Posted on 06/14/2011 6:06:54 AM PDT by chessplayer
According to a survey of We the People, all the people in the above list are a festering boil on the backside of America.
I’ll take the chicago thugs. The longer they are around the more pissed off everyone gets at liberals in general. It’s a race between the populace getting angry enough to do something decisive and the destruction of the country.
With romney we get the death of a thousand cuts.
You took his comment to mean the last presidential election. I took it to mean elections for quite some time. A constant downward drift, as it were, constantly being stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Romney made the biggest gaffe of the night when he said “Taliban army” instead of “afghan”. The tv camera’s were on a man in uniform at the time who was taken aback by the comment. The fact that the press is pushing Romney as the frontrunner should tell us all we need to know.
“However, would you prefer 4 more years of Chicago commie thug politics, or the soft socialism of a Romney?”
This is actually a very good question, and I suspect it may be on the minds of many thinking conservatives.
Suppose Romney does get the nomination. Then what? Will he be Obama’s Reagan? That is, will Romney undo the damage Obama has done and set this nation back on a positive course? No, clearly not.
Is Romney much different than Obama? Probably not. Romney embraces the worst of Obammunism, including socialized medicine (taking from the haves and gifting the have-nots), as well as embracing the Marxist fairy tail of global warming. Heck, Romney even helped invent Obamacare.
So what to do? Vote for Romney? Vote for Obama? Vote for some 3rd party loser? Not vote?
I personally am inclined to vote for Obama, because Obama got us in this mess with his rampant and deliberately destructive socialism. I say let him finish the job. Let him and his party own his and their legacy forever. Let the people of this country make no mistake about what Democrats are all about and what they really do when they rule.
In future elections, at least for a generation or two, the choices will then be clear based on past results. Hopefully our people will have learned their lessons and will choose prosperity over tyranny. If not, then unfortunately for we who work and think and know better, the majority will deserve the government they select. And for you and I? Then it’s time to start a new country within this country. It’s time to select a few good states and migrate there en masse and take over. It’s time to go Galt.
IMHO, Bachman had the edge last night and the charisma.
Romney was Romney, looked and talked like a candidate, but seemed a bit “deer in the headlights.”
Cain was very underwhelming.
Pawlenty simply doesn’t have voter appeal, though he spoke well.
Gingerich clearly is the brains of the bunch, but too old guard for most voters.
Santorum makes a good appearance and sounds on track, but something seems to be missing.
Paul, was usual, was fun and direct and spot on some issues, but can’t get elected.
I simply used last election as an example. I think it’s ignorance and laziness intellectually in the primary season that leads us to two the lesser of two evil choices - and normally the greater of two evils wins that one anyway.
Thus, it’s the primary laziness and not the lesser mentality that causes our issues.
I do hope that this will not be the case - the 2010 primaries removed Charlie Crist and Senator Bennett and some other of those “lesser of two evil” candidates. I am hopeful the same happens in 2012.
Precisely. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a sad, longtime trend.
Well, unfortunately my take on Palin’s avoidance of all the debates is the old Perot 1992 strategy, which is, limit the amount of time you can say something that might destroy your candidacy. It worked for Perot because he was the third party guy, but I don’t know how it will work for someone supposedly in one of the two major parties. At some point, she’s going to have to debate.
Well, unfortunately my take on Palin’s avoidance of all the debates is the old Perot 1992 strategy, which is, limit the amount of time you can say something that might destroy your candidacy. It worked for Perot because he was the third party guy, but I don’t know how it will work for someone supposedly in one of the two major parties. At some point, she’s going to have to debate.
But he was the only adult in the debate, with the possible exception of Ron Paul who's only slightly crazy this time around. Newt probably did not help himself with the islam thing, but he is right.
My guess is she’ll end up being in one less debate than Romney or Bachmann (who both skipped the first one) and more debates than Perry or any other latecomers.
I could almost guarantee that she’s not holding off on announcing in order to avoid debating, however.
Did you see the video of her debating for her gubernatorial race? She’s very good.
I believe Sarah said that if she did not think there was anyone (with a real chance of winning) that represented her views in the GOP field then she would get in. I’ll take her at her word on that. So I guess the question becomes does MB represent Sarah in this field. Will Perry get into game? If the answer to either question is yes then I think it unlikely that Sarah will get in. She is waiting and watching I’m sure, but if she does get it it will be for us and the country not for herself.
Perry ~ Palin 2012
I have to say I like Pawlenty’s term, Obamneycare.
Ron Paul reminds me of that slightly crazy, but still smart and friendly old widower neighbor we all knew growing up. (I realize his wife is living, but that’s the persona he has).
I do think it’s a deliberate strategy. I hope she isn’t ceding too much ground to the Mittster. He’s building organizations in every state. Not good.
I want her to hurry up and get in too. She’s got a greater logistical challenge in keeping her energized haters at bay, but I hope she doesn’t think she can campaign ‘above’ the others, rather than on the ground and over time.
Consensus is let the commie thugs finish the job.
Problem is, we have to live with it either way.
If Romney gets the nomination, and I suspect the fix is in for him, or at least for some other RINO, then one of two things happens. The RINO-designate gets destroyed in the general election, or, he picks up where 0bamao left off, only at a slower pace.
Either way, We the People are ruined.
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.