Posted on 01/05/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Tea party favorite and pro-life conservative Sarah Palin and her family were viciously attacked to the point she chose not to run.
Congressional Tea Party Caucus leader and constitutional pro-life conservative Michele Bachmann had early promise, but I guess came across as too "shrill" and consequently her numbers driven down to the point she exited.
Successful pro-life conservative Texas Governor Perry hit the race at the top but due to missteps and less than stellar debate performances soon fizzled and is now all but gone.
Pro-life conservative businessman Cain and his famous 9-9-9 plan had promise, but was driven out due to indefensible allegations.
Pro-life Reagan Revolution conservative Newt Gingrich reinvigorated his campaign and soared to the top of the national polls, but was unacceptable to the establishment and apparently also unacceptable to the "true conservatives" among us and his numbers are now plummeting
You'd think "unquestionably" pro-life, pro-family conservative Rick Santorum whose recent surge took him to a tie in Iowa and who's now surging in the national polls might be good enough to stand against Romney for the base, but looks like there are "true conservatives" now attacking HIM as not good enough.
Well, drive them all out and who's left?
Huntsman? Who? Moonbat Paul?
Ideas anyone? Should we all continue attacking the conservatives we don't like until we drive them all out?
Personally, I could easily have lived with Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt or Santorum and would be proud to enthusiastically support any of them, warts and all. Any one of them is infinitely better than Obama or Romney.
But if we don't land on one soon and raise him up over Romney, guess who we're going to be stuck with? And it ain't going to be pretty. And if abortionist/statist/progressive Romney (or moonbat Paul) is the one, might as well get used to four more years of Obama. I won't vote for or support either one of those two.
I'd suggest that we all stop trying to tear down the other conservative candidates in the race and instead concentrate on trying to build up our own personal favorites. Who knows? May even discover an acceptable conservative (if not a great conservative) in the bunch. We've never had a perfect conservative yet. Not even the magnificent Ronald Reagan. We and they all have warts.
But we do want to have a candidate with at least an actual CONSERVATIVE record and not an out and out liberal progressive RINO. So let's compare their records and their actual conservative accomplishments but not try to destroy them personally.
God bless and may the best CONSERVATIVE be our nominee.
Gee, you finally noticing the obvious Jim? You forgot to mention their respective supporters too...
Welcome to the reality of FreeRepublic.com, once home of civility and fellow conservatives, regardless who they supported, but now a battleground dominated by bullies claiming to be more conservative than thou...
The Democratic party should be so blessed with such dysfunction..........
We’re still stuck in non-Romney mode. I don’t see how the voters can resolve this. There is no way we will all agree to support one candidate while they’re all in the race. At this stage only the candidates can resolve this. The non-Romneys need to bow out, form alliances or something if they want to defeat Mittney.
Dick Morris is right, Rick Santorum’s surge is God’s gift to Mitt Romney. If Newt had remained the clear frontrunner, the others besides “Ih-Ron Paul” could all be bowing out and forming alliances with Newt in V.P. or cabinet positions. Now neither Newt nor Rick is likely to bow out unless they’re feeling very generous or decisively lose some states. Together, they have more than enough support to beat Romney. Separately, they both lose.
A purely proportional or popular vote-based primary voting system would help. The winner-take-all states were blamed for pushing McCain into a decisive lead much too early. But the candidates would still have the problem of fundraising to keep them going for the long haul.
One thing’s for sure, you can’t teach an old Massachusetts RINO “Newt Ricks.”
I think their mistake is having so many debates controlled by the liberal media. They ask loaded questions and control who gets what and frame the debate. It is hardly unbiased.
Have their own debates moderated by conservatives and put them on the internet. Make the lib media be spectators.
Agreed with lots of Prayer.
I beg to differ. Perry is not all but gone and is fully engaged.
No it is not time for Perry and Gingrich to drop out. No candidate, including Romney, can clinch the nomination until well into April because of the way the RNC designed the delegate allocation this primary season. We have plenty of time to look at all three non-Romney candidates. While we’re doing that, each of them has the opportunity to make their best arguments to us and build a national campaign structure. A couple of weeks before Super Tuesday is essentially our deadline to pick one of those three to unite behind.
Is Romney really better, or does he just appear to be so? On one hand, Obama is clearly anti-American of late, seems less concerned with anyone seeing through this. Yet the other hand holds a very polished individual, who is well entrenched with individuals who made bets which help create this economic position. He's even been involved first-hand in destroying companies because it was "profitable" at the time.
My concern with stating a RINO would be better than Obama is that when it comes to crunch time, the RINO in Romney comes to the forefront and America loses.
We see lots of sabre rattling from the Republicans, but what is actually being accomplished. Nothing has been done to Eric Holder, these so-called recess appointments will likely end up with nothing being done, or the Republicans in Congress will push it towards the courts when they have the power to take action themselves.
While I can appreciate Jim's post, my concern is that we essentially receive nothing but crumbs from the party that claims to represent us. Occasionally we see a glimmer of hope, such as from the freshman Tea-Party candidates. But it typically doesn't take long for the Republican establishment, "OUR" party, to stab their very own right in the back and then tell us to toe the party line.
Texas employers are responsible for one of every five new jobs created between June 2010 to June 2011.
Four of the top five job creating cities are in TX.
Gov. Perry says, "I am proud of the environment we have created in Texas that allows employers to risk their capital, receive a return on their investment and create jobs, thanks to our low taxes, reasonable and predictable regulatory environment, fair legal system and skilled workforce."
At this time, job creation and economic growth is a highly critical issue facing our nation.
Nicely said.
Interesting analysis...probably pretty accurate, imho.
I haven't trusted them as far as I can throw a D9 since the Joe Miller/Lisa Murkowski debacle.
Thank you. It was 100 percent true and authentic. I lost sight of what the focus was and that is getting rid of Obama and ensuring that Romney is not the nominee.
Gov. Perry also signed legislation requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion.
We don't have to wonder how Gov. Perry will perform on this issue--we know, as he's already done it.
Gingrich - The junkyard dog we need to tear up Washington. He's been there, done that, knows where the bodies are buried, and is a deep and eloquent student of American history and the Constitution. Flawed? Yes. (Aren't we all?) Fatally flawed? No. (That's spin) We need strong medicine to cure the cancer in Washington - not GHW Bush Lite. Newt can bring that.
Perry - Great executive experience, strong record of achievement, good core values, tough. He could and would get the job done as well.
Santorum - Strong core values and knows Washington. He could do the job too. He has grown in this campaign. His weak point is executive experience but he is miles ahead of the fraud currently in the White Hut,... plus he is not a Communist nor an Islamist sympathizer.
Jon Huntsman - Not the absolute worst, but he hasn't a prayer of getting nominated. Maybe Newt can make him ambassador to China?
Romney - Weak Willard talks a good game, smiles a lot, and has nice hair. But in the end, he will get rolled by our enemies, foreign and domestic. The fact he is loved by McLame and the GOP establishment tells you all you need to know about him being an "outsider". If nominated, he will get creamed by Obama and will end up defeated and weeping in the snow like Ed Muskie. He will go down in the Gerald Ford/Bob Doe/John McCain Hall Off Fame For GOP Losers.
Ron Paul - 70% correct but the remainder 30% (foreign and military policy) makes him the crazy aunt in the attic. He might stop our economic slide and eviscerate the FED (both worthy goals) but in the end he would probably throw the overall game to our enemies. I would love to see Newt make him Fed Chairman.
Frankly, I'm not sure which of the previous two should be last place.
That said, any of the above are miles ahead of Obama and the sure destruction of America if we lose in 2012!
Good post. Conservatism is in a fight for its very life against an entrenched, well-armed and vicious enemy who will stop at nothing to crush us. They want us finally and unquestionably dead dead dead.
I believe the one who will rise to the top in the next few weeks will be fairly obvious, and we will need to decide or we will be in a world of hurt, electing Romney in our short sightedness.
Can't agree more about the need for the conservative patriot base to rally around whichever anti-Romney stands tallest after South Carolina and Florida. Like you, I think it will be more than obvious who that is, by that point.
For my money, I think it will be Gingrich, and although he's a flawed conservative, we can't spare the man. He fights, and in my mind, is best suited of the three to lead the country into a decade of restoration and reformation.
But how translatable is that to the national stage? Other states may have laws favorable to unions and other regulations that Perry isn’t going to be able to do anything about as president. Obviously whatever federal regulations Obama has in place aren’t hurting Texas too bad, so why are other states not doing as well?
Is Perry just drawing in companies and investment from other parts of the country to his state? Or do the natural resources of Texas just give them better opportunities in this energy-hungry era?
I’m not saying Perry won’t be better for creating a climate of job creation than Obama, but I don’t think he would be any better than Newt or Santorum. Texas is doing well because it’s Texas, not so much because of Perry.
One thing I do, the fact of Mittney’s Massachusetts ranking 47th in job creation is going to be burned into everybody’s brain by Obama by the time election day comes around.
The result is TX is the envy of the rest of the states.
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.