Posted on 01/05/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Why not Gingrich & Condeleeza Rice in 2012?
OR Santorum & Rice in 2012?
Putting Rice in the veep slot takes a LOT of wind out of Demoncrat sails. It may split the black vote on the other side and think of the disaffected women in the ranks of the RATS who'd jump at the chance to make history once again.
“Ideas anyone? Should we all continue attacking the conservatives we don’t like until we drive them all out?”
Idea? Santorum/Ryan 2012. How’s that for an idea?
For All ye ... Willing to join the fight ... Taking America Back One Vote At A Time ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj5B_9Ew_b4&feature=related ... Hello ye zer0 Panthers ... Our guys and girls may be bloodied but we have plenty of fight left.
Some people have poor up-bringing. I read a post calling Gingrich a “scumbag” and I asked - how conservative is that kind of language?
And the reply I got was totally clueless to what my point was.
Thanks Hollywood!
“...but you do yourself a disservice characterizing Romney and Obama as equally distasteful.”””
A Progressive Republican is more dangerous than a Progressive Democrat in the Presidency.
Santorum: "looks like there are 'true conservatives' now attacking HIM as not good enough"
James, you have it right. According to the "true conservatives", Christ Himself is a RINO because He associated with tax collectors and whores, and "true conservatives" would never do that, so therefore He's not good enough.
Personally, I am supporting Newt at this time. We need someone who will fight the Texas Cage Match that this election cycle plainly is. I would very much like to see Santorum grow a set of fangs to match. The time for milquetoast replies to the Left is over. It's time for street-fighting.
“Romney is still quite a bit better than Obama.”
Give three reasons why.
Dare ya.
“Why is Newt So Angry??”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLweKX3BkNM&feature=youtu.be
A 15 minute video showing the VERY conflicting “styles” between Newt and Romney. IMHO, well worth watching!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLweKX3BkNM&feature=youtu.be
“Why is Newt So Angry??”
A 15 minute video MUST watch!!
I can put up with those who would hit on 20. What I have trouble with is people who pick a flawed candidate, pretend they are perfect, and bash every other candidate as an unacceptable RINO.
They simply BEG for others to respond in kind. And since there are supporters of every candidate who are like that, you can’t post a nice positive thread about any candidate, without getting spammed with vitriolic attacks by these “purists with blinders”.
I can overlook flaws in the candidate I support, even though I won’t ignore them when we are discussing candidates. I’d vote for Gingrich (heck, I came without hours of endorsing him when he looked like the only guy left worth voting for in Virginia) — but I see him as pretty flawed, and hardly a sure thing to win an election anyway. And up until 2 months ago, that was the majority opinion here at FR as well, Gingrich getting the laugh-treatment when his name came up.
Likewise, I’ve always liked Santorum but figured with the pure hatred for him here at FR and in other conservative circles due to his Specter support and something about the weather channel, he’d never really get the look he deserved.
I never really liked Perry as governor of Texas because of what I read here, and when I looked at his record for myself I loved it, but still see how hard it is for him because of his flaws.
We are much better at picking over the dead bones of our victims than finding nice things to like about people. I remember the night Colonel West went from Tea Party hero to RINO scum, in the course of 2 hours. It wasn’t pretty.
Name for us if you will three reasons that Romney is better than Obama.
Dare ya.
I am not worried (yet).
I liked Cain but he had serious shortcomings unrelated to any bimbo eruptions.
I also liked Bachmann, but again she fell short in certain key ways.
Ditto Perry. He is well-suited for the job he has.
Gingrich is still in, Santorum has risen, and Romney is still where he has always been which is rejected by 75% of the GOP primary electorate.
I’m not concerned by how much Gingrich and Santorum have been ripped on so far by whomever. It is nothing compared to what either of them will face from the left if nominated.
We have NH, SC, FL, and NV coming up in fairly rapid succession. Once these four states have voted, I expect at least one of Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich will be out and maybe two of them (but not all three).
At that point, just four short weeks away, we will have a much clearer idea of who the non-Romney option is for conservatives. We will not have destroyed all of our options.
The only way Romney wins the nomination is if two or more of Newt, Santorum, and Perry are still in the race and running neck-and-neck with one another come early March, and continue to do so going forward from that point, keeping them all below Mitt’s 25% base.
Also, for Romney to stay out front as the field narrows, those formerly supporting Michelle, Newt, or the two Ricks will have to flock to Mitt instead of to one of the others. This has not happened yet this year, it didn’t happen in 2008, and I don’t expect it ever will happen. We conservatives just don’t like Mitt.
My expectation is that Perry and Santorum will both fade over the rest of January, and Newt will rise back up some to become the clear non-Romney leader. Then, by Super Tuesday in March, the others will have dropped out and it will be Newt vs. Mitt for the GOP nod.
We conservatives will have nothing to be despondent over if this comes to pass.
Jim, we had this exact discussion four years ago about McCain. Is there any evidence, anywhere, that the will of conservative voters can subtract even a few percentage points from the choice of the GOP Money Men?
In the absence of a Reagan-like candidate who can appeal to both activist conservatives and the broader, politically disinterested Republican voting public I submit that we are always going to get the nominee the GOP insiders want.
Free Republic is all I need.
I read where Condi supports murdering innocent babies in the womb, if that is true then she’s a non-starter.
GO NEWT! I feel he is the best man to be President. He is not part of the status quo and that has the RINOs very worried. I agree it is Newt, Santorum or Perry. If Perry does not do well in South Caroline then it is Newt or Santorum. It is still very fluid out there and all you have to do is look at the national polls.
I think you're absolutely right, Bobalu. We need someone in the White House who's got a love for the Constitution and America that runs down to their very DNA, and who is the type of tenacious fighter who can't be bullied by the corrupt leftists in the federal oligarchy.
In short, we need one of those "flawed, but extraordinary gentlemen" to kick in the teeth of the Commies and their agenda.
Supposedly, per FoxNews and some other news outlets, there is some secret group of conservatives who are meeting behind closed doors in some secret bunker somewhere in the world to determine who the conservative candidate to face Romney should be.
Now, who got invited to this big secret meeting I don’t know. I wasn’t. And it is so secret, no on else, except a few in the media, apparently know about it.
When are they going to announce a decision? That is a secret, too.
Who is in the group? That is a secret, too.
How many are in the group? That is a secret, too.
Are they going to let the rest of us in on their secret? That is a secret, too.
I posted your excellent graphic to my FB page, with a hat tip to you. Thanks!
Perhaps it is time conservatives lead the way for all Americans and get over our collective obsessions with cults of personality and the Imperial Presidency.
Constitutionally, the President’s duties are fairly limited in scope and should provide an easy framework for the ideal candidate.
1. The President is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. You don’t put a supply clerk or the mess attendant in charge of the Normandy offensive, so why should we put someone with limited real-world military experience in the position to be “the most powerful man in the world”?
For a time there was a real dearth of talented, driven, men willing to trade their military careers for a life in the fishbowl of national politics. That, however, should no longer be the case. There are plenty of men, and women, who are now in their late forties who served honorably and well in the military of the 1990’s.
2. The President is America’s figurehead for meeting with foreign leaders. Foreign policy experience is an incredibly important qualification for a President. You cannot craft the modern version of the Monroe Doctrine if you cannot name the countries bordering Afghanistan.
3. Head of the executive Branch. In a conservative dream world, this job category would be far easier, since most of the Executive Branch would be pared down or eliminated. What would be left must be handled with the kind of people skills and management outlook that a military career teaches. A good understanding of Constitutional law should be considered a bonus, since so many Executive Branch activities are on the.. shady.. side of Constitutional precedent.
4. Finally, the ideal candidate has to have a working knowledge of the “powers that be”. He, or she, has to know the top judges in the country in case he needs to make an appointment to the Supreme Court. He, or she, has to know that Harry Reid plays brinksmanship like a bloodsport. He, or she, has to know the best “players” to advise him, or her, and the best “players” to ignore or out-right banish.
We do not need an economic guru. Economic policy is the responsibility of the Congress. We do not NEED an attractive, telegenic, superstar. There are far more “craptastically ugly” Presidents than there are “hunk” Presidents. Furthermore, superstars have super-egos that must be petted and feted on a daily basis - usually through involvement in issues and policies the President has no business being involved in.
As for social conservatism: keep in mind that the President does not write laws governing abortion, what is taught in our schools, freedom of expression, or the legalities of marriage. The writing of those laws falls to the Congress and the States. The President can appoint judges that share his, or her, outlook on social issues, but aren’t we, as conservatives, against the practice of law via judicial fiat? We should be content with the man, or woman, possessing the moral fortitude to know what is right and what is wrong and showing that through the actions of his, or her, life. The signing, and/or repudiation, of empty pledges as a litmus test of Presidential candidates is just one more bit of populist theatre that has no business in the serious business of electing one of the country’s leaders.
And that, right there, is my parting thought. “ONE of the country’s leaders”. The Presidential election garners far more attention and money, than that of the people who directly affect our lives: school board members, state officials, and Congressmen. That needs to end. THAT is the real change we need.
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.