Posted on 12/16/2011 4:51:35 AM PST by Jabba the Nutt
Michele Bachmann needs to connect the dots. She set the table last night at the debate, now she needs to close the noose.
Bachmann attacked Newt for stepping in, when the Republicans were going to take a vote to prohibit using party funds for GOP candidates, who support Partial Birth Abortion. Newt said at the debate, that he wasn't going to support "a purge" in the party. Newt, it's not "a purge". GOP candidates wouldn't be sought out and removed from the party, candidates whose judgment was so poor as to support the barbarism of Partial Birth Abortion just wouldn't get Party funds. David Duke was denounced, when he ran as a Republican in Louisiana and denied Party funds for his racist views. Partial Birth Abortion doesn't cross the line in Newt's opinion?
Give me a break! Bachmann sounded like a school girl last night...saying stuff that was not factual.
Some of us have finally had it with this compromising for the interests of a party which has no principles beyond a desire to win the next election. The Demonrat Party has a strategy, a long-term plan, to turn American into a Soviet state. The Pubbies answer is: "well, we're gonna cut taxes a little here, cut spending a little there." They merely slow down the slide toward the abyss. Conservatives outnumber leftists in this country. It's time to offer a principled conservative candidate, not another devious sociopath.
MB can even lead her thinking straight!
Bachmann is the loser in a race between her and Obama, making the HUGE assumption that she were to be the Republican nominee, that is.
And how has the Pubbie strategy of offering the country "compassionate conservatives" and other sly partisan hacks (Dole, McCain, etc.) worked out?
You are right. Bachmann does seem a lot keener to attack Gingrich than Romney. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes?
Ultimately this is all playing out with the grim inevitability of Greek tragedy. 8 months ago, I (and many others)could have told you that Mitt Romney would be the nominee. Nothing I have seen has dissuaded me from the accuracy of that depressing prediction.
The establishment are preparing to coalesce behind him.
I’m a hopelessly partisan dreamer, quite prepared to face mockery, but Huntsman continues to slowly rise in New Hampshire. Far better him than Mitt Romney. Far better.
So what?
The election in November is in all 50 states.
I'm not saying that you, the voter, should. But someone who accepts a party leadership position takes on a responsibility to the party; that's pretty much a truism. I just don't think it's fair to criticize someone for doing their job properly.
> responsibility to work in the best interests of the party,
> which may at time conflict with your own personal views, in
> order to build a working majority.
Is it in the best interest of the party to provide support for the likes of Scuzzyface, a pro-abortion, anti-gun, “progressive” that will vote against you in Congress regardless of which side of the aisle it occupies? Or even defect to the other party when doing so would give the opposition the power to grant the aforementioned pro-abortion, anti-gun “progressive” Republican a committee chair?
Sorry.
Principle MUST trump pragmatism.
If not, then all you have is a bunch of unprincipled, opportunist politicos, like much of the current Co0ngress and Senate.
Gingrich is a pragmatist. His principles take second place to his schema.
I do not trust him and will not vote for him in the primary.
I will be forced once again to vote for the lesser of two evils on the presidential ballot if it’s Gingrich against he Maoist Moslem Alien.
Look, do you want Romney to be the nominee or not? Because that’s what it’s come down to.
I don’t like having to compromise either, but I also have to be realistic. I want a future where I can actually work and live in, etc. and I’m not going to shoot myself in the foot for sake of ideological purity.
If you want to go down with the sinking ship, fine. But screw you and others who think like that for taking all of us down with you.
The ones who sounded like winners last night (like them or not) where the ones who went after Obama not each other. Bachmann was all about trying to knock down Newt and Romney a rung or two ,and it did her no good.
She made an ass of herself and was trounced by the men. I’ll be surprised if she doesn’t start whining about women being abused.
At least she’s consistent. She’s run a pretty much a totally negative campaign. She attacks every leader in the polls except Romney. She reminds me of crabs in a bucket. Every time one climbs close to the top another crap at the bottom grabs it and pulls in down. She stretches truth, uses questionable data to do it, and then repeats to the point of nauseating.
You are another FReeper who demonstrates they do not understand politics versus ideology.
Conservatism is not a political party.
If you want that, you have to go back to the NAZI party where you adhered to the party line or were taken out.
Even the liberals do not have a political party.....as witnessed by the difficulty in passing Obamacare.
The wisdom of the Founders is lost upon people like you.
Apologies for semi off topic comments.
Mc
Too bad Bachmann didn’t have her facts straight and that she makes alot of conservatives and the general public bristle when she goes on the attack.
Michelle is nuttier than a fruitcake.
Apologies for semi off topic comments.
Mc
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.