Posted on 01/05/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Thanks. I'll admit that I'm a bit fuzzy on the man's record, though I do know it to be admirable.
Amen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLweKX3BkNM
Take a minute to watch this — Newt just says it all — like no other I’ve seen in YEARS — honestly, not since Newt himself did it back in 94!!
Anne Barnhardt’s video would stop Romney’s campaign in its tracks if more people would watch it...just the first SIXTY SECONDS is brutal...she makes Romney look like a fool. Not even Rush or Levin could pull this off...
If there's no clear winner among the 3 after SC (or surely after FL on 1/31), they need to get together and draw straws to see who gets what.
Or one of them could outsmart the other two and go ahead and name a conservative VP pick, which would knock the other 2 out for good. That's what Palin is holding out for, imo. Not sure if she'd accept an offer from Perry, but i bet should would from Newt. Now wouldn't THAT just blow your hat in the creek?
You know — all we’d have to do it give the presidency to Newt, give him a republican Senate and Congress ...and he’d turn it around in less than 2 years. It would be done without a minimum of fuss and fretting and this horrible time would be over.
Would he bloviate, brag, grandstand, and posture? Yes — but he’d also get it DONE — he knows HOW. He’s been there and done it.
Newt compared to Boehner?? Jiminy Christmas ..there is no comparison! Newt has the COMPETENCE for the job!!!
Enjoy your friendlier place where everyone marches in lock step.
But don't you DARE have the nerve to ever say on this forum again that anyone against your guy is a tool of the left.
Against Obama I’d take just about anyone. Don’t get me wrong.
But between Newt and Santorum, I choose Santorum. And I am not alone.
Is there any info on Leo’s site regarding this Supreme court date ?
I went to the link and it read just like that April fools day email that was floarting around a couple years ago.
Fwiw, I didnt go to Leo’s site yet... but since I’m reading this thread and doing other things, I thought I’d ask.
Got it, but I have a hard time getting past the fact that the man has little chance of winning S.C. or FLA, but will suck crucial votes away from one of the honest conservatives who need to beat the RINO and Uncle Crazy.
It's bad enough that the conservative vote is already going to be split between Newt and Rick S. This is exactly how we wound up with McNuts the last time.
Too, honor and personal integrity are the foundations of COURAGE.
It would take a lot of courage -- more than conservatives have yet mustered in a very, very long time -- to refrain from voting "R" in any presidential race, let alone one against the most toxic secular statist Democrat incumbent this nation has seen, and who would have been thought impossible just a generation ago.
Let the chips fall where they may, a vote for Romney would make statism and liberalism stronger in both parties. That is an absolute certainty.
People are scared sh*tless of the prospect of four more years of Obama for good reason. That's for certain. Another truth: Reactions made out of sheer terror are usually stupid reactions.
A vote for Romney, in my opinion, is just that. The aftermath would be worse and more long-lasting than Obama. Omama we can fight. Romney is as slick as oil. IF, God forbid, it comes down to being in that booth, just me and God and the ballot, I pray I find the courage to reject Romney, because it would take a lot of courage. Let's hope we end up with a better, more hopeful alternative.
I think the minute IA was analyzed (and it turns out Santorum actually won, not Mitts, there was an Excel ‘typo’) it became
clear that Newt and both Ricks going forward will hang together, for surely they will hang separately.
I’m happy with any of them holding whatever post they wind up with. Dropping the internal fight and taking it to Mitt is what will win and end Obama.
Yes, he certainly does. He doesn’t have the record to back it up. That is my biggest concern with Newt. He has rhetoric without the record.
Well, I simply do not believe that rick Perry is the ONLY one to get behind or that he is the ONLY one with the experience to defeat Marxism and I guaranFReepingtee you that I am not directed by the left, so please put a sock in that kind of accusation.
My motto for the duration or until statist Romney is driven from the race:
Go, Perry, Go!! Go, Newt, Go!! Go, Santorum, Go!!
Prayers up that the very best PRO-LIFE, PRO-AMERICA, PRO-DEFENSE CONSERVATIVE gets our nod!!
It's bad enough that the conservative vote is already going to be split between Newt and Rick S. This is exactly how we wound up with McNuts the last time
. Bingo.
Santorun was a leader in the Senate in helping Bush get his "Compassionate Conservative" agenda passed. Without Santorum there might not be free prescription drugs for the elderly. And let's not forget how Santorum help children with the federal take over of education with "No child left behind" I could continue to list the many accomplishments of Santorum but the pressure cooker is making noise, so I will leave you with Arlan Spector that great conservative that Santorum helped to reelect to the Senate of the USA.
Jim, I’m worried that our conservative right doesn’t have a person that is strong enough and can beat this POS we currently have as POTUS. Am I wrong or is there someone in the mix that can truly defeat this cancer on America?
Because he lives (and may politically die) by the creed that's been deeply ingrained in us since we were knee-high to an armadillo: Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!
Well, someone needs to tell Rick that we're engaged in a completely different kind of war right now, and that it would really help the war effort if he sent his troops over to help one of the generals who stands a fighting chance of taking out Benedict Romney.
The fact is no one is proposing truly and radically cutting government agencies except for Ron Paul.More's the pity, because Paul is the candidate whose would-be foreign policy is giving a terrible name to small government advocacy.
I agree with the basic notion that government needs to be bigger than it was when the country was founded because of how much more complex our country and the world has become. But it absolutely needs to be run better.And I agree with Mr. James Bovard (in "feeling your pain": The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years): "The majority of government agencies can neither be reinvented nor reformed. If Americans want good government, hundreds of failed government programs must be abolished and legions of laws that turn government into a public nuisance must be repealed. All other 'reforms' will merely prolong the abuse of the American people."
I don’t agree with the “send everything back to the states” thinking. I think too many conservatives think that’s the be-all, end-all of conservatism, but it’s an easy thing to say and unlikely to work out in practice.There are some things the states cannot do and the federal government can do. Over two centuries' experience plus the Constitution are clear enough about those. I would not expect the states to take up national defence, but why should I expect or insist upon the federal government's tentacles in every damn last facet of American life? And has it gone unnoticed that most of the reason for the "complexity" of contemporary American life is the metastasis of government?
We are a much more powerful player on the international stage when we are the UNITED, not divided states. We cannot function with 50 hugely different sets of rules.Then simply have done with it. Call for abolishing the states and their governments; suggest the appropriate singular monicker for the vast, newly-consecrated being; and, compose and submit that Constitutional amendment that will negate Article Four, Sections 1 and 4 and repeal the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Some of the states like California have gone so far off the rails that they ought to be reigned in by the rest of us.Wouldn't that be just as untenable, to say nothing of grotesque, as was once the precept that the rest of us ought to heed the influence of California, or some such other "off the rails" state? There's no known law that says as California goes so go the rest of us (and thank God for it!); who on earth are we elsewhere to decide when California---a state which stands clearly to implode under its own tandem weight of legislative and populist excess---should be "reined in?" California's own extraterrestrial excess will rein it in soon enough, and drastically so, and the only question then will be whether there will be enough Californians left to resurrect the state from its own ash.
States are a great place for experimentation, but once we find policies that work, there ought to be a national movement to get them adopted nationwide.When those polices that "work" are found, they tend to spread rather organically. Put the federal fingers onto those pulses and risk the solution becoming somewhat worse than the problem, if only because no two states are entirely alike and the specifics of one policy that "works" in one state will not necessarily apply in like or strict letter in another state.
Whether you believe in radically cutting federal government or not, there is going to be some government left and we need it to be run in an exceptional, not just competent matter.This is what I believe in:
I believe in freedom.
I believe in individual rights and sovereignty.
I believe in a properly-construed government, a government whose sole legitimate business, other than protecting and defending us from enemies actual or provably iminent from abroad and predators at home (real predators, if you please, not mere vicemongers), is to stay the hell out of your business, my business, every citizen's business, until or unless one citizen would obstruct or abrogate another citizen's equivalent rights; as opposed to the improperly-consecrated State whose business seems to be sticking its fingers into every citizen's business whether it is competent or Constitutionally sanctioned to do so.
To run a properly-construed government would be exceptional, indeed. Indeed, it would be the exception to almost a century's rule.
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.