Partners: Tea Party Patriots, Let Freedom Ring, Tea Party WDC, Heritage Action For America, Restore America’s Voice, American Center For Law And Justice, Young Americans For Liberty, Citizens United, For America, Freedom Works, Less Government, The Tea Party
A document House Majority Leader Eric Cantor distributed to all House Republicans on Tuesday, obtained by Breitbart News, confirms that he is planning to make it appear as though the House is voting to defund Obamacare while using a legislative procedural trick which would allow the Democrat-controlled Senate to strip defunding language from the Continuing Resolution.
“Many House Republicans have stated that they want to pass a CR that affirmatively defunds the implementation and enforcement of Obamacare,” Cantor wrote to House Republican members. “In addition to firmly putting the House on record, such an effort would force the Democrat Senate to confront the issue of defunding, providing Senate Republicans the opportunity to challenge Senate Democrats to join Republicans in blocking the further implementation of this awful and unpopular law.”
“Tactically, we want to engage this battle in a manner that unites House Republicans, provides as few opportunities as possible for Senate Democrats to duck the issue, and ensures that if defunding does not occur that Democrats are held to account,” Cantor added.
Cantor then laid out “The Plan” he and other members of the House GOP leadership will use allowing them to claim they support defunding Obamacare while leaving the fate of the defunding effort in the hands of the Democrat-controlled Senate.
First, he said the House will “simultaneously” consider a Continuing Resolution (CR) that funds the government “at sequester levels” along with a rule, or a “H.Cong.Res. that would amend the CR to include full defunding language.”
The House would vote on the CR, a vote that would include the rule and then send it to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can then remove the rule’s language after considering it. “The rule for the CR/Defund package provides that the CR cannot be transmitted to the Senate until the Senate has considered the defunding language,” Cantor writes in step number 4 of “The Plan” section of the document.
In step number 5 of “The Plan,” Cantor admits that the Senate can remove the rule language. “If the Senate passes defunding then it gets added to the CR as it goes to the president,” Cantor writes in step 5. “If they defeat it, then the Senate can consider whether they want to pass the CR. If they do, without amendment it goes to the president.”
Breitbart News reported on this plan from Cantor and others in House GOP leadership on Monday evening. After that story, a prominent House conservative source told Breitbart News that members who support defunding Obamacare are organizing and plan to whip against Cantor’s ploy.
“Expect a significant whip effort against the rule among the rank and file if they try to pull the trick on defunding,” the conservative source said.
In a statement provided to Breitbart News, ForAmerica chairman Brent Bozell denounced Cantor’s and Boehner’s ploy. “The latest move announced today by Speaker Boehner and House Republican leadership is nothing more than a cheap parliamentary trick. Once again these Republican ‘leaders’ have failed to commit to defund ObamaCare by any means necessary,” Bozell said.
“Instead they are hiding behind smoke and mirrors by ‘putting the responsibility on the Senate’ to defund ObamaCare. Conservatives and the tea party are fed up with these stupid government tricks,” he continued. “Now it’s the GOP leadership playing them.”
“What they didn’t say was that the vote they will push to the Senate to defund ObamaCare is meaningless and won’t get the job done — and they know it. It is a slap — a cynical, dishonest slap — across the face of everyone who voted for them. This will cost them,” Bozell warned.
“If they do not defund ObamaCare by any means necessary the GOP will own it and they will pay a hefty political price for breaking their promise,” he declared. “To those rank and file members playing this three card monte game, I can say only one thing: Get ready for some primaries.”
Good Grief it MUST be late October, with a Democrat in electoral peril, because here is one of the most despicable people in America Gloria Allred again!
Allred has a reputation of dragging perceived female victims in front of the camera as props to bash Republican candidates. In October 2010 Allred dragged out illegal alien Nicki Diaz to attack heartless Meg Whitman. Minaj was upset Whitman didn’t buy her child a present and claimed Meg took advantage of her despite the fact she made a good wage. In November 2011 she dragged out Sharon Bialek who accused Herman Cain of sexual abuse.
So it is likely this year’s October surprise is Carrel Hilton Sheldon, a former Mormon.
The book Horror Stories: Mitt Romney’s Shameful Record with Mormon Women details Mitt Romney’s “psychological intimidation and bullying” during his role as a Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The report describes how Romney “tried to bully” Carrel Hilton Sheldon when she was suffering through a difficult pregnancy into not having an abortion.
A far more ominous tale in the Romney canon also took place that summer, one that has been largely swept under the rug as the former governor of Massachusetts challenges incumbent Barack Obama for the presidency. There have been no songs written about it, no cartoons, no gags on late-night television, no magazine covers.
It was in August of that year, shortly after the Romney family returned from their vacation to Lake Huron, that a pregnant woman in her late 30s—Carrel Hilton Sheldon—was informed by her doctor that she had a life-threatening blood clot lodged in her pelvic region.
In treating the clot, Sheldon was administered an overdose of the blood thinner Heparin, an overdose that not only resulted in significant internal bleeding, but also extensive damage to her kidneys, to the point where she was on the verge of needing a transplant. Her life was clearly in peril.
Sheldon’s doctor advised her that the overdose of Heparin might have also harmed her 8-week-old fetus and, given the possible fatal repercussions to her, he recommended that she abort her pregnancy.
Sheldon, a mother of four at the time (a fifth child had died as an infant), was then a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), outside of Boston. The LDS leader in Massachusetts at that time, called the “stake president,” was a Harvard-trained physician, Dr. Gordon Williams, and he counseled Sheldon to follow her doctor’s advice to terminate the pregnancy and protect her own life, so that she could continue caring for her four living children.
“Of course, you should have the abortion,” she recalled him saying.
According to an account later written anonymously by Sheldon for the LDS women’s journal,Exponent II, it was after receiving this counsel from her Williams supporting the potentially life-saving procedure that she experienced an uninvited visit in her hospital from her Mormon bishop at the time, 36-year-old Mitt Romney, who adamantly opposed the abortion.
“He regaled me with stories of his sister and her retarded child and what a blessing the child had been to the family,” Sheldon wrote of the incident. “He told me that ‘as your bishop, my concern is with the child.’”
If this account is true, a huge IF I might add, then how does Romney’s advice equal bullying? And understand also that Alternet is sort of like the MSNBS of websites.
Dan Savage, who apparently has not one ounce of class is an odd person to be lecturing anyone on bullying, unless, of course he is teaching a how to course. Breitbart has more
Dan Savage has personally insulted virtually every Republican candidate for higher office. Last year, Savage said on Bill Maher’s show, “I wish the Republicans were all f***ing dead.”
But he saved some special vitriol for Herman Cain. When Cain stated that he thought that homosexual activity was a choice in October 2011, Savage responded by telling Cain to “show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick, Herman.”
During 2009, Savage tried to coin the term “Saddlebacking” in order to target pro-Proposition 8 Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren; he defined the term as “the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities.” Savage also said, “F— you, Utah,” since Mormons largely backed Proposition 8.
In 2006, Savage said that Green Party Senate candidate Carl Romanelli, who was running against Democrat Bob Casey (the eventual winner), “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” Casey was so offended he refused Savage’s campaign donations.
This guy sounds like mommy and daddy never corrected him, or made him respect others. He acts like the classic bully, and he will continue to do so, and the Left will salivate over him. But one day, Dan Savage will over step his luck, and he will have his face punched in. And, then, he will cry about being a victim, and blame Homophobia.
Just ask yourselves, Perrybots, what might have been possible if some other candidate — any other candidate, perhaps one who could remember how to count to three — had an extra $20 million to spend here in Florida. But no, you spent months telling the rest of us that Rick Perry was The Only Conservative Who Could Beat Romney, an argument you didn’t hesitate to repeat as late as December, long after it was apparent that he wasn’t ready for prime time. And you still refuse to admit that you were misled, and helped mislead others, into jumping aboard that hopeless Bandwagon to Loserville.
Given that I am, at times, a guy who can give in to anger, I will just allow Chris to speak for me, and then I will print out this post about “Perrybots” a few hundred times and spread it own my lawn this Spring.
Hey, Stacy McCain is a kick-ass gonzo journalist and all. He Knows Things. I’m just a random Polack from New Jersey. But it occurs to me that Rick Perry, a guy who’s actually won elections and governed from conservative principles, might have gotten more traction if a certain gonzo journalist hadn’t taken a flyer on the likes of Herman Cain, and in the process misled a whole lotta other folks into buying a one-way ticket on the 9-9-9 Restraining Order Express. Cain wanted to be president alright, just not President of the United States. More like president of Hooters, if you get my drift. Certainly beats that web site idea, right?
All I can add is that if supporting a very good man with great character, a damned good conservative record, and who certainly does not deserve to have his intellect, or that of his supporters maligned, is wrong, then I will GLADLY be wrong! At least I will have my principles.
One final thing, that whole Perrybot BS is, frankly, insulting. The reasons I did support Perry, after initially supporting Cain, before it became clear that Cain had the foreign policy chops of the average three-year old, were simple. His record, his principles, his character, and yes, his ideas for shrinking Washington and getting the economy going made him EASILY the best guy for the job. I will always support substance, over style, because when push comes to shove, style is absolutely meaningless without substance!
UPDATE!! Lance Burri does a great job of refuting Stacy McCain’s logical fallacy
Just ask yourselves, Perrybots, what might have been possible if some other candidate — any other candidate, perhaps one who could remember how to count to three – had an extra $20 million to spend here in Florida.
I may or may not meet his standard for a “Perrybot.” I was on the Perry bandwagon. Then I got off. Then I ran alongside it, ready to grab hold and swing back aboard. I never quite gave up on him until he officially dropped out.
So regardless of his definition, I think I qualify, and will therefore respond.
One need not be a “Perrybot” to see the logical fallacy McCain is making. To wit: “if Rick Perry hadn’t entered the race, somebody else would have gotten that $20 million.”
I dunno what’s in that pile, but it smells.
Short answer: no, neither Rick Santorum, nor Herman Cain, nor Michelle Bachmann, nor Thaddeus McCotter would have received that $20 million. A small proportion of it, perhaps. I’m speculating, but it seems likely that other candidates would also have received some of it. Therefore whatever financial impact this fictional Perrylessness might have had would be distributive in nature, and thus zero.
But even so, those sans-Perry contributions wouldn’t have added up to $20 million. Much of it was contributed only because Perry was the candidate. For McCain to speculate that this $20 million existed and was in play regardless of Perry’s candidacy, and that this $20 million would have made Rick Santorum competitive pre-Florida (or, perhaps, kept Herman Cain competitive post-scandal) is ridiculous.
Bravo! Be sure to read the rest and check out what Pat Austin has to say!
Stacy McCain reports that Santorum has picked up the endorsement of Michelle Malkin, which Joe Biden might call a “BFD”, Stacy can barely contain himself
Woke up about 10:30 this morning expecting to put together a quick aggregation of the morning news. Then I saw Michelle Malkin’s endorsement of Rick Santorum.All bets are off. Forget everything else — this is freaking HUGE!
My first thought is Stacy woke up at 10:30? I had already been up over five hours by then, and my work day was half over. But, I digress, this is a big deal. to tell you the truth I had about resigned myself to getting the world’s biggest nose plugs, and voting for Romney this November. But this could be a game changer. Here is what Michelle said
Rick Santorum opposed TARP.
He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.
Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.
He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.”
Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.
There you go, too bad this did not come earlier, but, at least this comes in time, maybe to derail Romney who is looking weaker and weaker as a possible, nominee.
The best news of all in Stacy’s post is that Santorum’s daughter Bella is doing much better!
Rick Santorum made his first public comments on the health of his youngest daughter, Isabella, this evening on a tele-town hall with voters, saying she has had a “miraculous turnaround.”
“She’s had a miraculous turnaround,” Santorum said on the call with Florida voters. “We have a long way to go, but she turned the corner and we are very, very grateful.”
He confirmed that his daughter, who the family calls Bella, was diagnosed with pneumonia in both lungs and said the family had a “very difficult 36 hours.” The former Pennsylvania senator said his daughter remains in intensive care and will be in the hospital for several more days.
Bella suffers from Trisomy 18, a rare and serious genetic disorder that kills about 90 percent of children before or during birth.
Thank you Lord!
OK, here you go, I would not have encouraged Rick Perry, or Newt to pursue the Bain line of attacks on Romney. There are lots of other areas to attack Romney on. But, before we start labeling what Newt or Perry are saying as “attacking Capitalism” we ought to find out if the charges they make are CORRECT shouldn’t we?
Anyone who is thinking straight KNOWS, without a doubt, that Perry and Newt are definitely NOT anti-Capitalism. So, when anyone starts blasting Perry or Newt for engaging in class warfare, they are making asses of themselves. Sean Hannity acts like someone pissed in his Cheerios over this. Funny, I do not remember Hannity getting upset over Mitt LYING about Perry wanting to end Social Security. I do not recall Hannity crying over Michel Bachmann’s absurdly false claims about Perry and Gardasil. Or her idiot attacks on Newt. A bit of Selective Outrage Syndrome seems to be afflicting Hannity. Jill links to a couple of videos of Hannity interviewing Palin, who defends Perry, and notes that Perry knows about creating jobs.
Also check out Jill’s post on Mitt and his, say it with me, “electability”
Peter Ferrara on why RINO Romney is the least electable:
Romney the Republican establishment businessman is telling us with his limited, crabbed policy kowtowing to Obama’s class warfare rhetoric that he feels, like Bush I and Republican RINO moderates generally, that he cannot explain and defend good supply-side policy to the public. Given his background and who he is as a rich Wall Street takeover artist, he personally may be right about that. Who is going to take seriously a Wall Street millionaire calling for tax cuts for millionaires? That is why he personally is not a good vessel for carrying the Republican standard this year. He is actually a perfect caricature for the neo-Marxist class warfare arguments of Obama and the Occupy Wall Street rabble. That is one reason why Romney, in fact, is the least electable.
Or as Dan Riehl put it earlier today:
He feeds right into the concept of a 1%. What a freaking nightmare.
Also, maybe Romney has flip-flopped on this issue too?
Ace tries to put some sanity back into this and has the interview Laura Ingraham did with Perry earlier today
Two quick notes about that interview, at one point, Ingraham asks if Perry is worried the Dems might use this against Mitt if he is the eventual nominee. Good grief, I think the Dems likely are going to use that even if no Republican mentioned it. secondly, I do not know what Herman Cain’s issue with Perry is, but, frankly, he looks childish attacking Perry, come on Mr. Cain, aren’t you better than that?
The reason that I dropped off the Herman Cain bandwagon was simple. He had no grip on foreign policy, and that is a deal killer for me. Of course Cain would have been better than the pathetic Obama record on foreign policy H/T American Power
RS McCain is at an “undisclosed location” and wearing a mask. Is he in hiding from aggrieved Liberals? Or perhaps from an irate Michele Bachmann. No one seems to know hos whereabouts but rest assured, a the headline suggests, there ARE two things you can count on. One, any number of Feminists will be offended, and second, just like me Stacy will still not be cool enough for BlogCon
Paraphrasing Rick Perry a bit, but, I thought he nailed it by pointing out how miserably Obama has failed in the Middle East, and by pointing to the source of America’s economic woes Perry was on his game last night, and frankly has been at most of the debates since the extremely overblown “meltdown” moment when he could not recall that third department he wanted to eliminate. Of course, the problem Perry has faced since then is that the media, yes including Fox News has focused ONLY on any “gaffe” they can find, and ignored the substance Perry offers.
This is one of the biggest issues wit our political process, style, or perceived style, is elevated in importance over substance. The other problem is that the so-called experts micro-analyze these candidates and again, care only about style. This is how a candidate like Romney, can be praised for his great debate performances, which to me, have been more about not saying the wrong thing, then defining his ideals. I suppose that the media, and the “experts” think that ideological cowardice, which is what Romney has offered, trumps principles.
In the end though, it is voters who need to put at least a little effort into learning what these candidates are all about. It is not hard, they all have records to look at. The question is will enough Republicans look at these candidates and realize that Newt, and Mitt are NOT the best choices?
I have said repeatedly I see Perry as the clear choice. Others see Santorum as the best option, others lean towards Bachmann. I would offer this bit of advice to any voter who still thinks Newt or Romney are the most electable. ANY of these candidates, except Ron Paul can and will beat Obama next year. So stop listening to the GOP establishment that is so afraid of nominating a real Conservative they cannot see straight. Ignore the “experts”, and the media. Most of all remember this we do not have to “settle”.
Linked by Wyblog, where Chris is starting to note Perry’s substance
Rick Perry also stood up for Truth last night —“Newt Gingrich is not the problem, Obama is the problem.“ Somebody needs to put that on an index card for Mitt Romney. I’m really starting to re-warm-up to Perry. Once you look past the manufactured gaffe-gates the media loves to hype he’s got some real substance in what he says.
Chris also has an issue with Conservative bloggers stirring up fake controversies
And not for nothing, but it’s bad enough having the lame-stream media piling on our candidates, so I’m especially disappointed when respected conservative bloggers feel the need to gin up more fake controversy. This time it’s Stacy McCain recycling the Is-Rick-Perry-Gay non-story just in time for the Iowa caucuses.
Look, I realize McCain is on the rebound with Rick Santorum after Herman Cain left him at the altar, but c’mon already. Talk your guy up, if he’s so swell. Don’t throw mud at the front-runners just to make your latest crush seem more like the real deal.
I would agree. Yes, I know I have been critical of some of the candidates, and I have tried to stick to substantive criticisms, including of Perry, and to avoid the stupid things that some folks get caught up in. I think we can all agree that fair criticism is valid, but, I agree with Chris here.
Herman Cain is done, he has “suspended” his campaign, which, as RS McCain notes means he is finished, although McCain is far from done, which is good
My 12-year-old son Jefferson asked, ‘What does ‘suspending’ mean?” It means “quit.” Cain will still be on the ballot in several states. He could, if he chose, resumethe campaign at some future point, but in general, “suspend = quit.”
The good news? J.D. Gordon is now unemployed.
More good news? My “sources close to the campaign” can now speak on the record about who was responsible for screwing up.
And finally, for those of my friends worried about my future diplomatic career, it’s still morning in Vanuatu. IYKWIMAITYD.
My only thing is this, why not just call it a day? And why not go ahead, and endorse someone else? Get on with it, endorse Perry, or Santorum, but endorse someone and urge your supporters NOT to vote for Cain in Iowa or New Hampshire, because you know there will be those knuckleheads that go ahead and vote Cain anyway.
Also, I will say it now, if Cain endorses soon, and it is Mitt, or Newt, my head will explode, and a lot of the respect for Cain I have will be gone.
But, God bless you Herman Cain, keep fighting for the principles you espouse.
………that he might just pack his Pragmatic Politics bags, lined with REAL RINO skin so you know they are David Brooks approved, and leave the GOP? Well, I guess that leaves us no choice then. If nominating Perry, or some other candidate beneath the “intellect” of Frum means life in the GOP without Frum, then all I can say is, Let me get that door for you Mr. Frum!
In my column for the National Post, I explain why Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are the best contenders in the GOP presidential field:
I’m looking for two chief things in a candidate for 2012:
1) The temperament, judgment, deftness and largeness of spirit required in the presidential office; and
2) The creativity and intellect to respond to the global economic crisis – a crisis threatening to actually get worse if (or when) the euro implodes.
Those conditions obviously and categorically exclude the clownish Herman Cain, the daffy Ron Paul, the dim Rick Perry and the firebrand congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Frum, looks up from looking down his nose on better, and smarter people than him to also criticize Rick Santorum, and Newt as un-presidential. But, allow me to focus on his criticisms of Cain, Bachmann, and Perry here.
First of all, to refer to Herman Cain as a clown is simply childish and stupid. I stopped endorsing Cain because I feel his foreign policy creds are lacking. But, I am fully aware that Cain has accomplished too much in his life to ever be called clownish. Frankly, I can see Frum in big red shoes and a huge red nose a lot more easily than I can Cain.
Now Bachmann has lost some respect in my eyes for her attacks on Perry, and her whining about her appearance on Jimmy Fallon, I mean come on, Congresswoman, suck it up. You ought to know by now how low the Left is. Playing the Sexism Card ought to be beneath you. But, again, I can respect her for having the guts to fight for, and stand by her principles. I am not so sure I can say that Frum is as gutsy, or principled.
Now, to the attack on Perry as “dim”. Really Mr. Frum? Dim? Have you seen the governors economic record? Have you looked at his plans to reform D.C.? Now, Mr. Frum might disagree with Perry on certain issues, that is fine. He might like Romney or Hunstman better, again, fine. But, to refer to Perry as “dim”?
Is this because he has an accent? Certainly stuffed shirt pricks like Frum are fairly quick to mock a Southern accent as not so smart. I would remind Mr. Frum that a good portion of our Founders were from,the South. Frum might recognize some of their names Madison, Mason, Jefferson, Lee, Washington, Henry among others.
Maybe Frum has just convinced himself that any candidate that is “too Conservative” simply cannot win. Or perhaps Frum is just not really any type of Conservative? Consider his praise for Romneycare
I still think that his Massachusetts health-care plan showed creative leadership on an important problem — even if he himself now declines to defend his own accomplishment.
Yes, that explains a lot! But surely Romney’s issue with changing positions will give Frum pause
Yet it’s also true that Romney has reversed so many of his positions so abruptly that voting for him is like taking a random walk. We can be sure that a Romney White House will be well-run. But what will it do? That’s anybody’s guess.
Is he serious? He says no one has a clue what a Romney White House would do, but we HAVE to nominate Romney? Talk about a dim bulb? What of Hunstman? Why does the all-knowing Frum support the former governor of Utah?
Huntsman, by contrast, has bravely challenged the Republican party’s strident, uncompromising radical style. I also like Huntsman’s willingness to re-examine the Afghanistan commitment and to focus more on the economic challenge from China. On the other hand, Huntsman’s economic platform is pure Wall Street Journal editorial page: Big tax cuts for the highest-income earners, radical cuts in retirement benefits for people now under 55. The more supple Romney has carefully avoided any such radical commitment.
The Washington, D.C., primary is set for April 3. I’ll probably cast a vote that day for Huntsman, if only to show support for a brave and independent-minded candidate — and in hope that a strong Huntsman showing will be interpreted as a call for a more modern and inclusive Republican party.
O.K. Hunstman is a “BIG-TENT” guy, and Frum wants the party to be more modern, you know smarter, you know, like Frum. Oddly, Frum sounds a whole lot like Meghan McCain here. sure he uses bigger words, but in essence he is Meghan in a business suit. He really can not offer any substantial reason why he frowns on Perry, Bachmann, or Cain, or even why he is so enamoured with Hunstman lr Romney. But, by golly, we stupid rubes better all line up and listen to Frum, or he might take his pragmatism and go home!
Any other nominee would gravely test my commitment to the political party I’ve supported since I entered the United States as a college student in the fall of 1978.
Tell you what David, in my view, the vest thing you can do is to not let the door hit you on the way out!
Chris sums up last night’s debate pretty well.
I know I’m gonna take some heat, but good God man, what was Ron Paul thinking?
The Taliban only wants to fight us “over there?” Well sure dude, if you don’t count those 4 hijacked airplanes and two demolished buildings. Other than that there’s, oh I don’t know, only a coupla dozen Islamic nutjobs who’ve brought jihad to within pissing distance of my front porch. That’s “over there,” if you’re Ron Paul.
To the sane though, it’s out there, which is where he belongs. Compared to Ron Paul even Jon Huntsman looks credible.
SPOT ON!! Paul has let his idealism override his common sense. He sounds like a typical liberal when he talks foreign policy.
When Newt came out for Amnesty Mitt didn’t say “boo.” Jump on Rick Perry, Mitt did, for the same stance, but Newtie gets a pass?
I caught this too, maybe Mitt has some personal issue with Perry, or, maybe it is all strategy, who knows
I actually thought that Perry had the best response to the illegal alien issue. Secure the border, then decide who stays and who goes. An unsecure border is an incentive, and it sends the wrong message.
I agree, securing the border FIRST is the only way to even start. Nothing matters as long as the border is unsecure.
This last part, I also agree with. Chris advises Bachmann, Santorum, and that the MSNBS fave, Huntsman would pull out. Frankly, I would, sadly, add Cain to that list as well. He has NOTHING in the area of foreign policy, foreign policy is kind of a big deal for presidents.
Also, with those four out, we can avoid splitting all those Conservative votes. Those votes being split will help Romney get nominated. Sorry, but it is time for some of these Conservatives to admit that, for the good of the party…………..
LIVE STREAMING FOR THIS EVENT HAS ENDED.