Who Should We Vote For In The Florida Primary?

Naples Tea Party

  • By Barry Willoughby
  • Posted January 30, 2012 at 9:03 a.m.

In Florida, we have our own election primary coming up and it is important that we all get out and vote. But, the number one question coming from every Naples Tea Party member is who to vote for?

The Tea Party is not going to sit by and let the establishment determine who our nominee is. Our time for remaining quiet and balancing our ideals with staying out of elections is absolutely over. We will either select a candidate who can defeat Barack Obama, or we will have the second incarnation of John McCain........and we all know how that turned out.

The Naples Tea Partiers are dedicated to electing a true Reagan Conservative to run against and defeat Barack Obama. If you are a Tea Party member, you are encouraged to vote for the one candidate who will help return America to her founding principles. If you are not a Tea Party member, the same rules should apply to you........vote for the candidate who best exemplifies a course for American exceptionalism.

It goes beyond what Sarah Palin had to say........."Annoy a liberal, vote for Newt." It is our responsibility in Florida to vote for a candidate based on two important factors, electability and convicitions. When all Florida voters, including Tea Party members, Republicans, independents and Democrats are asked to weigh in on a candidate who will beat Obama, our Republican primary winner could determine the presidential election outcome nationally.

Take a look again at our Naples Tea Party Mission Statement. List all the points and put a check mark by the name of each remaining candidate if you think they measure up. Add it all up, and the one with the most checks is the person you should vote for. And don't second guess yourself. Anyone of the remaining presidential candidates is better than the alternative.......Obama.

Naples Tea Party Mission

"We, the Naples Tea Party, uphold and affirm the rights of every individual, regardless of race, creed or national origin, to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; the rights to which the founders of our nation, pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

We hold that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of all citizens at the expense of none; to protect its citizenry from force, fraud, and breach of contract, thereby allowing all citizens to dispose of the products of their thoughts and labor as they see fit.

We recognize that free trade and free markets – the voluntary exchange of goods and services – are responsible for the unprecedented wealth and prosperity of our nation; and that such are both practical and morally necessary for human dignity, prosperity and enjoyment of life on earth.

While we respect the generosity of individuals who willingly give to charities and causes, we reject the premise that one person’s “need” automatically constitutes an enforceable claim on another person’s life or goods, and that such a claim can or should be fulfilled through government force or coercion.
We advocate the principles of fiscal responsibility in government policies.

We acknowledge and support all who through their courage and loyalty have served in any of the armed services of the United States of America and through their efforts have secured our country’s existence and safety for this and future generations.

To further this vision of America, we pledge to provide a common ground for civil discourse for our members and like-minded individuals and to encourage them to support candidates for – and holders of – public office whose positions are consistent with these principles."

GET OUT AND VOTE!

Remember, there is no “perfect” candidate, but in your eyes, vote for the one you most trust to consistently move this country in the right direction.
  • Discuss
  • Print

Recently in Naples Tea Party

Comments » 461

nstinks writes:

And if you wish to have the most polarizing person in the history of America remain as our president.........sit and do nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t...

SoSueMe writes:

Well, I'm off the hook because I live in Illinois and our primary isn't until March ... but I will likely vote for Romney at that time. He isn't as conservative as I would like but he is head and shoulders above Obama.

I think Newt is great and have always liked him BUT, think he would be savaged by the media and Democrats and has too many things about which he will be savaged. Romney has proved himself to be a marathoner and able to withstand the heat of a campaign. I do not think he is like John McCain at all.

The media will try to paint Romney as "some rich guy" who is out of touch ... as if that means people should embrace Obama. Romney's "richness" is no secret and there is nothing nefarious.

Rick Santorum unfortunately has gotten lost in the sparks of Newt and Romeny which is too bad because he IS as conservative as I would like but I don't think he would win against Obama. Perhaps I'm underestimating the American people's ability to hear through the roar of the press and see through eyes not blinded by sequins (to steal a metaphor from "Chicago"). Obama is going to try to razzle dazzle us again as in 2008 but people now know there is nothing behind the sequins.

That said, this primary is Florida's primary. I will have to wait to vote until March.

nstinks writes:

in response to SoSueMe:

Well, I'm off the hook because I live in Illinois and our primary isn't until March ... but I will likely vote for Romney at that time. He isn't as conservative as I would like but he is head and shoulders above Obama.

I think Newt is great and have always liked him BUT, think he would be savaged by the media and Democrats and has too many things about which he will be savaged. Romney has proved himself to be a marathoner and able to withstand the heat of a campaign. I do not think he is like John McCain at all.

The media will try to paint Romney as "some rich guy" who is out of touch ... as if that means people should embrace Obama. Romney's "richness" is no secret and there is nothing nefarious.

Rick Santorum unfortunately has gotten lost in the sparks of Newt and Romeny which is too bad because he IS as conservative as I would like but I don't think he would win against Obama. Perhaps I'm underestimating the American people's ability to hear through the roar of the press and see through eyes not blinded by sequins (to steal a metaphor from "Chicago"). Obama is going to try to razzle dazzle us again as in 2008 but people now know there is nothing behind the sequins.

That said, this primary is Florida's primary. I will have to wait to vote until March.

Good morning Sue........It will be interesting to see who is left by the time Illinois has its primary.

It will be impossible for everyone to agree on the ideal candidate.

But the fact remains........America can no longer head down the same path towards ruination.

This is probably the most important election in our lifetime.

I pray we are up to the challenge.

nstinks writes:

Latest polls..........

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

But remember.........polls don't elect people.........voters do.

nstinks writes:

The 24-hour scramble in Florida..........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic...

stevonmfl writes:

None of the above

nstinks writes:

Yet Another Green Energy Stimulus Recipient Hits the Skids (the third this week!)

Thanks Barack for your leadership!

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/01/...

nstinks writes:

Must be nice to be a queen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ne...

Remember Americans.......you have all been asked to "sacrifice."

nstinks writes:

Another Occupy group booted out!

http://wusa9.com/news/article/187769/...

nstinks writes:

Quote of the day........

"Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America."

Rep. Allen West (R-FL)

Hey Kanookie.......West is addressing you and "your" ilk.

greathornedlizard writes:

Considering the alternatives I will vote for Obama.
Besides, these twerps in the Republican primary
are all girly men!
Same as their supporters.

nstinks writes:

I'm pleased to report "tolerance" only goes so far in Canada.

Please Kanookie.........Don't engage in "honor killings."

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca...

nstinks writes:

in response to greathornedlizard:

Considering the alternatives I will vote for Obama.
Besides, these twerps in the Republican primary
are all girly men!
Same as their supporters.

Oh Yeah.......where are tiny liberal lizards on the food chain?

Cassandra (Inactive) writes:

If one excises the umptieth repetition of the tp mission statement one is left with a brief exhortation by stinks to teapartiers: vote for the candidate who will beat Obama! There is no suggestion of who that might be, perhaps because every candidate so far pushed by the tp is no longer in the race.

Of the 14 comments thus far, 9 of them are from stinks and only 2 actually mention the Florida primary. What are those thirsting for political guidance to do?

Go back to exchanging insults, of course!

bananas8187 writes:

nstinks,

If staying close to your philosophical ideals is the primary goal,either Newt or Santorum would seem to be your closest fit. Newt is awfully bright, but he has an awful lot of baggage. Santorum seems more interested in our bedrooms than he is in what goes on in boardrooms, the halls of congress, or the Oval Office.

But, if beating Obama in November is the overriding priority, Romney is your onliest, bestest hope. And you should hope that he doesn't stub his toe on his VP choice like McCain did. He needs to pick someone who has presidential potential.

Romney/Rubio/Christie/Huckabee would bring depth, intellect and gravitas, in my opinion. But picking a sound-byte spouter like Palin, Bachmann Perry or Santorum would be the kiss of death, if beating Obama is the brass ring.

There is always a chance that the president won't last, and the ability of the guy or gal riding shotgun becomes vital.

cgbexec writes:

As far as Tea Party values go, Ron Paul is the best match.

bananas8187 writes:

in response to cgbexec:

As far as Tea Party values go, Ron Paul is the best match.

You might be right, but he would have absolutely no shot in November, unless he ran against Dennis Kucinich. Or Dukakis. Or Pee Wee Herman.

derrina1 writes:

in response to bananas8187:

You might be right, but he would have absolutely no shot in November, unless he ran against Dennis Kucinich. Or Dukakis. Or Pee Wee Herman.

Paul is the best match. He's also the only one still serving the people. Wonder why that is? The GOP nomination will go to someone that did such a poor job that they too were voted out, or left in disgrace. I feel real confident about America's future.

SoSueMe writes:

Well, for me it is simple and as I said, I can't vote in Florida, BUT ... how about anybody but Obama. Shallow? Absolutely. One thing nobody can dispute is that Romney believes in the capitalistic system which Obama does not. "Fair" isn't capitalism. There are winners and losers which isn't the progressive way. On that alone, I would never vote for Obama if he personally bought me a mansion in Naples.

SoSueMe writes:

BTW, how is everyone voting on the fire district tax increase? If it is any of my business.

Cassandra (Inactive) writes:

in response to bananas8187:

You might be right, but he would have absolutely no shot in November, unless he ran against Dennis Kucinich. Or Dukakis. Or Pee Wee Herman.

Neither Paul nor Santorum has much of a chance. Paul will be 77 years old at the time of the election. He may be healthy but I would imagine a very strong and well-qualified Vice-Presidential candidate would be de rigueur. Pee Wee Herman wouldn't cut it.

Robertofnaples writes:

I know this to be an absolute!!! Republican's are tired of having to hold their noses to vote Republican!!! I understand a stunt is being mulled about by the G.O.P.. Allow or encourage "Newt" to run as an Independent. This would do two things really. It would cause the Democrats to be overly confident in their numbers; as they would feel the Republicans would split their vote. "But"; it would also cause many a Democrat not to even bother to vote.
Prediction with either "Mitt" or "Newt", to close to call and within the margine of error; thus causing a record Democratic turn out. With "Mitt" as the nominee and "Newt" running as an (I); the vote projections are that "Mitt" beats the margin or error by1%. Thus becoming the 45th President of these United States. Not such a risky gamble at all; when the outcome; will otherwise, cement another four years for this President. Not to mention that if it is "Newt" not only do the Republicans not regain the Presidency; but lose the House as well.

Schllc writes:

I don't have any problem saying anyone but Obama. It isn't like the first go round, when nobody wanted to ask questions about is very dubious record of associations and experience.
We actually KNOW what the man is now. Anyone who refuses to see what he has done to us is fooling themselves.
The reason anyone is better is because there isn't a challenger in the field that isn't more conservative, more a constitutionalist and more aligned with American values than Obama.
If I were to choose between those we have left I would choose Santorum first, because he is undoubtedly, even by Rawoool’s standards the most conservative. Second I would have to go with Newt because he second only to Santorum on his record of conservative principles. Romney would be my third choice and I hate to say it but he is almost a toss up with Ron Paul. I think the ideas Ron Paul has about domestic policy and fiscal policies are right on target. His foreign policy is downright scary, but he would have to negotiate that through a congress and I also am let to believe that he may be privy to some additional information as president that may make him reconsider some of his rhetoric. I mean it sure changed Obama’s. He basically just picked up GW’s playbook and stayed the course. I mean he made a big spectacle of the order to close Guantanamo but we all see where that went…

So, that being my breakdown; I don’t think Santorum has the money, the exposure or as of yet the popularity to draw the nomination. Ron Paul doesn’t either, which leaves it to Romney and Gingrich. Ultimately, I believe it will be Romney because too many people will be scared of the attacks we will have to endure if it is Gingrich, and ultimately this may backfire because of Romney’s softness on conservative issues.
At the end of the day however, an overwhelming majority of America is going to kindly show Obama the door in November, as well as most of the ideologue democrat congress.

But it’s my opinion so it’s worth what you paid for it...... today
Come November we will see for sure.

Writethinker writes:

Tea partiers should consider voting for President Obama. After all, President Obama offers more than the Republican establishment is offering the tea partiers. Most Republican establishment types would like the tea party to leave the republican party once and for all.

Canuck writes:

in response to nstinks:

I'm pleased to report "tolerance" only goes so far in Canada.

Please Kanookie.........Don't engage in "honor killings."

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca...

As always nstinks...........you are behind the times....in this case 4 months behind!

Father. son ans 2nd wife all convicted of first degree murder of their three daughters, and wife #1.

It was an (dis)honour killing because the girls wanted to be free of their father's strict Muslim control and enjoy the freedoms of Western civilization.

Schllc writes:

in response to Writethinker:

Tea partiers should consider voting for President Obama. After all, President Obama offers more than the Republican establishment is offering the tea partiers. Most Republican establishment types would like the tea party to leave the republican party once and for all.

By that logic, and your previously mentioned loathing and abject disrespect for the Tea Party would mean you are going to vote for Romney? Given that Obama has offered up all these concessions to republicans, he can't possibly represent you anymore can he?
Thanks for your lucid and insightful breakdown Write.

You liberals heard it here first.

A vote for Obama is a Vote for the Tea Party.

Robertofnaples writes:

in response to Schllc:

I don't have any problem saying anyone but Obama. It isn't like the first go round, when nobody wanted to ask questions about is very dubious record of associations and experience.
We actually KNOW what the man is now. Anyone who refuses to see what he has done to us is fooling themselves.
The reason anyone is better is because there isn't a challenger in the field that isn't more conservative, more a constitutionalist and more aligned with American values than Obama.
If I were to choose between those we have left I would choose Santorum first, because he is undoubtedly, even by Rawoool’s standards the most conservative. Second I would have to go with Newt because he second only to Santorum on his record of conservative principles. Romney would be my third choice and I hate to say it but he is almost a toss up with Ron Paul. I think the ideas Ron Paul has about domestic policy and fiscal policies are right on target. His foreign policy is downright scary, but he would have to negotiate that through a congress and I also am let to believe that he may be privy to some additional information as president that may make him reconsider some of his rhetoric. I mean it sure changed Obama’s. He basically just picked up GW’s playbook and stayed the course. I mean he made a big spectacle of the order to close Guantanamo but we all see where that went…

So, that being my breakdown; I don’t think Santorum has the money, the exposure or as of yet the popularity to draw the nomination. Ron Paul doesn’t either, which leaves it to Romney and Gingrich. Ultimately, I believe it will be Romney because too many people will be scared of the attacks we will have to endure if it is Gingrich, and ultimately this may backfire because of Romney’s softness on conservative issues.
At the end of the day however, an overwhelming majority of America is going to kindly show Obama the door in November, as well as most of the ideologue democrat congress.

But it’s my opinion so it’s worth what you paid for it...... today
Come November we will see for sure.

So you are saying; you will hold your nose and vote for any Republican nominated? Trust me when I say that is not the best way to win an election.One merely has to look at the percentage of American's opinion of Congress. The absolute there is; this is a do nothing to help Congress. That is why you see this President smile; like he the cat that ate the canary.Too many sound bites of Republican leadership saying their only goal was to make President Obama a one term President and to hell with the country.Most Americans, "real" Americans seem to think we can be great again inspite of this President. Most also seem to agree the Republican House is a greater threat, than is a liberal President. Look at what happened under Clinton; it is being proposed this could happen again, with a working Congress.Although I am a long time Republican; I can't see a way I could vote for any of the remaining persons running. I voted early for Ron Paul, because despite his bagage; he speaks of the people, for the people, and by the people. He also does not agree that corporations are people. Mitt said just that; so I can not as a human being, vote for him. Now "Newt" is another story, if he is our candidate; we fail to regain the Presidency; but lose Congress as well. Rick with his extremist ideas, surely can't come close to defeating this President. So what is to be done? I can not as an American, Veteran, Father, and a Grand Father, hold my nose and vote; I just can not do it again.Should we be telling our Children and Grand Children; do not have any principles, do not rely on truths; instedd be a sheep and vote straight party ideology, even if you don't agree. Nope, I can't and I won't do that. One of the reasons we are where we are is ideology. We are supposed to have three co-equal branches of government. Congress is not supposed to be a rubber stamp; thus their favorabilty rating. We sure have a long way to go to recapture our collective greatness. I saw a Republican Congressman saying, We need to defeat Obama, we need to once again be great; when asked just when that was, he had no answer. There it is, there is the question I'd like answered. When the Tea Party says take back America; who are they taking back from? Where in history would you go back? When was the last time you felt America was great?

Canuck writes:

in response to nstinks:

Quote of the day........

"Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America."

Rep. Allen West (R-FL)

Hey Kanookie.......West is addressing you and "your" ilk.

Not really nstinks...he is targeting American citizens with whom he does not agree....... like you!

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) Wants To Deport American Citizens

“This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” – John F. Kennedy

At first, I was going along with former Reid spokesperson Jim Manley, who offered this advice to West on his Twitter page,

“Me to allen west. You first a-hole.”

But I decided to recant on my support of Manley’s advice, as it had almost immediately occurred to me that it would be the pot calling the kettle black. Let him stay, and let him continue to make a complete bottom out of himself.

West is a bigoted redneck with a tarnished military career. He and his fellow Theocrats, Tea Party members and other denizens of (naughty word)gery are not only bereft of any semblance of intelligence, rational thinking or reason, but are also ignorant, imbecilic, obtuse, brainless and dimwitted.

These people are fully immersed in their delusion that the United States is a Christian Nation and that prayer is the answer to all of our nations ills. They are horribly disconnected from reality and are going to continue their attempts to push us over the edge of everything that our founding fathers stood for until we either become the United Christian States of America or we all come to our senses and realize that the religious right are one of the first virulent delusions that the United States finally discards when we eventually remember the ideals on which we were founded.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefane...

ChiDem writes:

in response to Bilirubin:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Excellent post showing intelligent analysis and logic. Would even make Biden take notice.

Schllc writes:

Well, I agree with some of what you said. Suggesting that Santorum is unelectable is one thing, saying he has extremist views I cannot agree with. I don't know a single conservative that would say that. Many like to suggest his views of abortion are extreme, and I have no doubt that a lot of pro-fetus destroyers would agree. (see how I phrased that? Probably had the same effect on pro-choice liberals as extremist did on me when referring to Santorum).
Point is, if you hear his argument it has a very logical basis that revolves around the yet undecided legal opinion as to when life begins, and his reverence for all forms. I always have wondered as to how this portion of the debate never gets mentioned. People love to say he is extremist because of his comments on rape or incest victims, and while I can't say I completely agree with his opinion, his argument is valid. The child did not choose this, and if it is the circumstances of the conception that determines legitimacy then why can't we just knock off toddlers and teenagers because we didn't understand the consequences? The issue of when life begins must be decided before abortion can even be relevant, otherwise it could be murder. If that's extreme, well... we ARE in a bad way!
That aside, I am not sure I follow your logic, we aren't going to have three liberals and three conservatives to vote for in the general election. There is going to be one of each, and obviously,in my opinion, ANY conservative(hell any OTHER liberal), would be better than Obama. He is a guaranteed loser for our country.
So if you aren't going to hold your nose and vote for other than Obama who are you going to vote for?

Robertofnaples writes:

You said Rick's views on rape and incest are not extreme; the health of the Woman is not to be considered? It says in the Torah, that life begins with the first breath,or words to that affect. I really don't know who will get my vote come November; but my aforementioned thoughts exclude a few. Perhaps I'll have to write in a candidate; it worked in Alaska. If this Congress had pushed more for less tax cuts, to help solve the defceit; if it worked more for the American people and not souless multinational corporations. Things would be easier.If this Congress wasn't being played like a fiddle by the President's team i.e. middle class tax holiday;they would not look so bad. If the Head of the RNC didn't say this President is like the Captian of the cruise ship that went down, regular people would'nt shake their heads in disbelief. Then when ask why he said such a hurtful stupid thing; he claimed he was the real victim. I guess a victim of his own stupidity; but mosy would not feel that way. We as a nation would be much better off; "if" we worked together as we have in the recent (Clinton Presidency)past. There you had a fairly liberal person as President and a conservative Republican lead Congress. Things actually got done; unlike todays Congress, that allowed such nonesense to take place in order to defeat one man.It is unforgivable in my opinion to work for party and power over the National interests. That is and will be the legacy of this Congress. A do nothing obstructionist idological bunch of hate filled people. That is not the America I grew up in. We have "No" statesman or Women, in the Republican party. Nor do thet exist in the Democratic party. That is the fault of everyone who votes a straight ticket. Everyone elses Congressperson is the bad one; when we have the duty or challenge to actually make a change; most fall back to the same old tired lines. I have still not received any answer to my questions. They remain, who does the Tea Party think we are taking America back from? Where in history would they take us back to? When was the last time they felt America was great. I await the Tea Parties answer. I've ask nstinks many times these questions; he can not or will not answer them. Why not? Is it there really is no answer; just more ideologist rhetoric? No more dancing "N"; come clean.

ChiDem writes:

in response to Bilirubin:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Two post in a row showing intelligent analysis and logic. Keep it up. You're on a roll.

Schllc writes:

Ahhhhh RAWOOOOUUUL,
What did you go and say now? You just can't help yourself can you?
I don't really understand, but I guess your ever lowering standards just induce you to assume that everyone else is as much a degenerate as you consistently display yourself to be....evidently that is not the case.
Clean it up over there so you can stay in the game.
If ya can.

Schllc writes:

in response to Robertofnaples:

You said Rick's views on rape and incest are not extreme; the health of the Woman is not to be considered? It says in the Torah, that life begins with the first breath,or words to that affect. I really don't know who will get my vote come November; but my aforementioned thoughts exclude a few. Perhaps I'll have to write in a candidate; it worked in Alaska. If this Congress had pushed more for less tax cuts, to help solve the defceit; if it worked more for the American people and not souless multinational corporations. Things would be easier.If this Congress wasn't being played like a fiddle by the President's team i.e. middle class tax holiday;they would not look so bad. If the Head of the RNC didn't say this President is like the Captian of the cruise ship that went down, regular people would'nt shake their heads in disbelief. Then when ask why he said such a hurtful stupid thing; he claimed he was the real victim. I guess a victim of his own stupidity; but mosy would not feel that way. We as a nation would be much better off; "if" we worked together as we have in the recent (Clinton Presidency)past. There you had a fairly liberal person as President and a conservative Republican lead Congress. Things actually got done; unlike todays Congress, that allowed such nonesense to take place in order to defeat one man.It is unforgivable in my opinion to work for party and power over the National interests. That is and will be the legacy of this Congress. A do nothing obstructionist idological bunch of hate filled people. That is not the America I grew up in. We have "No" statesman or Women, in the Republican party. Nor do thet exist in the Democratic party. That is the fault of everyone who votes a straight ticket. Everyone elses Congressperson is the bad one; when we have the duty or challenge to actually make a change; most fall back to the same old tired lines. I have still not received any answer to my questions. They remain, who does the Tea Party think we are taking America back from? Where in history would they take us back to? When was the last time they felt America was great. I await the Tea Parties answer. I've ask nstinks many times these questions; he can not or will not answer them. Why not? Is it there really is no answer; just more ideologist rhetoric? No more dancing "N"; come clean.

I agree with your assessment of blame. There is plenty to go around to both parties. And I never suggested voting a party ticket regardless. The topic here was who to vote for, for president, as were my comments.
It is ironic that you mention the accomplishments of congress and the prosperity that accompanied it when you mentioned Clinton.
You can lay that success directly at the feet of Newt Gingrich. You say there are no statesmen left, but Newt is just that. If you think this political season is any nastier than many many others in our history you should study your history. They have been just as if not more vicious and nasty as this one is shaping up to be. The key is to find a person who can forge through the enormous wall of what is the most recent political divide. What that takes is leadership, a person who knows how to talk to both sides, knows how to stick to his ground in the matters of substance and elicit the support of both sides by making them feel like they are either getting what they want, or the very best that they can get at the moment. Anything less will end up just like Obama, with footprints up and down his back. Obama is a puppet for this congress and the democrat party. I am not suggesting he isn't intelligent or doesn't believe in what he is doing, but he shields himself from reality by staying cloistered with his sycophants.
While I am aware your mind may be made up to write in a candidate, and I applaud and appreciate your use of that right. What good will your write in do at this point? Do you believe that a second term of Obama will not be worse than any of the Republican nominees?
Sounds to me like the crux of your opinion was based on the very means which constitutes Newt’s abilities, predilections and actual legislative and historical experience.
Maybe you should reconsider.

Cassandra (Inactive) writes:

in response to Robertofnaples:

I know this to be an absolute!!! Republican's are tired of having to hold their noses to vote Republican!!! I understand a stunt is being mulled about by the G.O.P.. Allow or encourage "Newt" to run as an Independent. This would do two things really. It would cause the Democrats to be overly confident in their numbers; as they would feel the Republicans would split their vote. "But"; it would also cause many a Democrat not to even bother to vote.
Prediction with either "Mitt" or "Newt", to close to call and within the margine of error; thus causing a record Democratic turn out. With "Mitt" as the nominee and "Newt" running as an (I); the vote projections are that "Mitt" beats the margin or error by1%. Thus becoming the 45th President of these United States. Not such a risky gamble at all; when the outcome; will otherwise, cement another four years for this President. Not to mention that if it is "Newt" not only do the Republicans not regain the Presidency; but lose the House as well.

Well, the flaw in this scenario is that Newt would agrree to it knowing full well what the outcome would be. He has a huge ego and he wants to be president, not a sacrificial lamb.

Schllc writes:

in response to Schllc:

Ahhhhh RAWOOOOUUUL,
What did you go and say now? You just can't help yourself can you?
I don't really understand, but I guess your ever lowering standards just induce you to assume that everyone else is as much a degenerate as you consistently display yourself to be....evidently that is not the case.
Clean it up over there so you can stay in the game.
If ya can.

Too late I suppose. Your foul brand of humor must have been even worse than usual today!
You didn't even make it a whole week this time.
Is that a record?
Anyhoo, you may as well come on and identify your new label for us because it won't take but two or three of your colorful posts to ID you anyway.

greathornedlizard writes:

in response to Schllc:

I don't have any problem saying anyone but Obama. It isn't like the first go round, when nobody wanted to ask questions about is very dubious record of associations and experience.
We actually KNOW what the man is now. Anyone who refuses to see what he has done to us is fooling themselves.
The reason anyone is better is because there isn't a challenger in the field that isn't more conservative, more a constitutionalist and more aligned with American values than Obama.
If I were to choose between those we have left I would choose Santorum first, because he is undoubtedly, even by Rawoool’s standards the most conservative. Second I would have to go with Newt because he second only to Santorum on his record of conservative principles. Romney would be my third choice and I hate to say it but he is almost a toss up with Ron Paul. I think the ideas Ron Paul has about domestic policy and fiscal policies are right on target. His foreign policy is downright scary, but he would have to negotiate that through a congress and I also am let to believe that he may be privy to some additional information as president that may make him reconsider some of his rhetoric. I mean it sure changed Obama’s. He basically just picked up GW’s playbook and stayed the course. I mean he made a big spectacle of the order to close Guantanamo but we all see where that went…

So, that being my breakdown; I don’t think Santorum has the money, the exposure or as of yet the popularity to draw the nomination. Ron Paul doesn’t either, which leaves it to Romney and Gingrich. Ultimately, I believe it will be Romney because too many people will be scared of the attacks we will have to endure if it is Gingrich, and ultimately this may backfire because of Romney’s softness on conservative issues.
At the end of the day however, an overwhelming majority of America is going to kindly show Obama the door in November, as well as most of the ideologue democrat congress.

But it’s my opinion so it’s worth what you paid for it...... today
Come November we will see for sure.

Smokin' the tea? and only 2 oclock..

SoSueMe writes:

in response to greathornedlizard:

Considering the alternatives I will vote for Obama.
Besides, these twerps in the Republican primary
are all girly men!
Same as their supporters.

Of course you'll vote for Obama ... every one of the alternatives are 180 degrees out of phase with your worldview as you have expressed on this blog. I don't think anyone here is surprised by your voting preference.

SoSueMe writes:

in response to Robertofnaples:

I know this to be an absolute!!! Republican's are tired of having to hold their noses to vote Republican!!! I understand a stunt is being mulled about by the G.O.P.. Allow or encourage "Newt" to run as an Independent. This would do two things really. It would cause the Democrats to be overly confident in their numbers; as they would feel the Republicans would split their vote. "But"; it would also cause many a Democrat not to even bother to vote.
Prediction with either "Mitt" or "Newt", to close to call and within the margine of error; thus causing a record Democratic turn out. With "Mitt" as the nominee and "Newt" running as an (I); the vote projections are that "Mitt" beats the margin or error by1%. Thus becoming the 45th President of these United States. Not such a risky gamble at all; when the outcome; will otherwise, cement another four years for this President. Not to mention that if it is "Newt" not only do the Republicans not regain the Presidency; but lose the House as well.

The important thing is to get Obama out of office .... and boot every czar, advisors, appointee OUT with him. Remember that the President nominates Supreme Court Justices and if Ruth Bader Gingsberg decides to retire BEFORE the election, Obama will get to nominate her replacement ... and if he wins a second term, you can be sure he will nominate maybe two. So, there is more at stake here than philosophical and ideological purity.

I wish we had a Reagan but we don't. That's the fact. We absolutely cannot afford to play games. If I have to hold my nose, my foot or any other body part, I will vote for the Republican. I will NOT hold my nose to vote for Romney or Gingrich. It would pain me to vote for Paul because I think he is "out there" and Santorum is a great guy but doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. If I thought for a minute he could, I'd vote for him.

BUT ... likely the choice will be a done deal by March when we vote here in Illinois.

Schllc writes:

in response to Bilirubin:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Perhaps not, we prefer just plain ole "literate". Something you seem to have passed over in favor of....well.... who knows.

But shock us Rawwooouul.
Who ya gonna vote for?
I know Santorum is your first choice but he isn't gonna get the nomination. Who is your second?

Cassandra (Inactive) writes:

Thomas Dewey

bananas8187 writes:

in response to Schllc:

Well, I agree with some of what you said. Suggesting that Santorum is unelectable is one thing, saying he has extremist views I cannot agree with. I don't know a single conservative that would say that. Many like to suggest his views of abortion are extreme, and I have no doubt that a lot of pro-fetus destroyers would agree. (see how I phrased that? Probably had the same effect on pro-choice liberals as extremist did on me when referring to Santorum).
Point is, if you hear his argument it has a very logical basis that revolves around the yet undecided legal opinion as to when life begins, and his reverence for all forms. I always have wondered as to how this portion of the debate never gets mentioned. People love to say he is extremist because of his comments on rape or incest victims, and while I can't say I completely agree with his opinion, his argument is valid. The child did not choose this, and if it is the circumstances of the conception that determines legitimacy then why can't we just knock off toddlers and teenagers because we didn't understand the consequences? The issue of when life begins must be decided before abortion can even be relevant, otherwise it could be murder. If that's extreme, well... we ARE in a bad way!
That aside, I am not sure I follow your logic, we aren't going to have three liberals and three conservatives to vote for in the general election. There is going to be one of each, and obviously,in my opinion, ANY conservative(hell any OTHER liberal), would be better than Obama. He is a guaranteed loser for our country.
So if you aren't going to hold your nose and vote for other than Obama who are you going to vote for?

schllc,

Obviously the abortion debate solely revolves around the question of when the embryo, zygote, fetus, unborn child, becomes an actual Right Bearing citizen.

At conception? After a month? Or three? Or when it can survive outside of the womb? I sure as heck don't KNOW, nor do I thing anyone else actually does. Oh, people have strong BELIEFS, but no-one actually knows. Right now the choice belongs to the mother, and I can't dispute that, although abortion as a means of birth control is pretty cruel. I could perhaps agree that after two, some tubes should get tied.

That being said, my problems with Santorum have way more to do with his opposition to gay marriage and contraception. If you're anti-abortion, you ought to be ALL OVER birth control. no?

And I don't get the gay marriage connundrum at all. If straight marriages have a fifty fifty chance of survival at best, where's the "sanctity?" Sounds like "til death do us part" means more like "or until I get bored."

My view on marriage - no minor children and no livestock. Any gender or combination of gender CONSENTING adults should be free to marry if they so choose. If a religion chooses restrictive rules, that's OK. But the state shouldn't be involved in the otherwise harmless choices of responsible adults.

greathornedlizard writes:

in response to SoSueMe:

Of course you'll vote for Obama ... every one of the alternatives are 180 degrees out of phase with your worldview as you have expressed on this blog. I don't think anyone here is surprised by your voting preference.

All true.
I was, as it happens, invited by El Stinkeroo his-self, over on his previous blog "Politicians remain unhinged," to post my preference, and so I have done, as is my duty as a citizen of the United States and the Americas.
Obama, as disappointed as I have been with him, stands head and shoulders over these Lilliputians.

greathornedlizard writes:

in response to Cassandra:

Well, the flaw in this scenario is that Newt would agrree to it knowing full well what the outcome would be. He has a huge ego and he wants to be president, not a sacrificial lamb.

Poor Newtie, he speaks his stentorian words in the voice of a castratto!

greathornedlizard writes:

in response to Schllc:

By that logic, and your previously mentioned loathing and abject disrespect for the Tea Party would mean you are going to vote for Romney? Given that Obama has offered up all these concessions to republicans, he can't possibly represent you anymore can he?
Thanks for your lucid and insightful breakdown Write.

You liberals heard it here first.

A vote for Obama is a Vote for the Tea Party.

That's a big twist, even for you.

Schllc writes:

in response to bananas8187:

schllc,

Obviously the abortion debate solely revolves around the question of when the embryo, zygote, fetus, unborn child, becomes an actual Right Bearing citizen.

At conception? After a month? Or three? Or when it can survive outside of the womb? I sure as heck don't KNOW, nor do I thing anyone else actually does. Oh, people have strong BELIEFS, but no-one actually knows. Right now the choice belongs to the mother, and I can't dispute that, although abortion as a means of birth control is pretty cruel. I could perhaps agree that after two, some tubes should get tied.

That being said, my problems with Santorum have way more to do with his opposition to gay marriage and contraception. If you're anti-abortion, you ought to be ALL OVER birth control. no?

And I don't get the gay marriage connundrum at all. If straight marriages have a fifty fifty chance of survival at best, where's the "sanctity?" Sounds like "til death do us part" means more like "or until I get bored."

My view on marriage - no minor children and no livestock. Any gender or combination of gender CONSENTING adults should be free to marry if they so choose. If a religion chooses restrictive rules, that's OK. But the state shouldn't be involved in the otherwise harmless choices of responsible adults.

Nanners,
Your first point defuses your entire argument for using his position as a disqualifier.
I didn't say no one "knows". Everyone knows when life begins. It begins at conception when the sperm and egg meet and form a completely unique dna that starts replicating with a speed and sophistication which man cannot begin to grasp, to form in nine short months an entity that will be capable of thought more complex and sophisticated than any machine we have ever seen or will likely create in the next 1000 years.
What I said was, "it was not legally decided".
Now stay within the context of what I said, not what you think I said. And let’s assume for sake of discussion that tomorrow the law was decided and for the sake of the law the date is 16 weeks. That would mean that every abortion performed post that term, to date, was MURDER.
Now that is a pretty heavy judgment to be placed on a person, so I recognize the reluctance to admit the possibility. But given your logic, you are willing to take the risk of standing by while hundreds of thousands of potential murders are being committed. While my choice, THE CONSERVATIVE choice, says why not adjudicate the issue based on the actual merits of the issue, not some fallacious pretext of a persons rights over their own body. They had the right to abstain from sex or use the proper protection to prevent conception. Why isn't that the deciding point? At least no one has to die to save that one.

Your second issue regarding gay marriage is off too, in my opinion. We aren't discussing people's rights; we are discussing an institution that has been around since the beginning of civilization. This loose interpretation and redefinition of a word has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. It has 100% to do with the forced normalization of an aberrant lifestyle with the sole intent to compel acceptance. They do not want equality, they want acceptance. This is NOT a legislative matter, it is a societal matter. The re definition of a word as integral to our society as marriage, opens the door to a virtual pandora's box of justifications and rationalizations. Look at what you just said
"But the state shouldn't be involved in the otherwise harmless choices of responsible adults"
Who defines harmless? Where is the harm in a 57 year old woman marrying her 80 year old brother? What’s wrong with four men marrying six women?
Do you honestly believe that other people will not utilize this obfuscation to justify equality of their own definition for their own wants, regardless of how damaging to society?
What argument could you possibly use to defend those demands if you accept this one?
Give gays whatever rights they deserve to make them whole with regard to the eyes of the law, give them their own institution which they can call whatever they want. It is not, and never will be marriage.

Schllc writes:

in response to greathornedlizard:

That's a big twist, even for you.

Gizzard,
I knew the sarcasm would be a little much for you.
Its ok, we weren't expecting much of you.
So by that measure you have exceeded all expectations.

Cassandra (Inactive) writes:

in response to greathornedlizard:

Poor Newtie, he speaks his stentorian words in the voice of a castratto!

Ma che bella musica canta i castrati!

greathornedlizard writes:

in response to Schllc:

Nanners,
Your first point defuses your entire argument for using his position as a disqualifier.
I didn't say no one "knows". Everyone knows when life begins. It begins at conception when the sperm and egg meet and form a completely unique dna that starts replicating with a speed and sophistication which man cannot begin to grasp, to form in nine short months an entity that will be capable of thought more complex and sophisticated than any machine we have ever seen or will likely create in the next 1000 years.
What I said was, "it was not legally decided".
Now stay within the context of what I said, not what you think I said. And let’s assume for sake of discussion that tomorrow the law was decided and for the sake of the law the date is 16 weeks. That would mean that every abortion performed post that term, to date, was MURDER.
Now that is a pretty heavy judgment to be placed on a person, so I recognize the reluctance to admit the possibility. But given your logic, you are willing to take the risk of standing by while hundreds of thousands of potential murders are being committed. While my choice, THE CONSERVATIVE choice, says why not adjudicate the issue based on the actual merits of the issue, not some fallacious pretext of a persons rights over their own body. They had the right to abstain from sex or use the proper protection to prevent conception. Why isn't that the deciding point? At least no one has to die to save that one.

Your second issue regarding gay marriage is off too, in my opinion. We aren't discussing people's rights; we are discussing an institution that has been around since the beginning of civilization. This loose interpretation and redefinition of a word has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. It has 100% to do with the forced normalization of an aberrant lifestyle with the sole intent to compel acceptance. They do not want equality, they want acceptance. This is NOT a legislative matter, it is a societal matter. The re definition of a word as integral to our society as marriage, opens the door to a virtual pandora's box of justifications and rationalizations. Look at what you just said
"But the state shouldn't be involved in the otherwise harmless choices of responsible adults"
Who defines harmless? Where is the harm in a 57 year old woman marrying her 80 year old brother? What’s wrong with four men marrying six women?
Do you honestly believe that other people will not utilize this obfuscation to justify equality of their own definition for their own wants, regardless of how damaging to society?
What argument could you possibly use to defend those demands if you accept this one?
Give gays whatever rights they deserve to make them whole with regard to the eyes of the law, give them their own institution which they can call whatever they want. It is not, and never will be marriage.

This thing is getting in over it's head..
Marraige is a dead institution. It's been dead for a while, but if you happen to be happilly married, Good on You!
I have to wonder why gays, lesbians or others would want to enter into this crazy relic, but hey, it insists that it's a free country..

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features