Posted on 01/13/2012 9:50:18 AM PST by Veritas_et_libertas
Mitt Romney leads the GOP presidential field in South Carolina, but his rivals are closing in fast.
Newt Gingrich is close behind the former Massachusetts governor, while Ron Paul and Rick Perry have posted impressive gains over the past week, according to an American Research Group poll released on Friday.
Romney came in at 29 percent, followed by Gingrich at 25 percent, Paul at 20 percent, Perry at 9 percent, Rick Santorum at 7 percent and Jon Huntsman at 1 percent.
Paul has climbed 11 percent in the last week and Perry has gained 7 percent. Santorum, who was tied for second in last week’s poll at 24 percent, plummeted into fifth place in the current poll.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The brand new ARG poll among Republicans, independents and evangelicals has Perry rising significantly with romney dropping. On Drudge.
Wow - Dr. Paul surges to 20%.
guess Carolina citizens agree with
1) cutting the Fed Budget by $1 TTTrillion in year one
2) defending our borders
3) Ending Wall Street bailouts (End the Fed)
Peace
Sound Money
Liberty
Thanks.
Heres the link to the polling data for those interested.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/sc/
If push comes to shove I will do the right thing and vote for Mitt... but until then, I would love to see Newt take this one big.
What are you some kind of kook? You think you're living in the 19th Century or something? Don't you know that we have to give up our rights and spend Trillions of dollars we don't have on Globalist military interventions around the world or Al-qaeda is gonna getcha? (The same Al-qaeda the US financed, trained, armed, lead, and provided air support to take over Libya and now attack Syria)
Paul’s foreign policies make him a threat to the very existance of the United States.
If you support what he wants to do, you are an accomplice to that insanity.
Egads, Paul at 20%!!!
The only thing worse than Mittens being the nominee would be Ron Paul being the nominee!!!
Ron,
Yeah - Paul supporters are completely bonkers:
They think that the Federal Government should be limited.
They think money shouldn’t be printed like Toilet Paper
They think that chasing monsters around the globe decreases our security
“guess Carolina citizens agree with....
Peace Sound Money Liberty”
Peace? - you will NEVER have peace with an isolationist world view and foreign policy. It just dooms us to attack and loosing super power status.
Sound Money? - This is the only issue Paul isn’t a total flake on. However, our financial status is too closely tied to our national defense....which Paul will destroy.
Liberty? Paul is a “libertine” libertarian. Only dope smokers and others of that vein want Paul. The “victimless crime” concept is a myth. Sounds good but results in anarchy. Anarchy is NOT liberty.
“My policy has been and will continue to be ... to be on friendly terms with, but independent of, all nations on earth. To share in the broils of none. To supply their wants, and be carriers for them all; being thoroughly convinced that it is our policy and interest to do so; and that nothing short of self-respect, and that justice which is essential to a national character, ought to involve us in war.”
“...nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. “
-George Washington
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Legalize and tax it. End the so-called "War on Drugs" and all it entails. We ended Prohibition.
Is that not a conservative value to you?
And do we want to be the World's Policeman? How's that working out for us?
How can you be so sure that would be the right thing to do?
If Romney ends up being as bad a President and Arnold Schwarzenegger was a governor, he might be a worse option than going through four years of gridlock with Obama and a Republican congress.
The only reason I'd even consider voting for Willard is because of potential Supreme Court vacancies. But, I'm not even sure he can be trusted to give us conservative justices.
I’m not 100% “sure”. Nor would I be 100% sure that ANY of the candidates would be better. There is no one that would put me in the Romney camp, but, IMO, Mitt would be a less damaging POTUS then Obama. Given the choice, the less of the two evils gets the vote.
Goal #1: Get Zero OUT!
Wow. The Founders were an amazing group of people. It is alway amazing to me to see 200+ year old words cut right through the B.S. and identify a specific area where we have failed to follow their wisdom only to RE PROVE them right.
“Legalize and tax it. End the so-called “War on Drugs” and all it entails. We ended Prohibition.....Is that not a conservative value to you?”
NO it is NOT a conservative value, it is a Libertarian one. Libertarians are NOT conservative. Comparing narcotics to alcohol is a flawed example. Alcohol had be a legal, accepted article for consumption for hundreds of years before prohibition. It was entwined in the culture. Drugs have NEVER been remotely “socially acceptable” to mainstream American culture like alcohol use was. The “War on Drugs” is not as successful as it could be because we lack the drive to pursue it fully. Surrender is not a viable option. A president that will fully and firmly enforce the law is what is needed. Not a Ron Paul surrender Monkey.
On matters of “world police”.....I’m sorry but that is such an assinine myth that it isn’t worth addressing. We don’t “police” the world...we watch out for our interests.
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.”
In the context of the time he wrote this....the French revolution...and the United States being a small nation...it made sense. It is not really applicable today. The world is much smaller in the 21st Century than it was in the 18th. We don’t have the luxury of being isolationist as they did then.
isolationist = non-interventionist + protectionist
I believe it is quite obvious that George Washington was speaking of non-interventionism, not protectionism too, so your comment doesn’t really make much sense in relation to what he was saying.
“The only thing worse than Mittens being the nominee would be Ron Paul being the nominee!!”!
If it were down to Paul and Myth, I would go with Paul. His domestic agenda is good, his foreign policy is crazy. But I think the Rinos in Congress would insure a healthy defense. Heaven knows we need someone who will take an ax to federal spending. I don’t trust Myth to do that.
I suppose Myth would be O.K. on defense and foreign policy; I don’t know for sure. But I have no confidence he will slash 1.4 trillion in spending to get to a balanced budget. And if we don’t get this under control, we’ll be like Greece on steroids.
Right now, domestic policy is more crucial to our survival than foreign entanglements.
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.