Posted on 01/08/2012 8:09:50 AM PST by mitchell001
I joined the week I found out there was such a thing as Freerepublic. I retired in 1999 but then started another business so didn’t retire fully until 2010. It wasn’t until then that I wasn’t spending most of my time on business. Unless one knows the reasons for anything snide remarks are likely out of place.
>> The spokespersons that tell it like it is are relegated to the back benches of the GOP hierarchy.<<
I suppose if we don’t stand and learn how to cohesively stand together and incrementally begin to turn this country around it will stay that way until we no longer have a voice at all.
Is that sort of invalidative statement necessary?
Of all the nationally known political figures in this country, Sarah Palin has established a track record of fearlessly speaking her mind, and leading on important issues of the day.
She's also not afraid to come out in early support of candidates whose views and records are in alignment with Tea Party America.
John Huntsman, zero’s team player
Woulda/coulda/shoulda
You got something against proper English?
I doubt Palin would touch Gingrich with a ten-foot poll, much less endorse him.
No sir, not me sir, absolutely not sir, no definitely not. Proper English is proper sir.
English good, ebonics, spanglish bad.
However, if I might, I have a serious problem with PC "islamic spelling".
I was being cynical.
I was being cynical.
If you are a journalist or political operative then strategically supporting more electable candidates definitely does might makes sense. If you are an individual voter, then who’s to say that a vote for the most extreme candidate doesn’t do the most good overall. At least then, when the journalists and political operatives crunch their numbers you will be pulling in the right direction.
Or just mark you off as an inconsequential outlier.
As you say, one vote is inconsequential. Somewhere along this back and forth it seems that was one of our disagreements.
That’s not what I said. I said THEY will consider it inconsequential.
I’m sure everyone who posts on this site realizes that the best outcome from the primaries is the most conservative candidate that can get elected in the general election. Even if no game changing outside event occurs (like a war or further financial collapse) I’m sure I don’t know who that might be. Obviously a lot of (locally unpopular) pundits and operatives thing that it’s Romney, you think it’s Gingrich, I’ve seen others make that argument for others.
Given the uncertainty (and my gut feel that Gingrich is unelectable) I’ll just vote for the one I like best. Heck, maybe we’ll all get lucky and Obama will wander outside while high on coke and mistakenly tell everyone what he really thinks.
In any case I really do wish your favorite candidate the best of luck.
Santorum and Bachman were the only actual conservatives in the race. Gingrich could well adopt a conservative style and policies if elected but that is taking an awful lot on wishful trust. Bachman is out and Santorum probably can’t run the main Race well because he gets bogged down in minutiae and side issues and will simply turn off voters who don’t know what he is talking about. All of these candidates should have spent many hours studying films of Reagan in debates and giving speeches and should have read at least two biographies of the man written by conservative authors. None of them has taken any lessons from our greatest Republican president and best campaigner of the last century.
What on earth are you talking about?
"Should of" is improper, and literally has no meaning in the English language. The proper term is "should have".
woulda = would have
coulda = could have
shoulda = should have
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.