Laura Ingraham contemplating a move to SC...wants to primary pro-amnesty Senators

S

supermario21

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
4,060
Laura Ingraham ‏@IngrahamAngle 48m
I have family & great stations in lovely AZ ... but also family in the Beaufort, SC area...great fishing. Tossup. #primarythem
Click to expand...

Tom Davis retweeted a tweet begging Laura to move down here. If Mace/Davis/Bright don't run then I think she'd be a great addition to the Senate.
 
I'd take her over Mace but not over either Bright or Davis. I THINK I would. I'd have to look into her more, to be honest, I haven't researched her as a candidate.
 
sailingaway said:
I'd take her over Mace but not over either Bright or Davis. I THINK I would. I'd have to look into her more, to be honest, I haven't researched her as a candidate.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Mace is a Ron Paul person and you would take Ingraham?
 
Mace/Davis


Bright
Ingraham


My SC Senate totem pole. Ingraham would bring name ID for sure. She's also not a Ron Paul person but definitely against the warfare/welfare state.
 
TaftFan said:
Seriously? Mace is a Ron Paul person and you would take Ingraham?
Click to expand...

I saw something about Mace that made me think she wasn't very liberty. I don't remember what at the moment. I don't know her well. I'd have to research both more. I'm thinking of stuff now about Ingraham that I didn't like either. But the main thrust of my post is that Bright and Davis are head and shoulders above Ingraham.
 
supermario21 said:
Mace/Davis


Bright
Ingraham


My SC Senate totem pole. Ingraham would bring name ID for sure. She's also not a Ron Paul person but definitely against the warfare/welfare state.
Click to expand...

LOL are you serious? She's a tee-totting Neo-Con when it comes to the Warfare State. As bad as Hannity and Kristol. Does everyone forget the atrocious interview she had with Ron in the 2008 campaign (or was it '12?)? She's also terrible when it comes to civil liberties (which means...oh..90% of the Constitution). Better than Graham? Well who isn't!
 
Austrian Econ Disciple said:
LOL are you serious? She's a tee-totting Neo-Con when it comes to the Warfare State. As bad as Hannity and Kristol. Does everyone forget the atrocious interview she had with Ron in the 2008 campaign (or was it '12?)? She's also terrible when it comes to civil liberties (which means...oh..90% of the Constitution). Better than Graham? Well who isn't!
Click to expand...

she's been coming around on the foreign policy stuff lately


Rand Paul and Laura Ingraham agree on need for less interventionist foreign policy




Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/08/13)

 
Laura is coming around. The hardest part for the traditional conservative is to understand and embrace non-interventionism, and Laura is 60% there already. Who do you want then? Lindsey Graham? Davis, Bright and Mace have been giving us the tease for a while now. Somebody needs to run already or it will be too late.
 
lib3rtarian said:
Laura is coming around. The hardest part for the traditional conservative is to understand and embrace non-interventionism, and Laura is 60% there already. Who do you want then? Lindsey Graham? Davis, Bright and Mace have been giving us the tease for a while now. Somebody needs to run already or it will be too late.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that Laura has truly changed her mind. She presents herself generally as pragmatic and willing to consider more libertarian POV's, but this is just empty dialogue/narration in my experience. It's one thing to say "RP has a good point there" and a whole different thing to say "RP is correct and substantiates his opinion".

I can understand your eagerness to find an "ally" in the MSM, though.
 
jct74 said:
she's been coming around on the foreign policy stuff lately


Rand Paul and Laura Ingraham agree on need for less interventionist foreign policy




Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/08/13)

Click to expand...


Yeah, ok, I'll believe it *maybe* when a Republican is in the WH. They all said the same shit when Clinton was in the oval office. They were really good on Kosovo..., and then we all know Bush in the 2000 campaign. Lol.

 
heavenlyboy34 said:
I'm not convinced that Laura has truly changed her mind. She presents herself generally as pragmatic and willing to consider more libertarian POV's, but this is just empty dialogue/narration in my experience. It's one thing to say "RP has a good point there" and a whole different thing to say "RP is correct and substantiates his opinion".

I can understand your eagerness to find an "ally" in the MSM, though.
Click to expand...

I agree. She doesn't have the principles down yet and without those she would just be waving in the wind on every vote.
 
i like Laura, but I doubt she's seriously going to do this. She earns a lot more from her show.

Mace is alright, but not really as libertarian as some on here might want, she seems to compare herself more to Palin than Ron Paul. Not sure about Bright, but his CFG record suggests he knows what he's doing.

My order:

Davis
Bright
Mace

I would be satisfied with any of them, though.
 
Austrian Econ Disciple said:
LOL are you serious? She's a tee-totting Neo-Con when it comes to the Warfare State. As bad as Hannity and Kristol. Does everyone forget the atrocious interview she had with Ron in the 2008 campaign (or was it '12?)? She's also terrible when it comes to civil liberties (which means...oh..90% of the Constitution). Better than Graham? Well who isn't!
Click to expand...

Satan? Well, I gues that's iffy...
 
compromise said:
i like Laura, but I doubt she's seriously going to do this. She earns a lot more from her show.
Click to expand...
Imo, it's a novelty for a rich person to run for Senate esp a conservative talk host. The prestige of being a Senator is something I can't even comprehend. If she was serious about taking on Graham I'd definitely support her as I think she'd align herself w/ Rand, Ted and Mike. Furthermore, it would be a crushing defeat of Graham and his establishment allies in the SCGOP. We're all getting a little impatient so naturally I'm jumping at any semi-serious indications to take on Graham.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top