No newspaper in NH has endorsed Romnoid. Not a one.
-----
From the Manchester Union Leader:
There is a reason Mitt Romney has not received a single newspaper endorsement in New Hampshire. It's the same reason his poll numbers are dropping. He has not been able to convince the people of this state that he's the conservative he says he is.
Like a lot of people in New Hampshire, we wanted to believe Romney. We gave him the benefit of the doubt. We listened very carefully to his expertly rehearsed sales pitch. But in the end he didn't close the deal for us. Now, two weeks before the primary, the same is happening with voters.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=bc5bd60b- 68a2-4427-93aa-d0fc2548ba3d
-----
|
|
You're embarrassing yourself, Hugh.
If you want to quote Malkin agreeing with Sowell, tell everyone the totality of what Sowell said.
He wrote, "Romney and Giuliani are both articulate Republicans — and it is rare for the Republicans to have two at one time. Some presidential election years they haven’t even had one.
If Romney’s and Giuliani’s track records in office matched their ability to talk, either of them could unite and lead their party to victory. But that is no small “if.”
Catch that, Hugh? He didn't endorse Romney (or any of the others), he simply indicated that he presents himself well, but his track record indicates he isn't the candidate he is pretending to be.
The closest thing to an endorsement? "Fred Thompson seems to have the best policy positions and the best political track record among the Republican candidates — and the least effective presentation of himself.
If Senator Thompson can beat the odds and become president, he would probably be better than most of those who have been in the White House in recent times — though that is not extravagant praise."
My advice to you? Read it. Read the whole thing.
|
|
Even though Hugh wrote McCain off months ago, he still suffers from McCain Derangement Syndrome. That's because he knows true conservatives like those at the NH Union Leader understand McCain is a conservative who puts country over party, and that Mitt is the GOP's equivalent of John Edwards --phony to the core.
Hugh, like Romney, refuses to respect his base. As evidence I submit this quite:
"I think MM and those she quotes --like Thomas Sowell-- are just a bit closer to the center of Republican primary opinion than the Manchester Union Leader.."
No, hugh. Not only is the NH Union Leader conservative, they are also the most prestigious paper the state has to offer. McCain has the endorsement of several NH newspapers, and Romney has a big fat ZERO! And yet this Thomas Sowell guy speaks for New Hampshire residents more than every newspaper combined?
Hugh get real. Respect your audience. |
|
Leave it to McCain to try and screw things up for the GOP.
He screwed up Bush's conservative judicial nominees with the Gang of 14.
He screwed up freedom of political speech in presidential elections, giving rise to the 527's and "move-on's", with his McCain-Feingold.
He screwed up GOP momentum vis a vis Middle East leading up to the '06 Congressional elections with his torture grandstanding.
He almost screwed up our whole country and almost DESTROYED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR A GENERATION with his ploy for amnesty of illegal immigrants.
AND RIGHT NOW HE'S TRYING TO SCREW UP THE GOP CHANCES TO WIN THE COMING PRESEDENTIAL ELECTION. There's absolutely NO WAY he can get the GOP nomination. The GOP (rightly) hates his guts; but McCain CAN screw up GOP chances of winning.
Mitt Romney MUST prevail over McCain in New Hampshire -- for the good of the country and the good of the party. |
|
What's with the Rombots and caps lock?
+ + + |
|
Great rationalization of the fact that no one is endorsing Mitt Romney.
Could it be all the flip-flopping? After all, Mitt Romney was for Mitt Romney before he was against him. |
|
With the unique querk of New Hampsire independents voting in the GOP process, he gets the Democrats to vote for him (McCain) so the Democrats can sabotog Romney. It can only happen in New Hampsire and only with a McCain. If McCain pulls this off in NH, I'll boycott ALL New Hampsire products -- and NH should forfeit its primary responsibilities.
And the Main Stream Media is more than conspiring with McCain and the Democrats to try and accomplish this. |
|
I am no McCain fan by any means - but it seems to me that he has been proven right on at least two major issues to the GOP (Iraq and pork spending)
It was President Bush who signed the McCain-Feingold abomination and I do not recall this being used against his (Bush's) reelection in 2004.
With the Dems controlling the Senate now and no doubt until at least 2010 (look at the map this coming cycle) and with Alito and Roberts on the Supremes, it seems the Gang of 14 issue is not the dealbreaker it might once have been.
That does leave immigration of course - but there has been no leadership from anyone in the GOP there - except people like Tancredo who Hugh has dismissed as a loon (before the Romney endorsement I might add) |
|
When this is all over, we should go back and pick out some of our favorite quotes from this blog. It will be like listing all of Baghdad Bob's best sayings. Remember these?
"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"
"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
"I blame Al-Jazeera - they are marketing for the Americans!"
"God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis."
"They're coming to surrender or be burned in their tanks."
"No I am not scared, and neither should you be!"
Every one of Hugh's love letters to Mittens is filled with them. It will be hard to pick your favorite! |
|
With a name like "Campaign Finance Reform" it makes it hard to veto; so Bush was hoping that the Supreme Court would throw it out.
The gang of 14 cannot be forgotten; consider what kind of vengence could be behind that on the part of McCain (also the vengence in his illegal amnesty ploy -- which almost worked -- to destroy the Republican Party.
McCain just wants to get even for 2000 OR he is simply mentally/emotionally imbalanced. |
|
Now the Democrats are responsible for Romney's faltering campaign. Ted, do you actually think Democrats - in any state - are trembling at the thought of Romney running against Clinton or Obama? In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats have their own primary choices.
McCain is the only candidate who has consistently beaten the Democrats head to head. Romney has been consistently the worst. No. The Democrats aren't trying to make McCain the nominee. Clearly. |
|
2004. Kerry is way behind in Iowa going into the caucuses. Yet, he somehow wins? Why?
He had the best organization on the ground. Huckabee's only "organization" is a bunch of pastors illegally using their tax-exempt pulpits to p*mp for a single candidate.
Romney wins Iowa in a walk-over then rides that momentum to a NH win as well.
Before Huckabee's surge, a Romney Iowa win would have seemed meaningless - "bought and paid for" by Romney. Now it will have true meaning.
He should send Huck a thank-you note. |
|
|
I find it interesting that Pres. Bush has endorsed and supported ALL of McCain's efforts in the senate that Hugh is now criticizing. The only one debatable is the Gang of 14. Frist was all talk and no action and was NEVER EVER going to use the "nuclear option." Although I really wish Frist had the testicular fortitude to do such a thing, but the good doctor did not. McCain's efforts to secure bipartisan support of judicial nominees helped put good conservatives on the bench and restore an important tradition that set the tone for a Roberts and Alito confirmation. |
|
Reason, now you tell me who's going to win.
Compare Mitt's experience (business, govt. admininistration, etc.) with Hillary's utter failures -- and have you seen how she looks lately.
I can't wait until Mitt announces his running mate, Gov. Darah Palin (picture HER next to a Hillary -- Paulin is the "real thing", she earned her wings the hard way, not being a parasite off her husband like Hildabeast. |
|
With a name like "Campaign Finance Reform" it makes it hard to veto; so Bush was hoping that the Supreme Court would throw it out.
-----------------------------------------------
Well, that sure is leadership for you, huh?
He had no problem using the veto to keep the crippled in their wheelchairs (according to Edwards) - a veto I supported by the way.
Not to mention sending soldiers to war. (Which i also support)
Bush has had not problems making some very hard decisions in office - decisions which went against all the media spin, the Democrats and some in his own party.
So do not give him a free pass on McCain-Feingold. |
|
|
Bush in NOT the issue! (merely pointing out why Bush didn't use any capital trying to fight it.) |
|
All this "Huckaboom" is only going to give Romney's Iowa win more credibility. Romney could not have set this up better himself.
Sometimes right triumphs. I think it will in Iowa. |
|
|
I can't think of anything more annoying than a Clinton-Romney debate. Both have that whinney nasally voice that goes right through you. Both are charisma-deficient. They are both over-rehearsed. That prospect would be very depressing. |
|
is that Hugh wants us to assume McCain-Feingold will cost McCain any shot at the election - when it certainly did not cost Bush his election.
Obviously, conservatives like myself despise that legislation, and despise McCain's role in its passing. I also despise Bush's role in its passing but I sure voted enthusiastically for Bush in 2004.
Hugh is scared to death of McCain right now - as is clear from the recent week's worth of posts. |
|
Some tart-tongued woman who runs a blog doesn't like John McCain -- devastating!! I'm sure she is a much better judge of convservative policy than Henry Kissinger, or Trent Lott!! ::sarcasm::
|
|
|
What the heck are you talking about??? |
|
People underestimate Mitt Romney's administrative genius. Do you really think he'd leave Iowa and New Hampshire to chance, not anticipating a temporary surge from someone like Huckeypie? No way! The guys's way too smart for that.
Mark my words: Mitt will prevail in Iowa (by a surprising margin). He'll ride that momentum into NH and win there. An then it's on to Michigan where he will also win. And then he keeps rolling all the way to the GOP nomination, after which he will destroy the coat tail rider Hillary in the general election. And then he will be inaugurated as our next president. Yep, all according to Mitt's original strategy. All according to plan. And this stroke of administrative genius is exactly why I want this man as Commander-in-Chief. |
|
As has been pointed out - Hugh chose to publish only the part of Thomas Sowell's column that portrayed McCain in a negative light. Had Hugh not been a lazy slob and even bothered to read Sowell's column in its entirety, he would have noticed that Sowell "mauled" Romney as well.
Either Hugh didn't read the column, or did read it, and chose to engage in his typical RINO propaganda techniques. |
|
EVEN were McCain to win in NH and even were McCain to screw up McCain -- MCCAIN WILL NEVER NEVR NEVER GET THE GOP NOD.
And, Steve, you are absoultely right that Hugh and others are concerned (or "scared") if McCain succeeds in his exploits.
|
|
Ted in order for your Democrats-are-trying-to-bring-Romney-down-by-voting-for-McCain theory, you have to assume that they don't see a difference between Clinton and Obama. The Democratic and Repub primaries are both tight in New Hampshire. Why would a Democrat not vote for who they feel is the better candidate in the Democratic primary?
I think Romney's problem is that he was up in the polls before people started paying attention. Now that they are, he's falling. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. |
|
|
Hugh has been delusional for quite some time. |
|
|
I don't know. It goes through me. My friends from both the right and the left say the same thing. Maybe it's a regional thing. |
|
Dear Governor,
"I'm puzzled by your gratuitous slaps at the President in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs. By the way, I have no special ties to President Bush and I'm not involved in any presidential campaign.
"Why have you joined the 'Bush bashers?' I know Iowans fairly well and doubt those attending Republican caucuses will appreciate your critical comments. President Bush gets more than his fair share of criticism from the other side and many in the 'mainstream' media. They all really must be heartened by your comments.
"As a veteran, I worry about the future security of the good people of Iowa and all other Americans. We are engaged in a global war on terror which will not disappear because you imply a willingness, without any preconditions apparently, to sit down with the enemy. Sure we can all find fault with President Bush and his Administration on policy matters and phases of the Iraq policy. I doubt however Iowans will applaud second guessing more than five years after the agony of 9-11, particularly since you have been either silent or supportive during the interim as far as I can determine.
"The Foreign Affairs piece is a perfect example of 20-20 hindsight, and wishful thinking in most instances. You make knotty foreign policy issues sound so easy if we would just change our ways. I never was a foreign policy expert though I followed it closely for nearly three decades under Democrat and Republican Presidents.
.
"The administration is certainly not perfect, I cannot recall one, but I do not believe it should be your primary foreign policy target. We are a great, compassionate nation and I know you want to keep it so.
"To win in 2008 we need to multiply, not divide," Dole said.
|
|
On campaign finance reform:
I dare Hugh Hewitt or any of the McCain haters on this forum to detail how, exactly, McCain-Feingold has inhibited THEIR freedom of speech. Please tell me how, specifically, McCain-Feingold has limited or assaulted your 1st Amendment rights or those of others. I sure see a lot of people freely voicing their opinions both on this website and others on a daily basis ...
On the Gang of 14:
Wake up, morons. McCain's efforts with the Gang of 14 SAVED Bush's judicial nominees. McCain's efforts directly led to the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. If not for McCain, those two never get confirmed. Again - I dare RINO Hugh or any of the other McCain haters to explain to me how, specifically, the Gang of 14 hurt Bush's judicial nominees? Please list specific names who were shot down because of the Gang of 14. |
|
reason; if such a debate took place(hillary-mitt)
it stands to reason ..YOU DONT HAVE TO WATCH!
BUT YOU MAY EAT A LOT OF CROW AFTER ABOUT 3 YEARS OF THE ROMNEY PRESIDENCY!?? I SAID MAY...
tcb...
elvis |
|
Do you want a Conservative for POTUS?
If you answer yes, and I happen to be elsewhere blogging.... then why in the world would you vote for Romney. He is a RINO in every sense of the word. |
|
Dems will take Oprah Obama OR Billary. Each has their pro's and con's -- and they probably come out about the same vis a vis GOP opponents.
SO, the main concern of Dems (and surely the Main Stream Media) is to get a bad GOP nominee. They KNOW, deep down, it's their only chance. |
|
who think the dems want to sabotage Romney are either insane or trapped in your own mind. I think the dems would love Romney to be the nominee. He has so many talking point blunders they would eat him alive. Also his rabid supporters like Hugh Hewitt have so alienated every one in the Republican party who supports anyone else the Democrats can also count on a large stay at home/third party contingent from them. Keep Dreaming Rombots, maybe someday Romney and his dad will march with MLK and get the NRA's endorsement.
dirL |
|
You apparently don't know the meaning of RINO.
Sheeezzz, Romney is for (1) STRONG DEFENES, (2) LOWER TAXES, STRONGER ECONOMY, (3) FAMILY VALUES.
That's NO RINO. That's Republican all the way! |
|
We have Alito and Roberts because of McCain's efforts. McCain's no Reagan, but he'll do just fine.
The Romney kool-aid is fermenting. The results may be seen in here.
+ + + |
|
|
|
Romney standing and speaking next to Hillary -- and you say Hillary will come out ontop.
Wow, are you off the mark! |
|
Enough already... Does that mean that his analysis is completely off. No, just very, very biased.
Sorry Huck, your bible is just not big enough for you to hide behind.
McCain is burnt toast, you just can't scrape enough of his history off to make him palatable!
Romney, I don't want your hair oil, convince me you aren't a RINO!
RG, love you on the war, but you can't cover your history with a dress. Even if it is a pretty dress!
Fred, get a campaign!
I'm Done now... |
|
I think you are wrong. I don't hear a lot of Democrats fretting right now. All of the consternation and hand wringing is going on on the right.
I've got a friend with the Maryland Democratic Party (admittedly way out of the eye of storm) but they know people with the national party and they only have a slight favorite of who they want in November. They have one that they don't want and everyone else blurs together. Romney is in the blur. |
|
|
the GOP -- according to your Maryland insiders |
|
I think the MSM would work overtime to smear Romney and I think showing him as a Republican John Kerry would be easy to do. I think when I made this point before someone nailed me with all of Romney's business success vs Kerry but that will not be the point or the thrust of the attack. They will sound clip Romney to death using the things people like me bring up all the time, his "conversion" to pro life values, the MLK dream sequence, the I didn't support Reagan or bush's tax cut (I think the push poll story might break too and it will go against Romney also). It is not fair, it is not even right but the spin will be easy and the MSM will be nasty. And oh yeah the fact that Romney is a Mormon will be played up by the liberal press, both as bogyman to the secularists and as not pure enough to the evangelicals, they will play both sides of that coin. The anti-Mormon angle might be worth 10% of the vote and given the last 2 elections, that's enough. Once again it is not right or fair but that is how I see it.
Also I think the Dems have their own hands full with to be Clinton or not to be Clinton, I seriously doubt any real dems are crossing the primary lines just to vote against Romney or anyone.
dirL |
|
|
It is the one who consistently comes out on top in the head to heads. Who else would it be? |
|
"Bush only signed McCain-Feingold because
With a name like "Campaign Finance Reform" it makes it hard to veto; so Bush was hoping that the Supreme Court would throw it out."
Any legislation that uses names like the above, have the word "patriot" in them or have the expression "for the children", etc, used in describing it should automatically be voted down. Terms like those are used as cover for real stinkers and to cause folks to emote as verses think. |
|
Michelle Malkin Didn't Maul McCain....
McCain-Feingold & McCain-Kennedy mauled McCain. |
|
|
...what Maryland Berrys' cohorts think about the GOP race ? That's like my biggest problem with Hugh (his slobbering over Romney notwithstanding): He always worries about one of ours saying something that the enemy will use to make us look bad. I've always wanted to ask him, "You mean like when Sen.Allen said 'Macaca' ?" It doesn't matter who we nominate, he'll be "satan incarnate" just the same. Then again, Bush is as mild mannered as they come, and we all know how kindly the left is with him. I mean, when they're not calling him Hitler that is. |
|
|
Please stop being "good republicans" and "good democrats". The federal reserve (owners of the country)love it, the msm loves it and corporate owned politicians love it.Have we become a nation of robots? Thats what it seems like to me. I propose that we try being GOOD AMERICANS Together and take back our country, force the candidates running for office to adhere to the constitution, abolish the federal reserve and inventory our gold reserves.Before you vote please consider this:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 |
|
|
Neither Sowell nor MM is particularly happy with any of the candidates. Now, the article is about a NH paper, and McCain is arguably surging in NH, so he gets star billing. Not to mention that MM's main issue is illegal immigration and amnesty which is one of McCain's weakest points. In my case, abortion is my main issue so I find "Pay-em for Partial Birth" Rudy particularly odious. But, luckily, all the posters here who said they would boycott if candidate X or candidate Y got the nomination have convinced me that Hillary must not be so bad, so I can boycott if Rudy is nominated. |
|
Yo Mr Shrill dude:
What's with the caps lock?
I'd be a bit embarassed if I was on Romney's side and Ted was speaking for me.
"With the unique querk of New Hampsire independents voting in the GOP process, he gets the Democrats to vote for him (McCain) so the Democrats can sabotog Romney. It can only happen in New Hampsire and only with a McCain. If McCain pulls this off in NH, I'll boycott ALL New Hampsire products -- and NH should forfeit its primary responsibilities."
Threatening NH? "Uneque [sic] quirk" of indepndents voting? [A McCain win] "can only happen in NH"? The state of New Hampshire won't appreciate that post and neither will independents anywhere.
And BTW, indepedents also vote in Michigan, which holds its primary a week later. And Obama isn't on the ballot to take votes to the Dems.
That post is only a bit better than Shaqrock's (or whatever) who claimed Huckabee's organization consisted "of pastors p*imping for their candidate from their tax-subsidized pulpits" I don't think Christians anywhere will support that line, not to mention Mormons.
Makes you wonder what kind of people support Mitt Romney. |
|
With Republicans like Hugh Hewitt, Republicans do not need enemies in 2008.
I care deeply about who will be the next Commander in Chief, and there is no one even close to John McCain, the son and granson of U.S. Navy Admirals and a naval aviator who is a genuine war hero, in terms of knowledge of military and national security matters. John McCain is the oen candidate who is prepared to handle the responsibility of being Commander in Chief. John McCain was right on Iraq because he knows his stuff on military matters.
Let me make this personal, Hugh. Why do I care about this? Because my older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) who in October finished a 15-month tour of duty in Iraq in harm's way as an infantry platoon leader. I remember earlier in 2008 when Democrats were declaring defeat and other Repiblicans were hedging their bets, John McCain stayed steadfastly loyal to the troops and their mission under their new leader in General Petraeus employing a strategy that John McCain had been calling for. I will not forget that, not when I consider who will be the Commander in Chief as my older son continues his U.S. Army service and my younger son is commissioned in May 2008 a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Marines upon college graduation having already passed officer training at Quantico.
On top of the foregoing, John McCain is a pro-life fiscal conservative whose books on character and courage are terrific, and John McCain has said for months that he got the message on immigration, that law enforcement comes first.
John McCain is the only Republican candidate who can win in 2008. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected, you will get an anti-military socialist.
So all you people dumping on John McCain, I say to you that you are being damn fools. That includes you, hugh. |
|
I'm sure it is unintentional though. This gem from Hugh is really just too much.
"Team McCain's angry reaction to the Romney campaigns highlighting of past McCain adventures reminds all of the GOP just how irascible the McCain gang can be. Inventing a Romney "tailspin" also reminds us that there's McCain's World, where the facts don't matter much, whether on immigration, campaign finance, or judicial nominations."
Consider the following when you weigh whether or not to take Hugh's analysis seriously. It should give you an idea of the value he places on being truthful and presenting all of the facts so people can reach their own conclusion.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/0 7/the-history-of-.html
"Yet from the start, the [Nixon] library had trouble being taken seriously. Its first director, Hugh Hewitt, announced that researchers deemed unfriendly would be banned from the archives, singling out the Washington Post's Bob Woodward as a candidate for exclusion. Scholars cried foul; Hewitt revoked the plan."
Sound familiar folks? Years later and he still operates the exact same way. Say, any chance I can get in on the McCain dead-pool you and Dean had such a great time blogging about last summer? I thought he was going to throw in the towel by Labor Day? What happen? I'd love to win a copy of A Mormon in the Whitehouse. I'd put it on my bookshelf right next to my picture of Justice Miers.
Keep up the great analysis!!! |
|
Former Secretaries of Staet supporting John McCain: Schult, Kissinger, Eagleburger and Haig.
Former natioanl security officials supporting John McCain: McFarlane, Woolsey, Inman and Kean.
Former Cabinet Secretaries (other than State) supporting John McCain: Schlesinger, Peterson, Ridge, Mosbacher and Principi.
Some of the U.S. Senators supporting John McCain:
Lieberman, Kyl, Brownback, Thune, Warner, Graham, Smith, Burr and Snowe.
Some of the former U.S. Senators supporting John McCain: Gramm, Coats, Gordon, Rudman, Fitzgerald and DeWine.
|
|
|
In the fourth line of the third paragraph of my 9:40 PM post, "2008" shoud read "2007." |
|
..just like Limbaugh, Hannity, LaBarber, Malkin and the NRO. These guys aren't real journalists. They are conservative cartoons, pundits with an axe to grind, or they are just bucking for a seat at the table to make some noise...al la Republican versions of Al Sharpton.
These guys do little to no heavy lifting, pick and choose to "analyze" the stories that real journailsts write, and their claim to fame is taking down a couple of phony Bush documents and exposing Kerry's purple hearts as fraud.
As a conservative who has never voted Democrat in my life, I am simply astounding at how these "media" elites are beside themselves because many lemmings aren't marching to the Piper's tune. And you know why? The lemmings just happen to be a bit smarter and wiser these days.
McCain is not my guy. But Hugh's shrill Huckabee-eque cries show just how drunk he has become with Romney's swill and how he will say anything to get Mitt elected show that even the so-called new media is really no different than the old. |
|
(And yes, I have posted this same comment on three separate HH blog commentaries...it is that important to me!)
John McCain threw away ALL respect he had coming to him as an authentic American hero through his actions as a Senator. Can you say "Keating Five"? McCain/Feingold? "Gang of 14"? McCain/Kennedy? Stabbing President Bush in the back and kissing up to the Democrats OVER and OVER and OVER again? Not to mention his hair-trigger temper. The man is unworthy to be a Senator, much less President of the United States.
One only hopes that a just God will justly reward those who are serially slandering Governor Romney! |
|
There's too much free political speech in this country. There are too few illegal aliens, and too many conservative judges.
|
|
well....i havent seen one person stand up and answer my questions? which reagan do you like? the one who supported abortion? the one who opposed abortion? the one who allowed taxes to rise(which he did) or the one who fought tax increase? all this blow hard crap about this and that..c'mon brave guys which reagan do you like? i find it very interesting that nobody wants to talk about the flip flopper reagan! who i liked...but i dont worship him! he was a mixture : conservative,liberal/moderate(approved
of 3 million illegal immigrants to receive amnesty), practical in most cases. but not totally strict right wing conservative! THAT IS FACT! he won blue collar votes(including unions)
you dont do that by being strictly conservative!
sorry folks..no candidate is perfect..and neither are we...all this talk about thompson
i like him..but he was on the wrong side of
abortion at the same time of romney..check it out! he was involved with lobbies that were pro abortion. really check it out..deep search..you got surprises! how many of you hoilday turkeys
saw romney give a very good speech for hetrosexual marriage in washington d.c. ohh we will ignore that,huh!he didnt push for gay (courts in mass. played bigger role!)marriage..that is a pure lie! romney or the others are not jesus in the flesh..but i will take his management skills over all the rest put together! happy new year! elvis |
|
Romney needs to use his education comments from the last debate to offset Huck's populism. The fastest path to a better life is a decent education. His comments on giving education benefits to veterans is also a big winner. It solves a real problems in a positive manner.
Romney needs to go positive in the last couple of days. |
|
|
Better watch out for those Asian Tigresses!!! |
|
We're done listening. There is no objection in your blog, just another mouth piece for Romney.
Malkin - the center ... ha! There's a joke.
You and Ruffini might want to work a little harder on bringing McCain down.
Ali A. Akbar
aliakbar.net |
|
Why do NEOCONS think a tax cut without spending cuts is fiscally responsible?
NPR-With John McCain on vacation and Rudy Giuliani occupied elsewhere in the state, Mitt Romney sought this weekend to close the deal with New Hampshire Republicans who remain undecided about his presidential candidacy.
Romney fired away at McCain, repeatedly accusing the Arizona senator of failing “Reagan 101? by voting twice against Bush administration tax cuts. Romney also said McCain’s past support for allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and work toward legal status amounted to amnesty.
National Debt Exploding under Bush (pushing $10 TRILLION!)
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/romney-lashes-out- at-mccain-in-nh
|
|
|
|
embryonic stem cell research
http://www.issues2000.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm |
|
|
We don't need an elite coronation from the pundits. We need the common sense and experience of Governor Huckabee. Don't just except what you hear said about Governor Huckabee by the media, old and new, go to his website and get the whole story. Mike Huckabee should be the next president of the United States. http://www.mikehuckabee.com |
|
The Union Leader, in Manchester, is influential in that city and the north country. In the past it has been furiously, wildly conservative, and its editorial page is much milder than the days, of say, Edmund Muskie railing against the paper’s attacks on his wife in the snow.“The editorial page has come mainstream quite a bit, but everybody in New Hampshire knows it, and they know what they’re getting... That ain’t that lefty rag in Concord.” This paper endorsed McCain.
The Fosters Daily Democrat is “interesting and influential – it’s a Republican paper, but it’s not read as an ideological paper. It’s not like reading National Review.” It’s sister paper is Laconia Citizen. They endorsed Rudy Giuliani.
The two biggest papers in neighboring Massachusetts have considerable penetration in the Granite State, with differing levels and styles of influence. The Globe is probably read as much as any other paper in the state, but mostly for its encyclopedic coverage of Boston sports teams. The Herald, the more conservative paper out of Boston, is probably read more cover to cover, because its articles are shorter, punchier, and funnier columnists. It, too, is often picked up just for the sports coverage.
The point of all this is that none of them have endorsed Romney, and some, in fact, seem to be in a contest to see who can criticize him the most.
Today's Union Leader: "THERE IS A reason Mitt Romney has not received a single newspaper endorsement in New Hampshire. It's the same reason his poll numbers are dropping. He has not been able to convince the people of this state that he's the conservative he says he is."
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Y1MmU2MmU5 NzBiYTlkOTg2M2Q1YTA2OTEyNTc5N2I=
|
|