Posted on 11/22/2011 7:54:13 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Edited on 11/22/2011 8:03:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
And if any conservative doesn't vote for the Republican, conservative or not, then they are saying they want four more years of Obama.
I'm 100% in favor of fighting to get a conservative as the nominee. I also believe in the saying that we should vote for "the most conservative candidate who could actually win." In this election, I think most of our conservative candidates could actually win, so that's not a huge issue for me.
NONE of our candidates is as conservative as me. My favorites, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain and Santorum have all said things I disagree with from time to time. What I'm railing against is the tendency of FReepers to label someone as "not a conservative" when they're wrong on one issue, despite being conservative on 50 issues for every one they get wrong.
Given we are talking 12,000,000 (?) how are you going to to do this?
Newt's not for that. His plan was 1) close the border, 2) begin deporting illegals. Subtracting some, but not all, does not equal adding more.
making things far less comfortable, much of the illegal immigration population would eventually self deport.
Yep, much of it would. But guess which ones wouldn't. The ones with kids and grandkids who have put down roots. Oh yeah, the same ones Newt was talking about.
Odds just increased again for a major Third Party candidate in 2012.
Or in other words, odds just increased that we get another four years of Obama. Not because of anything smart Democrats are doing. And it's not just that Newt "shot himself in the foot"... no, it takes the stubborn stupidity and self-righteousness of conservatives with a 100% purity test who bury him over one issue that he's not 100% perfect on. Dang. I DON'T AGREE with that part of his plan. But if he closed the border and began deporting illegals he'd be one million times better than any president in my lifetime. So I'm not going to criticize him because I disagree with him, when MY view probably couldn't be accomplished by a president anyway, and if tried would pretty much guarantee a Democrat would win in 2016.
What is inhumane about sending someone home??? Heck you would think they would appreciate getting to go home.
I think Newt was being latched onto as the last of the anti-Romney candidates to go through the spotlight. Yeah, he can debate. But cripes, look at what he had done over the last 15 years - wallow in the fetid swamp of the Beltway culture. He has NO concept of federal restraint that I can see. If anything, Perry would be better in that regard, at least he understands the 10th.
Sure, but Newt also wants to improve other aspects of immigration, for example, fraud-proof identification of non-citizens run by private companies. He has to have all-around buy-in of the overall plan in order to get any other improvements passed.
Meanwhile, if Newt ignores Congress and public opinion, which sadly is not 100% conservative on this issue, enforcing by executive powers with absolutely zero exceptions, he pretty much guarantees he would lose to the Dem nominee in 2016. I don't like that, but that's the way it is.
Obamacare is a prime example of the political folly in governing against the majority of public opinion. Conservatives aren't going to win on this issue as long as independents/moderates side with the liberals. And currently they do. I'm glad Newt isn't committed to political suicide as president, though ironically, he may have just committed political suicide in terms of getting the nomination.
Newt is going to take the Perry plunge down in the polls.
That's your opinion. I disagree with you. I've followed him since he was Speaker. He is a passionate conservative and clearly those are his core beliefs. He has a HUGE body of work demonstrating that. Yes, I believe that like nearly all politicians, he's sometimes willing to compromise his core beliefs for political expediency. But one could correctly argue that core beliefs become irrelevant if you can't get elected to implement them. I'm willing to tolerate a certain amout of political expediency in a candidate.
What don't you get about the above comment? That seems very straight-forward conservative to me.
And the part about those with families here, means that there have been children born, and those childre are AUTOMATICALLY US Citizens. It's just a fact.
It's the anchor baby law. It has yet to be changed, and any new law will not apply to those made citizens prior to the enactment of any new law, because the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws.
He didn't say that. In fact, he said we are humane.
We are also practical.
If you have a child in the US, then that child is a US citizen and will not be deported. Nor will the government take that child from its parents.
Please don’t misrepresent her position on illegals.... She said it would be impossible, not inhumane.... and she had said all along she is not for amnesty....
Please don’t misrepresent her position on illegals.... She said it would be impossible, not inhumane.... and she had said all along she is not for amnesty....
Please don’t misrepresent her position on illegals.... She said it would be impossible, not inhumane.... and she had said all along she is not for amnesty....
Newt's plan:
1. Close the border
2. Begin deportations
How is that not taking illegal immigration seriously? It's one million times better than any president in my lifetime. And it's one-hundred million times better than Obama, the guy you'd be helping elect if you stayed home and snubbed Newt.
There are a few issues you have to be on the right side of, or I won't support you no matter what because those are issues that will destroy our nation. if not resolved.
I'm sorry, but even though I disagree with Newt not deporting 100%, he's still on the RIGHT SIDE of the issue. Close the border and begin deportations is the RIGHT SIDE. So he's not 100% all in on the right side, that doesn't mean he's on the WRONG SIDE like Obama. Good friggin' grief. If we get four more years of Obama I will be so FURIOUS at you all-or-nothing conservatives.
So who are all of you Newt-haters going to support now? All of our other candidates have some pretty serious flaws too. I just hope you all can agree on one before the primaries... otherwise all the non-Romney votes split and Romney gets the most delegates and wins the nomination.
I tend to agree with him too. I have supported Rick Perry as an honest Christian candidate, even though he has been thrashed here at FR for his stance on immigration. No one is going to go round up people that have been here for decades and have families here and deport them. It ain’t happening.
Cutting off benefits would get rid of many of those who came just to milk the system.
Agreed.
...and the AMERICAN families who have suffered personal loss at the hands of the illegals who have KILLED 100,000 of us since September 11, 2001..?
Screw 'em...right, Newt? When you lose a family member, you just need to 'suck it up'...
This isn't a purity argument or just me being stubborn, it's an argument of logic. Let's say for argument sake that amnesty was implemented. What happens to the economy with an already overly saturated work force? Could we (as a society) exist with a real unemployment rate of 30%? Doubtful.
The problem with Newt is similar to many of our politicians. They talk tough when it comes to elections, but their records speak a different language. In Gingrich's case, I'm becoming less convinced that his views on important issues aren't closer to that of a Liberal than a Conservative. In other words, Gingrich has now given me more reason to doubt who he really is, meaning I'm questioning if he would indeed close the borders.
With that being said, understand that I certainly don't want Obama reelected. But, if we're going to offer up an opposition candidate (that being a moderate Republican candidate) whom history has proven won't win, then my only recourse is to look towards 2016, accepting that the next four years will be worse than the previous four years. I don't like this option, in fact I detest it.
Unlike you (I guess), I'm unwilling to pretend our possible nominee is something that he isn't. I will criticize that individual when they're wrong. I tried (once again) pretending in 2008, and look what it got us.
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.