shortcomings of all of these people. I don't care if it's Herman Cain or Bachmann or Romney or Newt, all we're hearing is their shortcomings. The headlines are, you know, "Newt's health problems! Romney's foot flops." For crying out loud, what are we looking for, perfection?

On the other side what are we dealing with? Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and all this stuff that never got vetted and is not gonna get vetted now? Yet even as I look at websites, networks, places I would consider to be on our team are nitpicking all this stuff? It's a little maddening because there's no such thing as perfect. The Founders were not perfect. The whole Constitution was created on the basis that human beings are fallible. The Constitution's premise is that human beings with too much power will abuse it and imprison and tyrannize people. The whole point of it was based on the imperfection of people, and yet here we are apparently looking for the perfect -- and I'm not running, so it's not gonna be findable.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Somebody just told me that Obama referred to the British embassy in Iran as the English embassy. NewsBusters chronicled this. He called the British embassy the English embassy. Meanwhile, we're told that Rick Perry is an idiot or that George W. Bush is an idiot or whatever. The English embassy? The guy, 57 states, Barack Obama.

Folks, I don't know about you. Are you tired of hearing things like, "If the Republicans nominate (fill in the blank) then Obama wins"? Are you tired of hearing about (fill in the blank) is not electable? They're all electable. Half of this country -- I got a story in my stack -- half of the country is afraid to buy Christmas presents because of the economy. Half of the country is feeling bad because the holiday season's coming up and they may not be able to go out and participate in it. And we're being told that our candidates are unelectable. It's all BS. If anybody, by all rights, by what's decent, should be unelectable, it's Barack Obama, the architect of all of this. Which is not accidental.

This can get extremely frustrating as this quest, this demand for perfection -- I don't know where this comes from. I don't know who starts this. I don't know where this catches on, that somebody must be perfect, when there's no such thing. The Founders were not perfect. There is no human being who is perfect. There's no perfect plan. Just like there's no utopia. Yet these standards somehow end up being applied to us, our candidates, conservatives, where does this come from, where does this start? You take a program like "No Child Left Behind," the liberals will say, "There was a child left behind, that program's gotta be scrapped." Really? How about the war on poverty? How about scrapping the whole liberal agenda on the grounds that it's imperfect? It's not only imperfect, it's been a disaster. "But, no, Mr. Limbaugh, we can't because the intentions were very good. The intentions, the good-heartedness, the desires to help people, the war on poverty."

Oh, save it, Mr. New Castrati. Your good intentions have destroyed a great country. You know, American Airlines, I have a sentimental attachment to American Airlines. I flew American Airlines home from Dallas in 1967. (interruption) What? What are you laughing at? This is not a commercial. American Airlines isn't a sponsor. They don't have any money. (interruption) I haven't flown commercial since 1990 but what's that got to do with anything? I have a sentimental attachment to American Airlines. I flew them any time I could. I flew home in 1967 after I had passed the test and got my First Class FCC broadcast license, which you had to have back then, it was a big deal. I was 16 years old, and the flight attendant offered me some champagne when I told her what I was flying home for. I was flying home to St. Louis.

I met one of the great CEOs in CEO history, used to run the airline, Bob Crandall. I didn't meet him, but I had a couple of e-mails back and forth with him. They're one of the more innovative airlines we've had. They invented Sabre, which is the computer reservation system. American Airlines came up with frequent flier miles. They invented the whole program, American did, and now they've filed for Chapter 11, and it's just systematic. It's almost axiomatic that this is all starting to happen. And here in this country, of course, you saw what happened in Wisconsin and then in Ohio, people who are living off the public, people who are feeding at the public trough refuse to do with any less. And, meanwhile, the people who pay them are losing their jobs and losing their homes, but the president of the United States comes up with stimulus plans and lies to the American people and tells 'em the money is gonna be spent on creating jobs, and all that's done is cement and sustain a financial lifeline from public employees to the Democrat Party via union dues. And that can only happen if they keep their jobs.

I hear that our candidate, candidate X, isn't electable, or that if we nominate this guy, Obama wins, and so forth. And who says? There hasn't even been a vote cast yet. Everybody's going off polling data. The Hawkeye Cauci are in January, the New Hampshire primary -- this is still up for grabs. Just last week, or the week before, Romney was up 30 in New Hampshire. Now that number is dwindling. Newt's picking up steam. There hasn't been a vote cast yet. This is nowhere near over because it hasn't even begun. And the people out there pronouncing it over are those who want it to be over in both parties, by the way. You have the Republican establishment who wants this whole early nominee to be done with and have it cast in stone so there's nothing else left to do. The Democrats and the media want to pick our candidate for us.

In the meantime, polling data at this point are about as accurate as the computer models for the climate ten years from now. They don't mean anything. None of these polls mean jack-you-know-what right now. Not in terms of the outcome. Now, they matter in terms of energy, enthusiasm, fundraising, and this kind of thing. Leadership is a curious thing. You try to spot it in advance. Sometimes you can't. Sometimes it's really not known how somebody's gonna behave until after they're elected and get into office. That's why it's important to have some kind of a track record of people involved so you can maybe make some kind of a judgment. That's all anybody's doing right now. All everybody is doing is trying to assess these people, honestly and forthrightly.

This is serious. There are people in our country who think that this election will determine, in the long run, whether we remain a free people or not. And by free people, we're not talking about dungeons and political prisoners in cells and this kind of stuff like you find in Cuba. That's not what people mean. That doesn't have to happen in order for you to lose your freedom. Your freedom can be taken away from you with an increased tax rate. Your freedom can be taken away from you with your private property rights being infringed upon. You own something but you can't do anything with it, you can't do what you want with it, you can't even own it. There's any number of ways that we can lose our liberty and freedom without being thrown in jail and without a police state per se.

So a lot of people really do think that America, as a nation of free people, is at stake here and that this election is about that. But it's not just this election. One election is not going to be a magic elixir. It's just the first step of many that's going to have to take place. We have arrived where we are slowly and steadily over 50 years, if not more. The left did not wave a magic wand and get us to this point. Now, they've been building to it and building to it, but look how quickly they were able to get us to the tipping point with their right candidate being elected president of the United States. A total sham candidate who ran on a series of lies and hoaxes and frauds.

But people fell for it. It doesn't take much. All you gotta do is run around and say, "You know what? I'm gonna lower the sea levels and I'm gonna raise the sunshine, and I'm gonna give you health care. You're gonna get the best health care you ever had and it's not gonna cost you anything. I'm gonna get rid of all of insurance premiums. I'm gonna get rid of all screening. I'm gonna get rid of all preexisting conditions. You want health care, you're gonna get it, and the millionaire down the street is gonna pay for it. Who would say no to that? Especially when you have a population that has been educated to think that that's just.

We actually have a president of the United States... Folks, I made a big point of this Monday. I made a big point of it last night. We have a president of the United States who announced, essentially announced on the op-ed pages of the New York Times on Monday that his reelection effort will not include "white working families." They are jettisoned. They are not a factor. The Obama campaign says (paraphrased): "We're not gonna even try to get their votes. Who are we gonna go for? We're gonna go for the losers in life. We're gonna go to the people who don't think they should work. We're gonna go for the people that we have conditioned to hate this country because they've failed, the other people have succeeded and they've stolen from them, and it's time that the other people give it back.

"We're gonna go for those people, and then we're gonna get the elites in academia and the artistes and the songwriters and the actors and the actresses and all this, and that's gonna be our coalition. But with white working families? Sorry, we're not interested in their votes." What does that tell you? Forget color. It's not racial, folks. I'm only throwing "white working families" in there because that was in the op-ed in the New York Times by Thomas Edsall. This is not a racial thing. It sounds like it. The "white working families" are the old Reagan Democrats of the eighties. But the bottom line is they are working. Now, in common Democrat Party parlance, "working people," "working families" has always meant union. They don't mean that in this iteration.

They're not talking about union people. Union people fall into the elite category that they described. They're artists, they're people in academia. They know that they've got the union leadership wrapped up, wrapped around their little finger. Hell, the union leadership is probably more left than Obama is, if that's possible. Now, here's a guy, he's president of the whole country. We've always heard, "Presidents represent everybody. You are president of the United States of America," and one of the great seductions of 2008 -- remember, the world hated America because of George W. Bush; and so Barack Obama was gonna make the world love America again!

We were gonna be loved and respected -- and everybody wants to be loved, right? And we were going to be appreciated. And America was going to love itself once again, and America was gonna understand its place in the world, and all was gonna be right. And we were gonna be unified like we had never been unified before, because we've got a candidate unlike any we've ever seen in American history, right? All of that. He even said he was gonna lower the sea levels! And now not even three years later this same messiah has it proudly written about his campaign in the New York Times on Monday that his campaign can't win with "white working families;" and again, don't focus on the racial part of this. They don't mean that, either. Just focus on the working. They're the ones defining the terms here. When they say " white working families," they have a specific group of people in mind that they're not interested in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You don't need prisons to lose your freedom. Look at political correctness. People stifle themselves. People will refuse to exercise their own First Amendment rights out of fear for what might be heard. Somebody might be offended, somebody might be upset. So people willingly, willfully give up freedom every day of the week. Political correctness has resulted in self-policing of your thoughts. I have a story here in the New York Times about how hard and patient and long liberals will be committed to something. Do you know when the school lunch program began? 1946. The school lunch program began in 1946, and now we are at a tipping point. In many states, more than 50% of kids now qualify for a free or subsidized school meal, and there's a New York Times story today.

And here's the headline: "Line Grows Long for Free Meals at US Schools -- Millions of American school children are receiving free or low-cost meals for the first time as their parents, many once solidly middle class, have lost jobs or homes during the economic crisis, qualifying their..." The New York Times is happy! Obama's happy! This kind of news makes 'em happy. Mission accomplished! Obama is still managing to make more and more people dependent on the government. But notice in this story how high family income can be to qualify for free or subsidized meals. Are you ready? Your family income can be 130% of the already high poverty level and qualify for free or subsidized meals.

Families making over $40,000 can qualify, and the New York Times admits here at the bottom of this story that it's "not just because of the economy, but because of the new way of certifying students as qualified put in effect in 2004" because the whole point here is to create as many people as possible dependent on government for -- not wants, not desires, but needs. We all need to eat. You cement the notion that your daily sustenance comes from your Democrat politician, your local congressman, your president or whatever; that is a bond that becomes very, very tough to break, very tough to vote against. "You want me to vote against the guy feeding my kids?" This is insidious. It is destroying the foundation of self-reliance and rugged individualism that has led to the greatest country in the history of humanity, and it's all being done on purpose by people.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Obama's job approval numbers are below those of Jimmy Carter's, eight points below Jimmy Carter's, and they tell us that our candidates are unelectable? Don't buy it, folks.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: eib; rush; rushlimbaugh; rushlive

1 posted on 11/30/2011 4:49:14 PM PST by Evil Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Just me me a candidate who is prolife and does not support individual mandates, global warming crap, gay rights, or is weak on immigration and who does not like bailouts.

I won’t care if they are otherwise perfect.

Nobody is asking for “perfection”, but some issues are deal breakers.


2 posted on 11/30/2011 4:53:02 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Nobody is asking for “perfection”, but some issues are deal breakers.

No kidding. I'm not hearing anyone asking for perfection but I'm seeing the most imperfect at the front of the line. I'll be voting as a tea partier.
3 posted on 11/30/2011 4:56:38 PM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

I agree with Rush. Everyone is claiming that only their candidate can beat Obama. And that’s just not the truth. Any of them CAN win.

And none of them are perfect. We are electing a human being here. Not a God. They’ve all made gaffes. They have all made mistakes. If one mistake disqualifies them, you will drive yourself mad and find yourself struggling to find anyone to support.


4 posted on 11/30/2011 5:02:09 PM PST by floridarunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I think many here agree on that.


5 posted on 11/30/2011 5:02:51 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

What issue is a deal-breaker? Immigration?

Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. So does that mean if Reagan was running today you would vote against him?


6 posted on 11/30/2011 5:04:38 PM PST by floridarunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer
AMEN RUSH!
7 posted on 11/30/2011 5:05:17 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01

and Reagan regretted it, a huge mistake he admitted.


8 posted on 11/30/2011 5:16:54 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
In today's religion of compromise, perfection would entail all the qualities you listed.

Collectivist, which include moderate Republicans, have lowered the bar so low, that “radicalism” has turned into pro-life beliefs, marriage is only between a man and woman, you are an insensitive boob if one is against health care “for all”, and have the audacity to think that we should enforce our borders.

We should be looking for the candidate who is less (Preferably not) compromised and promote core beliefs which protect the individual. That is not seeking perfection, that is seeking sanity.

9 posted on 11/30/2011 5:18:42 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01

Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. So does that mean if Reagan was running today you would vote against him?

Quite possibly. However, if Reagan was running today he would not support amnesty. That is if he had the advantage of hindsight.


10 posted on 11/30/2011 5:21:55 PM PST by Leep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi; South40

right on. Someone who at least seems to be on the same planet as me.


11 posted on 11/30/2011 5:24:04 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Leep

Reagan admitted that amnesty had been a mistake.


12 posted on 11/30/2011 5:25:29 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The claim that “there is no perfect candidate” (nobody claims otherwise) is just a method to rationalize support for Mitt Gingrich.


13 posted on 11/30/2011 5:27:48 PM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The claim that “there is no perfect candidate” (nobody claims otherwise) is just a method to rationalize support for Mitt Gingrich.


14 posted on 11/30/2011 5:27:48 PM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Ditto. That old “perfect candidate” strawman is the Conservative’s equivalent of the “race card.” Anyone using it should be automatically discounted. I’m sick of hearing that basic Conservative principles are somehow extreme. They are not.


15 posted on 11/30/2011 5:53:49 PM PST by stilloftyhenight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01
I agree with Rush. Everyone is claiming that only their candidate can beat Obama. And that’s just not the truth. Any of them CAN win.

Rush has also pointed out that the 'rats understand incrementalism. They will take whatever/whomever they can get to advance their agenda. For the Republicans, it is becoming "Reagan or nothing".

16 posted on 11/30/2011 5:55:41 PM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Ditto. That old “perfect candidate” strawman is the Conservative’s equivalent of the “race card.” Anyone using it should be automatically discounted. I’m sick of hearing that basic Conservative principles are somehow extreme. They are not.


17 posted on 11/30/2011 5:58:53 PM PST by stilloftyhenight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stilloftyhenight
For certain; we do not need the perfect candidate to beat Obama.

We do need, however; our BEST candidate; best foot forward; so that the damage done; can be most quickly addressed; and we can 'sprint' into our 'best future'; where America belongs.

WE can beat Obama; and still limp along; if we are not careful; and only crawl; rather than leap; out of this disaster. Time means a great deal; as of late. As does 'quality' of Presidential leadership.

18 posted on 11/30/2011 6:06:27 PM PST by cricket (Newt. . .the 'anti-Obama' ; and America's antidote, for Obama presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01
With apologies to you and Rush, I just don't find logic in the argument. Does this mean I should vote for anyone against Obama? Does this mean I should support a candidate who is (or has been) supportive of Obamacare, abortion, bigger government or amnesty? These are all issues which Hillary Clinton supports. If she were running against Obama, should I then be voting for her?

I don't buy the line that Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected today. Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was one who articulated and (mostly) upheld Conservative values. Unfortunately, the two leading Republican candidates right now are not exactly poster boys for Conservatism.

I only know one thing for sure. I won't vote for Obama. As for an opponent to support, I hope things don't proceed as indicated. Otherwise, many of us will be facing a huge dilemma.

19 posted on 11/30/2011 6:07:47 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

*Sigh* Feel like I’m reliving the McCain campaign. Okay, we’ll see what happens. Sadly, I guess my stance is nothing more than, “anybody but Obama.”

Gawd, how embarrassing.


20 posted on 11/30/2011 6:10:25 PM PST by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
There are three conservatives in this race, Cain, Bachmann and Santorum, pick one and screw the media and the polls and hanity and his best friend rove.
21 posted on 11/30/2011 6:43:10 PM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and his fellow supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat; All

In all prior comments rush said you had three conservatives in the race, and as I said above, pick one, or you will wind up with mitt.


22 posted on 11/30/2011 6:48:14 PM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and his fellow supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer
Four more years of Barry will destroy the US as we know it.
Staying home or voting 3rd party because you would rather perish in a Pyrrhic victory than vote for an imperfect candidate (as they all are imperfect but better choices than the Dog Ate My Homework Emperor with No Clothes).AnyoneButObama.
23 posted on 11/30/2011 7:33:08 PM PST by Apercu ("Obama is graffiti on the wall of American History")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Just me me a candidate who is prolife and does not support individual mandates, global warming crap, gay rights, or is weak on immigration and who does not like bailouts. I won’t care if they are otherwise perfect. Nobody is asking for “perfection”, but some issues are deal breakers.

Thank you for saying it so well. Amen.

24 posted on 11/30/2011 7:48:04 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Your welcome.


25 posted on 11/30/2011 7:52:13 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

bump


26 posted on 12/01/2011 2:05:24 AM PST by Christian4Bush (PSA. As of 12/1/11, 341/416 days 'til we vote out/take out the trash. (11/6/12, 1/20/13))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

The best we have is right before our eyes — Rick Santorum.


27 posted on 12/01/2011 6:07:08 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Please pick Santorum.


28 posted on 12/01/2011 6:08:13 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Thorliveshere

Avoid McPain with Santorum.


29 posted on 12/01/2011 6:09:01 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Because in the absence of Constitutional Government....the Republican or Democrat designee to the office doesn’t really matter?


30 posted on 12/01/2011 6:09:50 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket

The best we have is Santorum. Why are so many too blind to see?


31 posted on 12/01/2011 6:10:00 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stilloftyhenight; All
Don't think Rush or anyone 'here at least'; said 'basic Conservative principles are extreme. And looking for 'perfect candidate' appears only a straw man to those who are otherwise; doing just that.

Is Rush extreme? Would anyone here, deny the positive and the 'good' of Rush's being on air and sharing his ideals of Conservatism and for so many years? Does anyone here, now think he is now; not worth the air waves he speaks from; because he departs at 'some point' with viewers who do not like just 'one' of his choices; one of his ideas? It is not a straw man issue. It may be closer to 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' however; whereby, we end up with 'no baby'. And for some here; that seems okay - unfortunately.

No agrees l00% with what ANY candidate says; and arguing that because a candidate does not agree with one; l00% - while discounting all the positives that otherwise would not come into play; should Obama remain - is just self-defeating; IMHO.

Of course, no one is 100% perfect . . .but some candidates clearly have a more perfect vision for America; than do others. Or at least, a greater skill set in acheiving the highest goals they set forth.

In which case; we should at least, want the best available.

32 posted on 12/01/2011 6:10:59 AM PST by cricket (Newt. . .the 'anti-Obama' ; and America's antidote, for Obama presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stilloftyhenight

Santorum’s the One even if PA disagrees.


33 posted on 12/01/2011 6:11:43 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cricket

Rush should talk up Santorum to see if he can move any of our intransigents.


34 posted on 12/01/2011 6:12:59 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Mitt Gingrich, No! Rick Perry, No!

Rick Santorum, Yes!


35 posted on 12/01/2011 6:14:18 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Have you considered Santorum? Though he was tricked by GWB and Specter in 2004, I don’t think he would fall for such a stunt again. He has learned his lesson. He is the best we now have.


36 posted on 12/01/2011 6:16:18 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, articulate, passionate, less baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Theodore R.

I’d consider him if he is the next to surge!


38 posted on 12/01/2011 6:19:55 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Why are so many too blind to see?

No question; he holds to Conservative principles. No question, either; and unfortunately for Rick; is that he looks like he just graduated from college; and I think; he is not taken as seriously as are others. There is something to at least, 'looking the part' and Rick is not even close; IMHO.

And of course, he is not getting nod on insid' because he is probably viewed at 'too Conservative' and so, while popular/likeable. . .he is still considered; not electable.

39 posted on 12/01/2011 6:22:32 AM PST by cricket (Newt. . .the 'anti-Obama' ; and America's antidote, for Obama presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: floridarunner01

The others aren’t perfect, but Romney is a socialist. NEVER ROMNEY!


40 posted on 12/01/2011 6:26:13 AM PST by dfwgator (I stand with Herman Cain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer
Sorry, Rush, but whenever I hear anyone whine that people are holding out for a 'perfect" candidate, I automatically translate that in my head to "people aren't overlooking the glaring flaws of my candidate".

I know Limbaugh is speaking more in the abstract here, but despite that fact that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, this particular field seems more blemished than normal. On the one side, you've got the experienced guys who are exactly what we don't need -- insiders who are too vested in the "system" to change it. On the other side, those who are enough "outside" have shown themselves to be impetuous, undisciplined, and/or unprepared.

The only good news about all of this is that the latter group can be fixed. But they're running out of time as the primary season's start is next month.

41 posted on 12/01/2011 6:38:28 AM PST by kevkrom (Separation of Business and State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

“but despite that fact that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, this particular field seems more blemished than normal. On the one side, you’ve got the experienced guys who are exactly what we don’t need — insiders who are too vested in the “system” to change it. On the other side, those who are enough “outside” have shown themselves to be impetuous, undisciplined, and/or unprepared.”

I agree, with one caveat: the “outsiders” may be impetuous, undisciplined, and/or unprepared, but are not one tithe as impetuous, undiciplined, and/or unprepared as the Commie Punk in the White House.


42 posted on 12/01/2011 6:44:17 AM PST by SharpRightTurn ( White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Translation: The current field has either crapped the bed or can’t even beat those who have. But let’s ignore that and nominate one of them anyway. Maybe Barry and the Chicago Outfit will be nice and give them a break.


43 posted on 12/01/2011 6:53:35 AM PST by RichInOC (Palin 2012: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rational Thought; All
Unfortunately, the two leading Republican candidates right now are not exactly poster boys for Conservatism.

But one is definitely more Conservative than 'the other' - if only because he is more knowledgeable and able to articulate that vision. (No small consideration, of course; as a Country moves, hopefully; forward.)

Sugges all in doubt here go to Newt campaign site or just wikipedia and read full resource/bio per Newt.

NOt all perfect for sure - and of course (and now without Democrat 'politics' imposed against him) - but altogether; an impressive biography of accomplishment and proven leadership; that none of our other candidates can come close to.

44 posted on 12/01/2011 7:08:01 AM PST by cricket (Newt. . .the 'anti-Obama' ; and America's antidote, for Obama presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

So, I, um, take it you’re for Santorum.


45 posted on 12/01/2011 7:14:54 AM PST by Theo (May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

I think that you can take the names of all the prospective Republican nominees, throw them into a hat, pull any one out and put that person in the White House and four years later you will wind up with a far more prosperous and happy country than Zero can create.


46 posted on 12/01/2011 7:50:56 AM PST by NRA1995 (Obama's presidency is shovel-ready; let's bury it in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson