Thursday, January 10, 2008
|
|
Rick Santorum and Michael Gerson on John McCain (Bumped)
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:30 AM
|
UPDATE
I will leave this post at the top today because conservatives have to know that Senator McCain is the anti-conservative, and Rick Santorum's warning should be read by every Republican in every state yet to vote, and not just for the discussion of the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco highlighted below. I hope one or more of the FoxNews panel uses many of Senator Santorum's quotes in tonight's debate to put the issue of John McCain's anti-conservatism center on the table.
When Santorum says that "we’re looking at the media trying to make Barack Obama the president, and make John McCain the shill for him," and "I think they know that John McCain can’t win this election," he is exactly on target.
When Santorum says of McCain that on "the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country," he is speaking from Republican Caucus experience.
When Santorum says that about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that "John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history," he was there, heard those lectures.
When Michael Gerson says that "I think the main policy problem John McCain has is that I don’t think there’s much evidence that he’s a convert on the pro-growth economic philosophy," and adds that "[w]hen he opposed the Bush tax cuts, it wasn’t just that there was not offsets, and not sufficient cuts," remember that Gerson was at George W. Bush's side through those battles. Gerson remembers that McCain "used our class warfare arguments, 'It’ll only benefit the top 1%' and other things," and concluded "I don’t think he buys the kind of supply side ideology that has really determined American economic policies the last 25 years, particularly under both Reagan and the current President Bush."
When you consider McCain, keep in mind Santorum's warning:
John McCain looks at things through the eyes, on these kind of domestic policy issues, looks at it through the eyes of the New York Times' editorial board, and accepts that predisposition that if you are not, if you stand for conservative principles, there’s some genetic defect.
ORIGINAL POST
Rick Santorum worked alongside John McCain for a dozen years in the Senate. Michael Gerson was at George W. Bush's side as the president worked Congress to pass tax cuts. I interviewed both today. The Santorum transcript is here; the Gerson transcript here.
Key excerpts from the Santorum interview on McCain's immigration views:
HH: Senator, welcome back. I was just…did you serve alongside Senator McCain for 12 years or longer?
RS: 12 years.
HH: So you know him well.
RS: I do.
HH: When you hear the media talking about him, and of course, he got Iraq right, and we’re all grateful for that, but he wasn’t the only Republican to get it right. Do you believe he’s sincerely changed on the immigration bill to where he understands the message that was delivered last summer?
RS: No.
HH: Why not?
RS: Well, I mean, because John McCain was the leader on the other side of the aisle. John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history, and that you know, this is important for his…because having come from Arizona, knowing the strength of the Hispanic community, that we were going to be seen as racists, and he wasn’t going be part of that, that he was not a racist, and that if we were for tougher borders, it was a racist thing. Look, John McCain looks at things through the eyes, on these kind of domestic policy issues, looks at it through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board, and accepts that predisposition that if you are not, if you stand for conservative principles, there’s some genetic defect.
Santorum on McCain's ideology generally:
HH: Why can’t John McCain win this election?
RS: Well, number one, John McCain will not get the base of the Republican Party. I mean, there was a reason John McCain collapsed last year, and it’s because he was the frontrunner, and everybody in the Republican Party got a chance to look at him. And when they looked at him, they wait well, wait a minute, he’s not with us on almost all of the core issues of…on the economic side, he was against the President’s tax cuts, he was bad on immigration. On the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country. He is for bigger government on a whole laundry list of issues. He was…I mean, on medical care, I mean, he was for re-importation of drugs. I mean, you can go on down the list. I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion. And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.
Gerson on McCain:
HH: Now Michael Gerson, you observed from the White House the battles over McCain-Feingold, and especially the Gang of 14. You know he voted against the Bush tax cuts. I admire John McCain a lot. I don’t like him at all. I mean, I really don’t like him. And as a result, you know, I will grudgingly throw in if he’s the nominee, but I don’t want to abandon my conservative Reagan-Bush coalition to John McCain’s leadership. Is this something you hear a lot from people?
MG: Well, it is on a couple of issues. I think the main policy problem John McCain has is that I don’t think there’s much evidence that he’s a convert on the pro-growth economic philosophy. When he opposed the Bush tax cuts, it wasn’t just that there was not offsets, and not sufficient cuts. He used our class warfare arguments, it’ll only benefit the top 1% and other things. I don’t think he buys the kind of supply side ideology that has really determined American economic policies the last 25 years, particularly under both Reagan and the current President Bush. And so that is, I think, the real problem. I mean, he has a soft spot for regulation in his record. He also is not really a supply-sider.
HH: And he’s also…do you think of him as an originalist? I won’t put words in your mouth, but the Gang of 14 struck me as being a non-originalist taking care of the perks of the Senate, as opposed to someone concerned with Constitutional processes, as did McCain-Feingold, which was a gagging of 1st Amendment rights.
MG: Yeah, no, I agree with that, but I don’t believe that McCain-Feingold is going to be a huge political issue. It certainly may be an ideological objection. But you know, McCain, though, to be fair, I believe on social policy and on judges has been conventionally conservative over the years. He has a pretty good record in the same way that Bob Dole had a pretty good record, not that he looks like he’s deeply engaged in these issues. I don’t know how much he cares about them. But he’s generally voted the right way.
|
|
|
Please drop into IPerceive.net and see the cartoon re: mccain and his many "conservative" stands. A joke, Joe. |
|
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
January 9-10
REGISTERED VOTERS
Would Definitely Vote Against That Candidate in November
Romney 62%
Giuliani 55%
Huckabee 52%
Clinton 43%
McCain 43%
Obama 38%
Romney has the WORST chance of beating a Dem in November. GET OUT OF THE RACE NOW MITT!!! |
|
is extremist, just like that ultralib Newt Gingrich. Silly Rush-Cons*! - the G in GOP stands for Green!
*Rush-Con: disciple of pseudo-conservative front for establishment GOP policy and candidates. For example, can hawk tax cuts while ingoring spending with no ill effects from cognitive dissonance. |
|
Nicely put.
Eternal differneces, where the meanings are. |
|
I do not care who voted for Civil Rights Act,(although the Dems could not have passed it without Republicans) it is currently the the law of the land and everyone on this blog agrees with it being so. What is more telling than history is the present: The Party of Abortion made sure that Blacks are the second minority instead of the first through abortion. In Georgia the rate of black babies being aborted was 40% of all statewide abortions. That was 3:1 the number of white abortions because of proportionality.
So who is the really racist party? |
|
To see what I mean, all you have to do is look at the current NE repubs:
Olympia Snowe, Judd Greg, Susan Collins. before that Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafe.
George H.W. Bush and his son G.W. Bush hail from the NE. Mass. Conn. New Hampshire.
Mitt Romney.
Rudy Guiliani
Christine Todd Whitman.
Basically these are all Repubs but not exactly conservative. This is how it was back in the day too.
Incidentally, this is why the Repubs are going back to minority status too. Too many of these kinds of Repubs are taking over. |
|
Doesn't mean it matters one bit. Just ignore him. He will rarely admit when he is wrong and he does not learn. It's up to you if you want to waste time trying to edify him.
As for the Civil Rights era. I know it was the Repub party that voted for the bills. Same as I know it was the Repub party who wanted to end slavery. What you guys should remember is that the Repub party was pretty much confined to the NE USA. That is was and will always be "Progressive-minded" country. They were against blacks not having fair rights. Now those "progressives" are in the Dem party and fighting against education for blacks. (Yes, I wrote that correctly;)
Somehow the parties have switched ideaologies and membership since then. I think the Leftists' hijacking of the Dem party and Ronald Reagan's ascent had something to do with the switch. |
|
I didn't fail history. The socially conservative people were in the Dem party. The fiscal conservatives were in the Repub party. The Repubs were liberal in their social views at that time. It was the old boys in the Dem party who were against civil right legislation.
William F. Buckley, Jr. was an exception and wrote many articles against the Civil Rights legal agenda. He felt it would be special rights. That's how National Review got started. He is an exception to the Repubs at the time.
So Brob is correct - the conservatives were against Civil rights legislation. The Dem conservatives were against the idea of civil rights.
|
|
Ooooooops, just one more thing. You might want to check out that post of mine.........just up a bit from yours, I think it was at 7:03 PM.
It might give you pause to reconsider your comment about Brob being correct as to conservative voting records on civil right's LEGISLATION in 1964.
I don't know, you do the math. |
|
I said I was through with Broberta, however, I do believe your comment deserves a reasoned response.
With all due respect, this is not about squashing "freedom of thought". I never said such a thing, nor inferred it. As a matter of fact, I demanded she retract her LIES---by definition that invites response.
It is not one of "silencing Dem/Libs" as you suggest.
What it is:
1.) it is an issue of standing on principle. Are you party to a movement that is racist? I am not. Did your party conduct "WHOLESALE REPUDIATION of the entire civil rights' agenda". Scarlet, mine did not. Some members voted against some legislation----many voted for much of the legislation. Just as many democrats voted for some of the legislation, and many did not from the other side. I do not hold belief that either party or disparate ideologies REPUDIATED WHOLESALE the entire civil rights agenda--nor would I make such an asinine statement.
Nor did I sit idly by and allow it to be said.
Nor did I sit twiddlin' my thumbs when some pantywaste claimed, "the conservative movement is aligned with the KKK".
Nor did I keep my damned mouth shut when I sat in front of some poli-sci professor who said something I knew was wrong----screw the grade.
If there are conservatives who steadfastly believe that the position they hold is strong, in their hearts they know they are right, and in their minds they know they are reasoned and rational (and surely know they are supported by fact), they too would stand up when some little punk makes fallacious allegations.
There's an old saying, "if you hear something said enough, there's good chance it might become part of you".
I want no part of these untruths spewed by this schmuck.
Scarlet, you have a stellar day. |
|
Did you fail history. If it had not been for the REP the 1964 civil rights bill would have failed
LBJ could not get help from his own party.
The REP save him and his bill! BROB is DAMN wrong and so are you! |
|
unless he says something using offensive language. Even though ignorance, hypocrisy, and moral ambiguity is offensive to normal people we don't want to silence Dem/libs. That is what they do.
Brob is wrong most of the time so just ignore him ifn you want. He has only been right about 2 things: Conservatives in the 60's were against Civil Right LEGISLATION and that stupid poll that showed that Libs are better educated and wealthier than conservatives.
I'm sure he's read the study that shows that conservatives are happier with their lives than liberals.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet
So I guess education and money don't equal common sense, morals and happiness... |
|
|
as a self respecting conservative, i will only respond to this pathetic liar by flagging her. |
|
|
The person who posts using the name "brob" is someone who indicts and lies to advance the indictment. Recently, those dishonest indictments have reached the point where they can no longer be tolerated. This person should be flagged but far more importantly, this person should not be read and therefore, certainly, not responded to. If a person cannot honestly debate, then what value do they have to the discussion. Honest discussion and debate is invigorating, but remove honesty, and it quickly descends into juvenile name calling, the kind found at lefty blogs. This person, daily, drags us down to that level. She continually uses the term "flickin moron" and it doesn't take much imagination to know what she really means. She recently admitted, that maybe some of her lapses from civil discourse could be attributed to hanging out at the "bar". It's hard to imagine that this person could be game fully employed, since her comments appear all day everyday, on virtually, every thread and then, evidently, after that, off to the local "bar". Can a person, who leads this type of life, be taken seriously? I, for one, do not. This child needs to be sent to the "bar" full time. She adds nothing to serious political discourse and i won't entertain, any further, the childish, girlish, rantings of someone who should be hanging out at the Kosville, "It'il do lounge" and i would encourage others to follow suit. Simply, ignore this child. |
|
I posted more than one paper. Mccain was questioned why he was taking SI money and his MGR gave a very limp answer.
As I have said before frankly I'm not happy with any of them except Hunter. Who by far is way more CON then McCain, but he can't get noticed.
As I've said, the MSN loves him, but when the time comes (if he makes it) I'm going to watch all of you cry in your beer and they smear the heck out of him. You guys should really check up on his past. As I have done and been lucky enough to meet some of the pilots who flew with him.
Yes I'm a pilot too and have met Randy Duke Cunningham. Viet Nam ACE.
I say it again, pull the dang BLINDERS off |
|
Fred raised money for mccain's run for president less than a year ago AND says this about him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9KM3AZUROA
Greatest. Leader. Evah!
I have to agree with Fred on that one! |
|
|
|
|
senator mccain, why are you every democrat's favorite Republican? |
|
Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.
And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/4 34206 |
|
I read through all the posts on this thread and you had some alleged quote from the Washington Post that said McCain has more bundlers than Rudy Giuliani. No link. If you have a link and want me or others to comment on it, put the link in so I can find what you are referring to. If you did it on some other thread I did not see it.
What do I base John McCain being stronger than Mitt Romney on, the fact that more people like John McCain than Mitt Romney. Maybe the Dems will win no matter what, but from everything I have seen John McCain is the strongest of the GOP candidates. If you like Mitt, vote for him. I think Mitt is a loser based on him losing and not doing well in the polls. |
|
|
I'm sorry to see someone flagged you. I guess some here are SO stuck up on McCain they let common sense leave them. |
|
|
What makes you think they were not playing that game in the last two states, where you can jump back & forth. |
|
How many time do I have to tell people?
Once again.........
Mitt is a RINO!
Mike is a RINO!
Rudy is a RINO!
John is a RINO!
Fred is NOT a RINO, and that's why he's getting my vote. I will never, ever, vote for a RINO again. |
|
|
|
|
After reading all these comments, I can't believe my comment gets flagged for saying McCain was mental. Apparently the problem was that I wasn't mean or inflammatory enough! |
|
I've been posting them ALL day long for you and others to read.. but as I've said. ALL of you walked by.
Gezz your guys are like Ron Paul supporters!
"what my guy bad NO-way"
What makes you think that McCain can get elected?
What two small states where anyone can change sides. Are you forgetting 2000. Yeah he came him fast and went out even faster.
Have you forgotten. Mccain has been the love child for years with the MSN. You don't think they don't have stuff on him and when the time comes let won't smear him! Please you can't be tht dumb. |
|
You're not doing yourself any favors here today, but I don't imagine you care so much about your TH reputation.
You're consumed with hatred for Mormons and nothing will stop you. I feel sorry for you. All you seem to stand for is the tearing down of an honorable religion and it's adherents. And you don't mind if you have to lie and distort in the process.
Truly pitiful situation for you, I can nearly hear your gnashing of teeth. And no one but a precious few other bigots here will defend you.
How did you come to such a state of affairs? Scary!
|
|
but Dem/libs are usually the most racist. They are patronizing to anyone with darker skin than them. They are just more subtle about it.
Biden said Obama, "...was a nice clean negro afro american colored fella. Just look at him! He's SO articulate. I bet he doesn't even have any illegitimate children." I'm paraphrasing. I just added the decoded words there;) Libs think this way of those "less fortunate than them". And, unfortunately, in their self-absorbed eyes, many people fall into this catagory. |
|
|
From your lips (or finger tips on keyboard as the case may be) to Pasadena Phil's ears. He is all keen on starting a third party thinking that will fix everything. I do not fear Bloomberg or Paul running third party, they probably pull more Dems than Republicans. But the idea of a third party of hard core conservatives will only put the fix in for the Democrats. |
|
The "minister" in that video (I googled it), is a professor at BYU. He is probably teaching a religion class (they are required at BYU). He is not teaching a group of missionaries. Missionaries would be in suits or white shirts and ties, while the sister missionaries would be in dresses.
And yes, missionaries do teach the basics. I wouldn't expect a math teacher to teach me calculus if I didn't know how to add and subtract. |
|
righty-O.
I'm done with her---the pathetic LIAR |
|
Still have not seen you respond to NeoConScum on his request for your "reading list".
I suppose this is too difficult to provide response. I even offered to send you my hardcover copy of, W. Cleon Skousen, "The Making of America, The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution".
No response to that either.
Now you address me on some feckless remark about re-writing history. Not even an intelligent comment. Has no basis to it. Foolishness. |
|
Iowa? Not real Republicans
New Hampshire? Not real Republicans
Uh-oh, South Carolina? Not real Republicans
McCain, Huckabee? Not real Republicans
Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Medved? Not real Republicans
When our crusade (one is tempted to say jihad) to purge the GOP of its impurities is done, only the truly elect will be left. |
|
If McCain took special interest money shame on him. Where and what did he exactly take? I have not seen the link you keep referring to so I am not sure what has your panties in a bunch.
And are you suggesting McCain did something illegal or just something that is inconsistent with things McCain said in the past?
The problem with Mitt Romney is he cannot win the general election. I do not care for the guy (relative to the other GOP candidates), I do not think he is the best GOP candidate, but he is a darn sight better than Hillary or Obama. I do not want to see the Democrats win. Mitt, if he were the nominee, would lose. McCain can beat the Dems. What scares the hell out of me (and makes me fear for my children) is the thought of Hillary in the White House being advised by Madaline Albright (not Mitt Romney being advised by Coffer Black).
So take your blinders off and think about that image of Hillary and Madaline. It will keep you up at night.
|
|
Buddy, let Brob go..
We know she's a fool, liar, and pretty much a moron.
Not woth killing your key board over her. |
|
You know something sir.
I'm calling you out. McCain is a flip-flop.
3 times now I have shown you reports of mcCain talking Special interst money and you have flat out said nothing. What the truth hurts!
I also showed Mccain is hot on G/W and wants TAX hikes... you went right by that that too.
You say we still need to elect him because even though he has faults ( understatement ) he's ok.
but let Mitt or anyone else have mistakes...
WE CAN never elect them.
Your hopeless
|
|
Congressional record of who supported the Civil Rights Act 1964---by party:
By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)
By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 100-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Hardly a, "WHOLESALE REPUDIATION OF THE ENTIRE CIVIL RIGHTS AGENDA" by cons, (quote by Brob) |
|
|
Missed alot of fun today! Yeahahahah! Let me know if any of the Kos Kids EVER give you the name of a book they have or are reading! |
|
|
|
Say the LDS Church is right and the only way to go to heaven is being Mormon, isn't Baptism of the Dead a good thing? If I was burning in hell (I am sure Pasadena Phil or Hugh would love that) and one of my relatives converted to LDS and offered me the option to convert (and presumably go to heaven), I think I would take them up on that. Obviously they would have a pretty convincing argument they were right, since I would be in hell.
It is an unusual doctrine, but it seems a rather friendly one to those of us who are not Mormon. And if you don't believe, so what, just ignore it.
Lighten up on the LDS/Mormon bashing. |
|
Space prohibited this in earlier post - but do not lump me in with those who are trying to agitate the Mormons here with the "Bishop Romney" stuff and the like.
I am not a Mormon bigot - and all I care about in any discussion is HONESTY. I don't care what Mormons believe, and that includes Romney.
So when the LDS continue to refer us to their website, where I read clearly that Jesus and Lucifer are in fact spirit brothers - I get very bothered by the dishonesty of those who suggest that mentioning this doctrinal fact is an outrageous slander.
Likewise when Romney does in fact choose to answer questions on his faith (which he should not do and does not have to do) - but then words those answers in general non-LDS, Protestant terms - that too is great dishonesty. |
|
|
I am not ashamed of my Church's doctrine. I have discovered, though, that it does no good to try to explain the doctrines of the Church in a few sentences on a contentious weblog. And while I did refer people to the Church's websites (which are better set up to answer questions than I am), I never feigned outrage when someone quoted something they read there. |
|
Ignores Robert Byrd's use of the "N" word, twice, on national television.
Yeah, Brob wants to focus on the conservatives as the movement of the KKK. Brob wants to point out that some ridiculaous fringe group is allegedly supportive of the republican party---that's what is important to Brob----not that Robert Byrd was recently heard using the "N-word" on Fox News.
Does not show up on Brobertas myopic little radar screen. |
|
When do I get my apology about your attack against me regarding Victor Davis Hanson? Are you going to be like Mitt Romney and just slander and run?
Also, here is the latest South Carolina GOP poll (Fox News):
John McCain, 25 percent
Mike Huckabee, 18 percent
Mitt Romney, 17 percent
Fred Thompson, 9 percent
Rudy Giuliani, 5 percent
Ron Paul, 5 percent
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080110/D8U38SI81.html |
|
Likes to bring up Trent Lott's tribute to Strom Thurmond as example of conservative alignment to KKK, or, racism, or whatever else she is bothered by---BUT.
Broberta wants to ignore that just recently, Chris Dodd paid similar tribute to Robert Byrd-----stating that the esteemed Mr. Byrd would have made a great senator at anytime in his life-----OH REALLY? So, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd would have made a great senator during that time Byrd was a RECRUITER for the KKK?
I see, that's clear enough for me.
Brob ignores this.
The mainstream media ignores this.
The Democrat Party ignores this.
BUT, Broberta wants to bring up the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond exchange (again, ignoring that Thurmond was a DEMOCRAT when he was affiliated with the KKK) |
|
You wrote about Romney not having to explain LDS doctrine.
I happen to agree, which is why I found it such blatant pandering when Romney somehow felt it was appropriate for him to tell us that as a Mormon he believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the world (just like every Protestant denomination in the state of Iowa) and then say "we may have differences as to what that means" (unlike every Protestant denomination in the state of Iowa).
And then REFUSE to discuss what those differences might be. Once again, wanting to have it both ways.
And since you mention reference to the website - it is there I read
"On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)"
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7 db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a10ef96041 7b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Yet, when a Baptist mentioned this, he was villified by Mormons (and those defending Mitt like Hugh Hewitt) as being totally out of bounds.
I'm sorry if some are ashamed of their doctrine - but that is not the rest of the nation's problem. However, you might stop referring people to the website, or feigning outrage when they dare quote something read there.
|
|
Being solidly pro-life and pro-family is *critical* to the Republican nominee being able to beat Mrs. Clinton. Folger puts it well:
9 October 2007 "It's Huckabee or Hillary" by Janet Folger
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58045
Look, if all you care about is strong borders, less
government, low taxes and a strong stand against
Islamo-fascism, you had better hope the nominee is
pro-life and pro-marriage-- because that's the only
way you're going to get not just the vote, but the
heavy lifting it takes to win. Pro-lifers are known as
the ones to go door to door, pound in yard signs
and make the get-out-the-vote calls, and if they are
not motivated, excited and mobilized (as the
Democrats will be), you will not get their help....
FL lawyer says Giuliani, Romney, McCain wrong on Schiavo case
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/attorney_says_giuliani_ro mney.php
Republican Candidates Romney, Giuliani, McCain Repudiate Government Effort to Save Terri Schiavo
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07052511.html
Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115741978.8204 40.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.3949 27.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
|
|
[Peak Oil on January 10, 2008 6:10 PM]"I think calling Mitt Romney, Bishop Romney is appropriate."
Does Bishop Romney consider homosexuality "perverse"?
///////////////////////////////
Romney a shape-shifting political opportunist e.g. on homosexuality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38cebb6b-6493-49b3-857 4-9120f8a068c0%40s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com
Luo, Michael. 8 September 2007. "Romney’s Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html
The Boston Globe published an article quoting several people who said Mr. Romney had delivered an address at a Mormon gathering that year in which he called homosexuality "perverse."
|
|
brings up a dialogue of Trent Lott where he paid tribute to Strom Thurmand-----a very CONTROVERSIAL issue, for Broberta.
Yet, Broberta NEVER mentions that Strom Thurmond had been a very loyal--------DEMOCRAT----when 'ol Strom was involved in his segregationist chapter of his life---you know----KKK and all.
Broberta NEVER mentions that. After Strom "came clean" on his segregationist, hate-speak activities---then, and only then did he become a republican. HE WAS A DEMOCRAT DURING THAT HATEFUL PART OF HIS LIFE.
Roberta Byrd has always been a DEMOCRAT. He was a RECRUITER for the KKK; engaged in very vicious and ugly KKK-behaviors. And he is and has always been a very revered member of the DEMOCRAT PARTY |
|
To my reference to listening, just today to Bruce Bartlett on his new book, "Wrong on Race", which is very germane to this issue of Race and Brob's LIES about the "conservatives being aligned with the KKK, not MLK"
Here is just one testimonial to Mr. Bartlett's book----a well researched book on the Democrat Party being so unfriendly to civil rights of blacks--no less by the former chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission:
"Wrong on Race powerfully recapitulates a twentieth century journey into racial pettifogging and outright confusion, and in doing so shines a light as clear as the meridian sun on the realities of racial politics…Bruce Bartlett has done what no one before him has done, and it is all the more remarkable, therefore, to say that it will probably never be better done."--Professor William B. Allen,
Michigan State University;
and former chairman,
U.S. Civil Rights Commission
Yeah, I guess William B. Allen knows squat (in Brob's myopic view) about the thesis of Mr. Bartlett
|
|
|
|
If SC votes for McCain -- it doesn't mean that McCain appeals to real Republicans, it only means that SC voters must not be real Republicans and we should wait to see how Romney does in other, bigger states.
Remember, Romney's speech was magnificent. And please forget the vote in NH -- did you catch the Luntz focus group at the end of the NH debate? I think the focus group is more important because it contained real Republicans (as proven by their support of Romney). |
|
Actually, I'm not offended by President Romeny. He did not deny diddly squato. What he is saying is that we need to move forward as one people, and stop this huckalemming stuff of trying to defame and degrade.
Go Mitt. |
|
|
It is not up to presidential candidate Romney to explain the doctrines of the LDS church. He was perfectly correct to direct questions to the Church's websites - lds.org or mormon.org. People can either find answers to their questions there, or they can request to have missionaries come and teach them about the Church. |
|
First, in a campaign year of crass political reinventions, McCain does not flip-flop...
To those more liberal, McCain insists that the surge is working and we will secure Iraq — only to explain to conservatives why we can’t, either practically or morally, deport all 11 million illegal aliens. He seems more opposed to pork barrel and deficit spending than doctrinaire conservatives...
I don’t know whether plain-speaking John McCain will win the presidency. But so far he’s proved the most experienced of the candidates, and he’s run the most principled and honest of the campaigns. Other candidates may be younger, better financed, and more charismatic; none has more earned America’s trust.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U1ODRkZTdkYjZjMzU4Mj MxNGJmMzRmM2EyMGZlNzA=
Obviously NeoComScum and Pasadena Phil have not read this.
|
|
Jacoby, Eff. 28 March 2002. "Mitt is Mainstream" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.prolifefederation.org/custom3.asp
In this corner we have a Republican candidate - let's
call him Mitt Romney - who has consistently said
that he supports Roe v. Wade. He promises to
"protect the right of a woman to choose under the
laws of the country and the laws of the
Commonwealth." He even endorses Medicaid
funding for abortions.
==
In the same corner, meanwhile, is another
Republican candidate - let's call him Mitt Romney
too. He has always made clear his deep antipathy
to abortion, which he calls "the wrong choice."
Within his church he has counseled women against
abortion. And last year he wrote to his local
newspaper, "I do not wish to be labeled prochoice."
///////////////////////////
Romney Fairytale video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7y1HMZNJy0
and
http://artlaction.com/
Romney an abortion chameleon on videotapes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=54f3c9a0-e082-44f8-94d 6-21110c3c25c5%40s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
Romney flip-flop on environmental issues
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b315064c-1dd8-40a2-892 b-ae09f30cce43%40l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
Romney for & anti- outlawing discrimination over sexual orientation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=06bdb44e-7578-4dd6-833 c-8f0a00b1aa29%4025g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
Romney's flip-flops on immigration, minimum wage, abortion, homosexual agenda, campaign finance reform,
gun control, LDS theology.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Concord Monitor: Romney is a phony
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=222b33a4-9a6e-4a6f-8a4 4-43c2fb31f842%40i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
|
|
[Con4fred on January 10, 2008 4:28 PM]"Syn
You point out something that Mitt supporters should really consider.
If Mitt has flipped on so many issues, what's to keep him FROM doing the same thing if he get's into the WH?"
Romney has no core beliefs as far as I can tell. If he becomes the nominee, and if he then becomes President, the base will have to put constant pressure on him to try to keep him from 'evolving' leftward.
Does anyone here disagree?
Do you think a President Romney would be susceptible to much influence by the Linda 'Greenhouse effect'?
Lithwick, Dahlia. 3 August 2005. "The Souter Factor
What makes tough conservative justices go soft?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2123935/
"The Greenhouse Effect" is the name of a
phenomenon popularized by D.C. Appeals Court
Judge Laurence Silberman referring to federal
judges whose rulings are guided solely by their
need for adulation from legal reporters such as
Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times. The idea
is that once confirmed, justices become desperate
to be invited to the right cocktail parties and conform
their views to those of the liberal intelligentsia.
Robert Bork recently told the New York Times, "It's
hard to pick the right people in the sense of those
who won't change, because there aren't that many
of them. … So you tend to get people who are
wishy-washy, or who are unknown, and those
people tend to drift to the left in response to elite
opinion."
great article "Mitt missing convictions"
control - f/ "find" for: bucki
http://www.prolifefederation.org/custom3.asp
Romney flips, & backs forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pill
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e6675e4-6f6e-4c84-b1a 1-5d3a743d140e%4021g2000hsj.googlegroups.com
|
|
...Third, we are still in a war on several fronts — as we were reminded recently by the assassination, likely by al-Qaeda, of pro-American Pakistani Benazir Bhutto. Many of the other inexperienced candidates fumbled in their initial reactions to Bhutto’s murder.
Obama ludicrously associated her death with the Iraq war. Huckabee, in Jimmy Carter fashion, apologized to Pakistan for the assassination — although he did not explain why. Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson demanded that Gen. Musharraf step down — as if we can snap our fingers and choose nuclear Pakistan’s leaders.
McCain in contrast kept his cool. He candidly admitted that the tragic loss of Bhutto was a setback to American democratic objectives, while reminding us that a nuclear Islamist Pakistan is unstable and doesn’t present America with any good choices. In this war, having a veteran fighter and savvy old statesman as commander-in-chief makes a lot of sense.
I don’t know whether plain-speaking John McCain will win the presidency. But so far he’s proved the most experienced of the candidates, and he’s run the most principled and honest of the campaigns. Other candidates may be younger, better financed, and more charismatic; none has more earned America’s trust."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U1ODRkZTdkYjZjMzU4Mj MxNGJmMzRmM2EyMGZlNzA=
I never said VDH endorsed John McCain, but he certainly is not against him either. Those words were put on on January 3, 2008. If you had even a little bit of the honor of John McCain you would apologize Pasadena Phil. But I suspect you will mimic Mitt Romney on this one.
This country is too important and we are facing risks to severe to allow the Democrats to screw it all up. That is what your loser strategy will do.
|
|
I never said that. Stop lying Pasadena Phil.
This is what Victor Davis Hanson recently said about McCain:
"First, in a campaign year of crass political reinventions, McCain does not flip-flop. Instead, he seems to enjoy telling people what they don’t want to hear. Apparently, at his age, and after what he went through in Vietnam, there is no reason to begin trimming the truth now.
To those more liberal, McCain insists that the surge is working and we will secure Iraq — only to explain to conservatives why we can’t, either practically or morally, deport all 11 million illegal aliens. He seems more opposed to pork barrel and deficit spending than doctrinaire conservatives.
Second, McCain has the most diverse experience of any of the candidates in either party. Sens. Obama and Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.), may bicker over whether being first lady or growing up in Indonesia constitutes the better foreign-policy background. But no one would question McCain’s far greater breadth of service: carrier aviator, combat pilot, wounded veteran, tortured while a prisoner of war for five and a half years, U.S. congressman and senator for a combined quarter-century, 2000 presidential candidate. And the list only goes on...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U1ODRkZTdkYjZjMzU4Mj MxNGJmMzRmM2EyMGZlNzA=
|
|
Mitt Romney is not running as an LDS bishop. He is not even serving as an LDS bishop right now. Do you call Huckabee "Pastor Huckabee" (or whatever the correct term is for Baptist preachers)? I'm sorry, but when you keep calling him "Bishop Romney" it sounds like you want everyone to be reminded of the fact that he belongs to the LDS Church - the Church that so many people feel believes only strange things.
If you are only using the term "Bishop" to show respect, than I apologize. |
|
when I thought you were a serious--if, often off--guy. Nada.
You are using HH's Blog to do your own Blog Within & it's tiresome and not what Hugh's here for. IF you are now throwing the 'R' innuendo at me, it's really a major Hoot that I'll ask some Chicano friends to take an uproarious peek at.
Juan McCain's tough guy illegal alien CORE BELIEFS have shown up in--what--the last 2-weeks.
Ask the people of Arizona--some of them calling you on it here--what kind of CORE BELIEFS he's expressed until, oh, day before yesterday.
Tossing a great scholar and neoconservative thinker & writer under McCain's bus is a triple Hoot. Again, for the umteenth time, READ VDH's "Mexifornis". It is beyond obvious that you HAVEN'T.
How soon does he plan to close Gitmo and turn the Fascist Jihadist Sewage over to US Ambu-chasers?? |
|
Kristol, William. 7 January 2008. "President Mike Huckabee?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/opinion/07kristol.html?_r =1&hp&oref=slogin
The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the
best Republican campaigner so far-- Mike
Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and
Obama's contrasting views on issues from guns to
life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind
Republicans that these contrasts have been central
to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and
to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and
comfortably make the socially conservative case in
an electorally advantageous way.
==
I was watching the debate at the home of a savvy,
moderately conservative New Hampshire
Republican. It was at this moment that he turned to
me and said: "You know, I've been a huge skeptic
about Huckabee. I'm still not voting for him
Tuesday. But I've got to say-- I like him. And I
wonder-- could he be our strongest nominee?"
He could be. After the last two elections, featuring
the well-born George Bush and Al Gore and John
Kerry, Americans-- even Republicans!-- are
ready for a likable regular guy. Huckabee seems to
be that. He came up from modest origins. He
served as governor of Arkansas for more than a
decade. He fought a successful battle against being
overweight. These may not be utterly compelling
qualifications for the presidency. I'm certainly not
ready to sign up.
==
In Iowa, Huckabee did
something like what Obama did on the Democratic
side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters
to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by
almost two to one, and John McCain by better than
four to one, among voters under 45.
|
|
|
For a guy who is forever quoting polls, it is astounding how easy you simply lie. I won't even bother dissecting all of the lies you posted on this thread alone. From now on, when you make statements, how about citing your sources. You are the master of cherry picking and misrepresentation. Anybody who thinks VDH is for mass deportations hasn't read "Mexifornia" and I have found no evidence anywhere that he endorse McCain. That would be like the Simon Wiesenthal Center endorsing David Duke. Prove it. In fact, how proving the rest of your statements. I have a blog and have my proof there. |
|
|
I am LDS myself and I object to you using the term "Bishop" because I don't believe you are using it to show respect to Mitt Romney. Men who serve as bishops in my Church are very well respected, but I don't think you are using the term in that way. |
|
IF they are the nominees, I'll support them with $$ and some time. (*While having the sagging sense that the CIC nom is a whack job with Unsuitable Temperament for POTUS and his VP's dialogue is delivered after reviving him.*)
I'll hope they can win. But, I don't think they can, barring unforseen crises that intervene and demonstrate that Dems aren't serious people. |
|
He's the Republican Bill Clinton.
Licks his finger and sticks it in the air.
BTW-if Fred throws the punches we're hearing has planned, will HH call him a cranky old codger??
We need a pool on what Hugh's spin will be tonight.
-glowing praise for Fred if he lands a few on McCain
-biting personal attacks on Fred if he accurately slaps Romney
-2 page press release reminding everyone what McCain's position on amnesty has been
-brings up Fred's remitted cancer
-mitt was poised and steady among all those big meanies
*This post has been brought to you by
"remembermydadwasgovenorofmichiganinthe60s.com"
|
|
Today, 3:50 PM • By Matthew Continetti
Is it just me, or is Romney taking his cues from the wrong party? The Times reports:
'We're going to make sure this state gets on the move again,' Mr. Romney said. 'I care about Michigan. For me, it's personal. It's personal for me because it's where I was born and raised.'
Earlier in the day, after hearing from a voter who recalled his father, Mr. Romney choked up momentarily, according to a pool reporter who was present. 'He was a great man, and I miss him dearly,' Mr. Romney said.
As JVL points out here, this follows Romney's adoption of Obama's "change" message.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/CampaignStandard/defa ult.asp#3944
I am sure Mitt loves his Dad, but mimicing Hillary is not the way to win.
|
|
|
|
[Con4fred on January 10, 2008 4:46 PM]"Syn
I can't believe you thought Rush was being serious about Huck."
Do you disagree with anything below?
Rush, in transcript of 7 January 2008
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010708/content/ 01125112.guest.html.guest.html
I know the FairTax doesn't have a prayer, but Huckabee, when answering questions about this says, "Well, it may not have a prayer but it's never going to have a chance unless we have a president who can lead the American people and get it for them, because the American people get what they want, that's what he's saying," and I admire that, by the way. I admire people who are willing to talk to the American people over the heads of the media, over the heads of everybody else, and try to inspire them and so forth and get them to be educated and informed. Reagan had the ability to do this.
|
|
Fox News Dynamic Poll has McCain in the lead in South Carolina with 25%, Huck with 19%, Romney with 17%, the rest in single digits (see Yahoo News.)
But I don't get it. Rick Santorum assures us the base of the GOP will never support McCain. Tom Delay told us he'd get killed in South Carolina. Hugh Hewitt says only independents support McCain, and there aren't any in South Carolina.
What's going on? Could it be that immigration is not the most important issue after all? |
|
Mitt is as honest as they come and much smarter, conservative, and experienced in executive leadership than McCain and Huck.
FoxNews does not seem to like Romney very much (besides fox and friends show). I just peeked at Fox on TV and saw McCain, Huckabee, & Thompsons faces perfectly displayed side by side in boxes as the three front runners in SC. Where's Romney?!
If you don't already see the problem with this. Two things: 1) why don't we talk about Michigan which is next and where Romney leads. 2) Romney is only one point behind Huckabee in 3rd place in SC and Thompson is way down there.
Are they kidding! Did they think we wouldn't notice that FOX is trying to drop Romney like a rock. This when Romney has the most votes and delegates of any republican candidate.
For this, Romney should get at least as much coverage as any other candidate!
One more thing, Bloomberg, please don't come into the race. I don't want Hilliary to be pres; we got Bill when Ross Perot entered. Please! I'm begging! |
|
Let's just start the next Mexican-American war and take the oil fields and Baja like we should have done the first time! I love those fish tacos and lobsters they have there (actually the worse mistake we made is not taking more of Mexico during the Mex-Am war, but I digress).
Don't lie like Mitt Romney. McCain said the exact same thing. Strict employer verification and penalties. More border enforcement. Etc., Etc. What Victor Davis Hanson and what John McCain are saying is we will not force 100% of the current illegals out. We will force out the criminals and the ones not working, but some worth allowing to stay provided they become legal.
What Mitt Romney is saying (depending on when you ask him) is the McCain plan is fine, the McCain plan is not fine, or he mischaracterizes what the McCain plan is. And when pressed, Mitt says we will allow the illegals here to go back slowly through attrition, or faster through deportation, or we allow some to stay and some to go. But he has never said exactly how or what he stands for. All I know is there were illegals last month working on Mitt's lawn.
But you keep pulling the wool over your own eyes NeoComScum and keep telling yourself Mitt is your man to stop illegal immigration! |
|
|
swill from all those cool books he reads and lists for us here. Or not. |
|
Hey everybody, just ignore "Daniel", we dont know how he got out and got to the computer.
"Bad Daniel, go back to your room!", "yes dad"
If you haven't noticed, Danial makes his way around Townhall and just creates stuff. The other day he made a statement to cause an uproar and once it was started, he chimed in on the other side. He is a plant, a seminar poster. I just havent been able to tell from where. Ether just a nut case or from one of the lib blogs or something. Anyway, we should start keeping track of the known ones like this somewhere on Townhall and anytime you see them post, we can put it on the list so everyone can be aware. |
|
that employers will be severely fined for hiring illegal aliens. The enforcement will be backed up. That the message will be clear. EVENTUALLY that will turn off the spiggot at the border, while forcing--over time--millions back from whence they Illegally Came.
This head-in-the-nice-multicultural-clouds, we'll make sure they learn English and become nice little responsible citizens ISN'T what the uneducated, unskilled peasant waves are remotely interested in, Jose. Settling "Nothern Mexico" is what they want. Sucking our hospitals and ER Clinics dry is what hey want, Jose. Overpopulating our states with their newborn AMERICAN CITIZENS, thus giving the parents seeming leverage to stay and suck our services and economy dry is what the want, Joe. Duhhhhh! |
|
But read today's WSJ oped by McCain and Lieberman.
Is there a bigger issue to the conservatives, the GOP and true patriots than the success of the Iraq war? No matter what McCain has done to tick you off, who else was out there combatting the bipartisan consensus that the war was lost?
Folks, it was McCain.
Okay, Giuliani too, but we heard crickets chirping from Romney on it. This is The Issue as far as Hugh and others are concerned. But they are diminishing the crucial and effective role McCain played in turning around what was becoming a disaster in Iraq.
McCain stood up not just to Pelosi and Murtha, but to GOP leaders like John Warner and Richard Lugar. He threw away the media support he had cultivated over many years. He basically tanked his own presidential campaign.
If Romney really was Reagan, he would have bought TV time and made a full-throated endorsement of the surge. But to Romney, that wouldn't have been prudent at this juncture. He is much closer in spirit to Bill Clinton than Ronald Reagan. He is a poll-driven trimmer, not a leader.
I'm not a Republican, but let me give this advice. Your strongest ticket would be McCain/Romney. If you see so much in Romney, let him show his loyalty to the party by running as VP, and then gain four-to-eight years experience that is relevant to the job.
Nah, it makes too much sense. Well, enjoy eight years of Hillary. |
|
I did not broach the subject of race----Brob-erta did.
I did not sling hateful comments about race----Brob-erta did.
I did not make false statements---LIES----about the "conservative party being aligned with the KKK"----Brob-erta did.
I did not make the asinine statement that the conservatives engaged in a "WHOLESALE REPUDIATION of the entire civil rights movement"--------Brob-erta did.
I merely called her to be exactly what she is---A LIAR----one who systematically spreads LIES in hope they will stick with some people. Just as Brob ate up everything she was taught in school by Liberal and Leftist teachers---never once considering that she could challenge this information----just eating it up as TRUTH----only to spit it back out again wherever she goes---including here. I merely call her on it.
She's a LIAR.
And, ironically enough, just today on Michael Medved's radio program (during 1:00 PM PST hour), he interviewed author Bruce Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett was being interviewed on this very subject--of his new book, "WRONG ON RACE". A book where Mr. Bartlett documents that indeed it has been Democrats who have been the traditional party aligned with those ideologies of the likes of the KKK. Mr. Bartlett had numerous anecdotes to back up his claims that the democrats have indeed been the party on the "wrong side" of race issues.
He made clear that the present day democrat party is not racist---his thesis still stands.
And---it adds reinforcement to my claim that Brob-erta is a patent LIAR.
And, as I stated earlier, any self respecting conservative would not tolerate this crap from this little wench---PERIOD!
|
|
"It's personal for me, sniff, it's personal."
"I miss my daddy...who used to be the governor of this state and chairman of AMC (gulp)...please don't forget that when you got vote...for my daddy, I mean me....(Sniff)." |
|
Why do you all keep insisting that McCain can win? I would really have to think long and hard before I would vote for him - a Republican in name only. I (along with many others) might just stay home on election day because I'm not sure I buy that whole "any Republican is better than a Democrat".
|
|
I just returned from day in traffic. Just happened to be listening to Michael Medved for the last hour----he's still on at this moment speaking with, Bruce Bartlett, who has just authored the book, "WRONG ON RACE".
How ironic.
Bruce's thesis is that the democrat party was notoriously racist-----surely on the wrong side of the aisle in America's troubled legacy on race.
YOU KNOW WHAT---I never brought this issue up. It was not my desire nor intent to start, "pointing fingers", at one party or the next.
Brob-erta did that in her despicable lies in making the false allegations she did. |
|
“We’re going to make sure this state gets on the move again,” Mr. Romney said. “I care about Michigan. For me, it’s personal. It’s personal for me because it’s where I was born and raised.”
Earlier in the day, after hearing from a voter who recalled his father, Mr. Romney choked up momentarily, according to a pool reporter who was present. “He was a great man, and I miss him dearly,” Mr. Romney said.
NYTimes
Well, cry me a river. Its a Reverse Muskie!
|
|
|
He is so blatant in his pandering to what the focus groups and polls say. He must think WE are the stupid ones. |
|
What fills me with dread is the thought of Madaline Albright or Sandy Burger advising the next President on foriegn policy. That makes me break out in a cold sweat.
I do not want to risk that to Hugh's games. Hugh would risk a Democrat takeover only to have the chance of promoting himself.
John McCain has his flaws, but he can win. Mitt cannot. Fred, unfortunately, has not caught fire. I can only hope McCain and Thompson, who are friends, can reach an agreement on Fred assisting with McCain. We would be better off as a party and more important better off as a country. |
|
I simply won't vote for McCain if he is our cnadidate. As a conservative, McCain is a nightmare who deserves zero support for his backstabbing ways since 2000. There are millions of conservatives who feel exactly like I do on this issue...thus, McCain has no chance to ever win.
McCain only won in NH because LIBERALS voted for the man.
Imagine if Tennesse or Utah would have been next on the calender instead of blue state NH. McCain would be out of the race as we speak.
Conservatives will support Rudy, Fred, Mitt or even Huck in the General election... but McCain?? Never. |
|
I can't believe you thought Rush was being serious about Huck.
Rush has many times on his show said emphatically that Huck in NO conservative. So much so, that you will hear it almost every day from Rush. |
|
McCain has said send the illegals who have committed crimes or are not working home immediately. About 2 million. That the remainding can apply for citizenship, pay a substantial fine, must learn English and assimilate, must have jobs and after seven years or more may qualify for citizenship.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see you didn't pay attenetion to this flawed bill. First of all many Churches, La Raz, & the ACLU went nuts over the fines and it was talk down to just about zero. The same for the english classes.
I take it you ddin't watch tv when it came to LA, CALIF when all of the protest were going on and C-span with the debate.
McCain & Kennedy bill was a joke and it needed to fail.
|
|
Yesterday, Hugh tried to spin the billionaire business endorsement from the Domino's guy as a strong social conservative, pro-life endorsement.
The Campaign Spot is reporting that The National Right to Life will NOT be endorsing a candidate in Michigan.
So either they "also" put Mormon bigotry ahead of the unborn, or (more likely) they don't trust Romney as legitimate on pro-life issues - no matter how much pizza we all eat. |
|
|
He's already miles behind in EVERY state and the blather about him having "the most delegates to date" is irrelevant and delusional. Saddest are Romney supporters who are now speaking of getting a "bronze" in Michigan and soldiering on. Who hasn't gotten their a** kicked at one point or another in their lives? You deal with reality and move on. In this case, it's to another candidate. So please cut it out with the tortured scenarios of how Mitt can capture the nomination. Mitt Romney has as much chance of being president as my cat. |
|
Here’s Mitt Romney now, out on the hustings in Michigan:
We’re going to make sure this state gets on the move again,” Mr. Romney said. “I care about Michigan. For me, it’s personal. It’s personal for me because it’s where I was born and raised.”
Earlier in the day, after hearing from a voter who recalled his father, Mr. Romney choked up momentarily, according to a pool reporter who was present.
///////////////////
Of all the things to do, he mimicks HILLARY CLINTON!?!?!?
As if he had a bad enough problem with his pandering image he adds THIS!
ROMNUTS--what is this guy doing?!?!?! |
|
|
I agree completely with Joe. McCain is the one who can win this race in November. For the sake of keeping the Supreme Court conservative, all Republicans have to rally around a candidate that can beat the Ds in the fall. |
|
Giuliani gives up on Michigan
By Chad Selweski
Macomb Daily Staff Writer
Rudy Giuliani's campaign is pulling the plug on Michigan after serving as this state's Republican front-runner for most of 2007.With his support plummeting to single digits in a new poll, the former New York City mayor has planned no campaign stops here before Tuesday's primary.
***
Uh, how long is Rudy going to wait to get in the game? He was the invisible man in Iowa, Rudy Who in NH, and has he also pulled a Mitt in SC?
We are soon going to be down to Huck and McCain, unless Fred can come out swinging in SC. |
|
|
John McCain is a hero, but he is also a backstabber. The only thing I can say for sure about John, is that he will side with Dems whenever it's expediant for him to do so. Anotherwords, he can't be trusted with a conservative agenda. |
|
You point out something that Mitt supporters should really consider.
If Mitt has flipped on so many issues, what's to keep him FROM doing the same thing if he get's into the WH?
If they are honest with theselves, the answer should be... not a damn thing! |
|
I hope McCain and Fred Thompson team up. Let McCain be CIC, put Fred in charge of social security reform and immigration. Now there is a winning ticket.
If Fred were leading I would be supporting him 100%. But he is not, so I am going to take the best guy who can win. McCain is also hands down better than Mitt Romney. |
|
|
|
Even Rush knows the only thinking adult in the race is Fred!
If you don't believe me got to Fred's official website and look for the 'issues' tab. It will turn into a drop box with one sub-heading of 'White Papers". You will then see where the other candidates are getting their brilliant ideas from. |
|
Mitt Romney recently said he would send all 12 million home shortly after becoming President.
At every event, Romney pounds McCain for leading the congressional effort to provide illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Romney said he will force all illegal immigrants out of the country, but he refuses to detail precisely how and when. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7765_Page2.html
Then when called on it he hemmed and hawed and then denied he would send most of them home.
But minutes later, when Mr. Romney was asked by Charlie Gibson of ABC News whether it would really be practical to sweep up 12 million people and send them home, he answered with another couplet, this one more honest: "The answer is no. The answer is no." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/ 01/07/AR2008010702633.html
McCain has said send the illegals who have committed crimes or are not working home immediately. About 2 million. That the remainding can apply for citizenship, pay a substantial fine, must learn English and assimilate, must have jobs and after seven years or more may qualify for citizenship.
Mitt Romney only says the illegals should not get a special path to citizenship, what exactly that means no one really knows, because Mitt has been silent on it or given completely different and conflicting answers depending on his audience. Basically Romney's position is now he is against McCain on immigration, because it helps him become President. In the past he was for McCain and Bush's plan as "reasonable" but since that does not help him with the base, he has flipped (or flopped) on that.
And oh by the way, Mitt can't keep illegals off his lawn! |
|
[Sadie on January 1, 2008 10:33 PM]"Actions Speak Louder Than Words
This is one of the best comments I’ve read:
I have read much diatribe about Mitt Romneys seemingly unquenchable double speak, and that somehow this habit of his makes it impossible for us trust him. It is behavior, far more than word, that tells me what is really in the heart of person."
Benner, Tom. 27 July 2005. "Romney wants Roe v. Wade overturned;
Now a presidential hopeful, says he's 'in a different place'" _The Patriot Ledger_
http://www.prolifefederation.org/custom3.asp
BOSTON - Polly Logan couldn't believe it when she learned the governor she campaigned for had come out against Roe v. Wade. "I knew his mother, Lenore - she was a very modern woman and she believed in a woman's right to choose," said Logan, a Cohasset resident and a fixture in the Massachusetts Republican Party for decades. "I worked for him and I got more women to vote for him. It never occurred to me that he wasn't pro-choice."
Another Cohasset Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, feels betrayed by Gov. Mitt Romney.
"I think he's a turncoat," Bleakie said. "When he was campaigning to be elected, he implied that he was in favor of Roe v. Wade and would do nothing to upset it. Now he's campaigning to get the Republican nomination so he's veering far to the right."
Angus McQuilken, Planned Parenthood's public affairs director, says Romney fooled many voters who sent him to office when he pledged in his 2002 campaign to support abortion rights.
"The governor simply lied in 2002 when he said in a Planned Parenthood questionnaire he would support Roe v. Wade and emergency contraception," he said. "He can't be trusted."
/////////////////////////
Romney lacks credibility on *anything*
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=99a7821a-ebdb-4003-b0a 4-5c849369e91c%40i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com
|
|
Davis, Teddy. 24 July 2007. "Will Romney Flip on Minimum Wage?
Position as Governor at Odds With Republican's '08 Ambitions"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3407772&page=1
Automatic increases to the state minimum wage
were a key part of Mitt Romney's campaign platform
for governor -- No. 39 on the list of promises he
offered Massachusetts voters in 2002.
Now that Romney is seeking the 2008 Republican
nomination for president....
"I think that indexing the minimum wage is a
problem for Gov. Romney," said Pat Toomey, the
president of the conservative Club for Growth.
"Clearly he has taken a number of positions" in his
presidential campaign "that are more conservative
than he has in the past," Toomey said, referring to
Romney's initial opposition to the Bush tax cuts.
"The question free-market conservatives are asking
is: How sincere is this conversion? How strongly
does he believe in these things now?"
/////////////////////////
Romney refused to endorse Bush tax cuts
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQxZTZmZjRlMTRiOW U4OTAxZjZlM2I0YWJiNzU2MDM=
|
|
[Magic Kingdom on January 10, 2008 3:25 PM]"Romney withdrew
Massachusetts from the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative agreement with other Northeastern states"
Wallsten, Peter. 25 March 2007. "Activists Remember a Different
Romney
Advocates for gay and abortion rights and the environment say the GOP
candidate misled them on his positions." _Los Angeles Times_
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/78/
Some activists say they were misled. “I thought we
had sat down with him in good faith,” said Browne.
“It seemed as though he was making a
commitment.”
Romney’s pullout from the regional deal was
welcomed by business leaders, and it came at a
politically sensitive time. The same day of his
decision, Romney announced that he was not
running for reelection as governor, a suggestion that
he would soon focus on the White House.
Romney: "that [coal-fired power] plant kills people"; global warming "quite alarming"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b315064c-1dd8-40a2-892 b-ae09f30cce43%40l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
|
|
Rush, in transcript of 7 January 2008
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010708/content/ 01125112.guest.html.guest.html
The problem with Thompson is, and a little bit with me, is I'm a depth guy. I like depth. Television doesn't reward depth. Television rewards zingers, one-liners, cutesyisms. Fred Thompson produced a brilliant 17-minute video that was on YouTube that explains everything about every issue that he cares about. It's clear he's thought deeply about a whole lot. He got into Social Security reform last night, that was awesome and totally called for, but something he couldn't say in 30 seconds.
Best of Mike Huckabee, upper-left at
http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php
|
|
Helman, Scott. 8 November 2005. "Romney favors pact by states on emissions" The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/11/08/romney _favors_pact_by_states_on_emissions/
In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide.
''This is a great thing for the Commonwealth," Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ''We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."
....Romney's overall support for the initiative could add another wrinkle to his checkered relationship with the corporate community.
==
Romney said yesterday that he had some concerns about the agreement, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but he endorsed this and other clean-energy initiatives by saying they would stimulate the development of technology that Massachusetts companies could sell to other states and countries, as the emphasis on climate change grows.
''I'm convinced it is good business," Romney said. He cited analyses showing that the agreement would boost energy prices by just 1 or 2 percent.
==
Romney won office in 2002 by casting himself as a successful businessman who would draw on his background to turn around the Massachusetts economy and infuse efficiency into state government. But while Romney has launched probusiness policies, he has also drawn criticism from the business community for his closing of corporate tax loopholes and his support for a measure allowing cities and towns to shift more of the property tax burden onto the commercial sector.
|
|
Rush, in transcript of 7 January 2008
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010708/content/ 01125112.guest.html.guest.html
I know the FairTax doesn't have a prayer, but Huckabee, when answering questions about this says, "Well, it may not have a prayer but it's never going to have a chance unless we have a president who can lead the American people and get it for them, because the American people get what they want, that's what he's saying," and I admire that, by the way. I admire people who are willing to talk to the American people over the heads of the media, over the heads of everybody else, and try to inspire them and so forth and get them to be educated and informed. Reagan had the ability to do this.
|
|
What IS this nonsense you are attempting to peddle? READ: "Mexifornia" by VDH, please!
Where is this MASS DEPORTATION myth coming from that you are accusing Romney of advocating?
By the by, millions of illegal aliens returning to their home country over the next 5 years, because they can't work legally in the USA and the companies won't hire them because they will be heavily penalized IF THEY DO, ain't "Mass Deportations". |
|
I get a kick out of those who keep saying that Romney can't attract any votes, since he's actually attracted more votes than any other Republican candidate. |
|
|
If either one is nominated you will be saying "all hail President Hillary or Obama." |
|
|
If that is your reason to support McCain, why not Fred? At least Fred is not a Kennedy loving, global warming pushing, Gitmo closing, waterboard banning RINO. |
|
as will others - now that Fred is seen as an also-ran, the only Conservative in the race is Mitt.
Mitt needs to go positive with his message and let the Club for Growth and others take care of Huck and McCain and their tax the rich(which means a large portion of the middle class) history.
Immigration is huge in California and other states, while it was not much of an issue in NH or even Iowa. Romney needs to set himself apart from the others by saying that he opposes giving privileges to illegals and that he would never promote a program that provides and easy path to citizenship to millions of illegals. He could take California on that one issue.
Santorum lost because he ran as being for the War when it was not perceived to be going well - he was right then and is being proven right now - I don't think people realize how much of a Pacifist element there is in the PA electorate - it is unfortunate because Rick was a great Conservative Senator. |
|
Sorry but I really need to ask. McCain is honest about what. He's wanting to floow the dem's on thei global warming scare and a bill he is helping work on is full of taxes and more gov control.
He lied about not taking special intrest money evern though he fought hard and passed the Mccain/fingold bill.
He wants to close Gitmo... what do we do with these bad guys then? He wants to give rights to these bad guys even though they are not covered by the UN. I can go on longer, but you get my point |
|
Romney withdrew
Massachusetts from the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative agreement with other Northeastern states.
Though Romney's team had taken a lead role in
crafting it, the plan could prove too costly to power-
plant owners and consumers, the governor said.
|
|
|
While I have major issues w/ McCain one of the main reasons I decided to now for McCain is because McCain is at least honest. I have the distinct feeling that Romney is the type who will say one thing to get elected then change his stance once he gets in office ( ala his flip flop reputation). I may not always agree w/McCain but he stands by what he says,like it or not, and for that I respect the man. |
|
|
|
MacCain is wrong on so many issues.. I could list them for hours... but... ANYONE who buys into the Global Warming hoax should be instantly disqualified by everyone in the GOP and by everyone who actually has taken the time to see what a scam Global Warming is.
You want to raise taxes, take away our liberty and freeedom and destroy our economy and way of life?? Just buy into the Global Warming BS. |
|
|
|
I have yet to meet anyone who says this type of thing who actually is a regualar listener to Rush's show. They are ALWAYS moderate ( confused voters ) liberal types who simply don't get the fact that Rush is pushing the conservative message... a message that is proven to work again and again when put into practice.
If you think Rush has sold out or that he is " misled " , feel free to call his show and see how well you do against him. We already know you would not have the guts to call him and if you did you would get crushed... that is what always happens to moderate liberal types.. |
|
|
It was indeed Republicans who helped pass the Civil Rights bill in 1964, but they were the types that Hugh, Rush & Co. are trying to purge from the party today. Dirksen certainly would be labeled a RINO by self-described 'real' conservatives.. |
|
[Con4fred on January 10, 2008 2:13 PM]"syn
You are reading Rush incorrectly. Rush has been a Fred supporter without coming right out and endorsing him."
I’ll grant that Rush was a Fred supporter. I haven't heard anything from Rush today re: Fred. Have you?
The day before NH, Rush urged evangelicals to forget Huckabee and vote for Fred:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/28d79805-c467-4d3a-9989-886cfb4b b7ec?comments=true#comments
NH happened, and Fred got 1% there (while Huckabee got 11%, beating Rudy's 9% despite Rudy making around 40 visits to NH and dumping $5 million in advertising in the state).
What I heard from Rush today was:
'I'm pulling for Romney. He's the most conservative of Romney Huckabee McCain. If Romney loses Michigan, it'll be because independents and Democrats can cross over and vote for Republicans. A contest decided by conservatives hasn't come yet, and won't come for a while.'
Hello, Iowa, Rush. Did your brain fall out today?
/////////////////////////////////////
NH primary results
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=NH
Iowa results
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA
|
|
David Freddoso on McCain and Santorum:
I was very sad to see him lose in 2006. I did not work against him or anything. But the denunciations of McCain — even the ones that are correct — they remind me (because of the source) that in politics, your friends are often your enemies, and your enemies (as happened later with Specter) often turn out to be your friends. I was in the same boat when it came to the judiciary chairmanship, and then from Specter came Roberts and Alito.
And I'm not going to vote for him or support him, but there are a lot worse things that could happen than a McCain nomination.
UPDATE: I mention this because I've run into a few conservative writers (for other pubs) and staffers in the last few days who insist that they would vote third party if McCain got the nomination. I find most of McCain's positions indefensible, but most of them also voted for Bush in 2004. You can pretty much line up the two men's transgressions (and their good deeds) from a conservative perspective, one-for-one.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQ1NDg2MmRjM2Q4Nz E2NDVkNWRjY2RiMjFjODY1ZjI= |
|
You notice I just posted more info on McCain and his idea for Global warming scare. TAXES and more Gov control.
Notice the McCain people are not saying zip. |
|
Despicable Bible-thumping troll Rick Santorum slams John McCain... and this is a reason to vote AGAINST McCain?
|
|
But he is, I have been keeping track!
For all you McCain lovers: Oliver North campaigning with Fred yesterday in SC. |
|
|
He's no more positive about Fred than Romney, and he actually talks about Romney more. |
|
|
Will you watch the debate tonight? It will be interesting to see who really shows up for the debate. BTW, in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, it was E. Dirksen of Ill. who led the campaign for LBJ in passing the bill. Some Dem Southern Senators voted against it including Al Gore's daddy. It was Pub pushes for the Bill that got it through. I remember it well. I keep thinking that so many of the posters here read stuff but have never lived through any of the things they comment upon. Brainwashing from the Left anyone? I always wonder which university some of these posters attended. As to Center-Right, most of the elections for Pubs in the last 27 years have been done by that coalition not just conservatives. Remember Reagan Dems? One issue that the GOP must watch for is more Dem voter fraud. I hope a question over voter fraud will come in some upcoming debate with facts not anecdotal malarky. |
|
I understand how you feel because you admit that you are NOT a conservative, so you obviously don't understand the concept.
I don't know anyone that hates McCain because of his being a POW. In fact, the vast majority of people in this country respect the hell out of him and what he went through for his country.
With that being said. Republicans don't like McCain as a politician. McCain has stabbed his own in the back too many times to be considered a real Conservative. This is the only reason why he won't get the nod. |
|
Slick Mitt is down 11 points to McCain in SC. Slick Mitt has had people on the ground in SC since 2006!!
When are you Mittbots going to dump your loser of a candidate and put your support behind someone who can win the nomination and the general election in November? C'mon, enough already. |
|
|
Well sorry but unlike the Dem party who only votes for someone who is either black, pretty ( JKF & Clinton or a woman. we expect or party to stand for what they say.. Not just words likes the dems. |
|
It's just amazing to me to see all this hatred for McCain. The guy is an American Hero and has served his country honorably.
That said, I am not a conservative, and I would never vote for McCain. As a not-quite-liberal, I find it laughable that ultra-conservatives say McCain is not conservative. To me, he appears quite conservative.
This vitriol is a poor reflection on you guys. It sure won't win over any hearts and minds of the undecided/moderate crowd, which is what's actually need to WIN a general election.
All this carping just shows that the GOP is not a big tent, but a tiny, tiny tent. A tent for losers. |
|
|
You are reading Rush incorrectly. Rush has been a Fred supporter without coming right out and endorsing him. |
|
Raleigh, N.C. – What do John McCain, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Pew Center on Climate Change have in common? They have united to support a massive new tax increase on energy — which will raise costs throughout the economy and threaten the vitality of, among others, the oil and automobile industries.
|
|
You just didn't know. His insight has always been as misguided.
If the GOP wants a chance, elect McCain. Hes the anti-Bush and he'll bring over indy votes. He believes in science, not torture, has a strong record, and a sense of humor.
He won't sweep any youth votes or blue states, but you have a slim chance.
I pray it's Romney or Huckabee. |
|
Why don't you drop the "Bishop Romney" business and the ignorant religious bigotry?
Just a suggestion. |
|
|
From your lips to God's ears! |
|
|
Is that like the anti-Christ? Making Romney2.0 the Christ? Hugh's sad, shrill descent into dishonesty and hysteria continues. |
|
Never in my life would I have beleived Rush Limbaugh would panic, be shortsighted, be less than truthful, or sell out...but it has happened.
(As well as the entire conservative radio movement.)
Let's remember thought that both RUDY and MITT met with him privately and kissed the ring.
I guess power corrupts everyone at some point.
(sigh) |
|
Rush just now: independents and/or Democrats gave Huckabee his victory in Iowa.
|
|
|
|
Still, it's interesting to see the small addition Mike Huckabee makes to the standard line: Not just originalists but judges "who also have established themselves within the conservative legal community as faithful adherents of originalism and textualism."
That's the longhand version. In shorthand, it runs: No More Harriet Miers.
////////////////
Hugh Hewitt
How can one man, be so wrong, so often, and be considered reliable?
|
|
You went right by my question. McCain lied about not taking Special interst money.
McCain worked with Kennedy on the border bill which became a joke and then he said it was not a good idea. He could have said NO-WAY. but he didn't. |
|
Ambinder, Marc. 7 January 2008.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/neilse n_28000_spots_since_janu.php
The Neilsen [i.e. Nielsen] folks are releasing daily updates of the total number of TV spots run by candidates in this race.
Number one, everywhere, is Mitt Romney, who has aired 4010 commercials in the Boston/WMUR designated market area (this includes Manchester), 2262 in the Burlington, VA [i.e., VT-- Vermont] and Plattsburgh, New York markets, and 1258 ads in the Portland-Auburn market, which covers Maine and parts of Northeastern New Hampshire.
///////////////////////
15 October 2007. "Mitt Romney Is Still 'The Leader of the Pack' in Campaign Advertising, Nielsen Reports
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem. 55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?allRmCB=on&newSearch=yes& vgnextoid=80658eedd13a5110VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD&searchBo x=advertising
|
|
There is one candidate of the GOP who is acceptable to all factions and is credible. He's the tortoise in this race. Fred Thompson.
He's not my candidate. My candidate for the GOP is Giuliani. But, facing facts, Giuliani is just too liberal for most Republicans. It is unfortunate that a guy like Rudy has no party he can win in. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Fred is a mainstream Republican. He's a candidate of broad themes and big pictures. Unlike McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee, he has no enemies. Unlike Romney, he's never flipped on core positions. His persona and acting career give him a chance to connect with voters who don't agree with him on everything. He's strong, but exerts a calming influence.
Against Obama, Thompson would lead the GOP to a respectable defeat, one from which they could recover quickly. Against HRC, he'd probably win.
When all's said and done, I suspect Fred will emerge as the acceptable alternative that Romney, McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee voters can agree on as their second choice. It might not happen til the convention. Like Romney, it would behoove Fred to win at least a primary or two. But I think that's where it's going to end up. FWIW. |
|
...Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the 2004 Primary because Toomey was too conservative to win in Pennsylvania, right? Which led to Specter beating Toomey in a close race?
The same Arlen Specter who still jerks conservatives around while being member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (ranking) and Appropriations?
Mr. Hewitt: If Mr. Santorum wishes to provide expertise on who's not conservative enough, should he be grilled on his views on who's too conservative? |
|
|
All these Republican elite talking heads (Rush, Hannity, Hewitt etc..)who previously liked Rudy, but got fooled into believing Mitt was a hardcore conservative will make a mad dash back to Rudy after Mitt loses Michigan. With McCain and Huck gaining traction lately, they no longer can waste time hoping Romney gets his act together. Here comes the Rudy surge!!!!!! |
|
McCain has not lied about Romney. Romney has lied about his competition. Because Romney is on his last legs. Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida, however, will finish Mitt off. Hugh may cry, but in the end he will probably be better off for it.
In congress you often have to work with the opposition party, George Bush does it too. That does not mean you agree with them, but they are part of the process. Right now that opposition party is controling the Senate and House. We are holding them back with deft statemanship, tactics and strategy. What I do not want to see happen is that opposition party take control of the White House. That is why I do not want Mitt Romney as the nominee. |
|
Rick Santorum: I guess my answer is yes, but I also…a lot of folks are throwing up their hands, not sure in what direction to go. That’s the problem.
Hugh Hewitt: The direction’s toward Romney, isn’t it?
Rick Santorum: I don’t know. I mean, I’ve got…I mean, I could have a whole long discussion on Romney and my concerns with him, too. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Trans cript.aspx?ContentGuid=e96c3803-c542-4a57-98bd-68635a744540
Even Santorum has doubts about Romney. But it is funny how we are going to a guy who lost his own home state by a landslide on what the GOP needs to do to win.
|
|
I don't get it, you call Mitt a liar and yes it sure looks like it, but then in turn you won't notice that McCain is liar too!
I just proved to you he is taking Special intrest money (McCain /fingold just went out the window)
He's dead wrong on the border and did admit to it.
He's has worked with Ted Kennedy who has NO love for the Rep party of GW.
So why are you and some of your supporters wearing colored glasses! |
|
You're kidding, right? The entry is from the ABC News site for the presidential campaign. Why is that bogus? The AP had the same count.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5438638 .html
Honestly it matters not. Romney is finished. Many are having trouble accepting that, but they will come around soon enough.
Larq writes: Thursday, January, 10, 2008 11:07 AM
"Romney does lead in delegates
Brob & SK-8000 quote a blog entry as an authoritative source to claim that 1. Romney's camp is incorrect in its claim that Romney leads in delegates and 2. That they make this claim by ignoring Iowa.
Both claims are not only false, but ridiculous speculation. Really, you embarrass yourself by posting a link to such a fishy blog posting when the facts are easily obtainable. Your wild-eyed conclusions about Romney's business acumen based on a false premise are even more embarrassing." |
|
The guy has the most delegates as we speak. Yet, it's time for him to fold his tent and quit? LOL
Look, I an not exactly in love with Mitt.. but when you compare him to McCain, Mitt looks like Ronald Reagan... that is how BAD McCain is to a true conservative.
For all you moderates who think McCain is worth a damn... I repeat, it is the moderate voter who is going to get Hillary elected come this November.
What good is McCain to a GOP voter when he is simply another Democrat? We need to bust out the conservative playbook of Ronald Reagan, a playbook that won 49 states in 1984 and 44 states when he crushed Jimmy Carter. Republican win by landslides when they reject liberal positions and RINO type BS.
Why is this so hard for so many to figure out?
Only Fred, Rudy or Mitt fit this bill at this point. |
|
|
|
|
McCain supports surrendering to the demands of foreign nationals illegally in our country. I will not vote for him, EVER. |
|
Well Mr. Swiftboat himself is now saying that Obama can save us all.
Someone shoot me. LOL
Geee I wonder how Edwards feels about this? |
|
|
|
|
Richard, Romney is changing strategy on the fly like the executive manager he is. Let's see if it works. If it does, he has my vote as the change candidate, whatever the heck that means. |
|
Dustoff,
I'm not trashing Hugh, or you, or anybody. I listen to his show fairly often and have always found it informative and thoughtful. He is generally very fair to guests who disagree with him. He's not perfect, but he is certainly worthy of his position in the conservative eco-system.
I just think he's gone off the rails with his Romney advocacy. He's overlooked some immense flaws in Romney's candidacy. Romney has two nearly fatal problems. First, his craven switch in positions on the social issues looks awfully expedient. Second, despite his evident intelligence, he has offered almost nothing in the way of ideas.
What you're left with is a candidate who thinks he should be elected president based on his resume. It's a fine resume! But he has given us no clue as to what he's going to do if elected, other than just generally be brilliant and handsome.
Hugh associates Romney with Reagan, but this is the reverse of Reagan, who was elected as a candidate of convictions and clear goals. Reagan never claimed to be brilliant, nor did he claim to have great managerial skills. He simply told people what he planned to do, they believed him and they supported him. Romney hasn't come within a time zone of that kind of clarity. Instead of cocooning Romney, a guy like Hugh should be demanding more from him.
|
|
Yep. Hands down. In keeping with your argument about conservatives and the CRA, Robert Byrd would be one of the most conservative members of the Senate.
As Magic Kingdom sez, I really don't care about about 40 years ago, but rather about today. So called "civil rights activism" today is pandering to every wacky group out there. Heir ins ze Peoples Republik of Cullyforjna that would be the transgender lifestyle which can't be criticized, therefore won't be critically examined in public skrools anymore. Never mind the suicide rate among transgenders is around 80-percent suggesting serious problems with this particular lifestyle choice. I would call it a wrong-headed choice but certainly don't hate transgenders. They do that enough for themselves it appears. An end result of postmodern belief is the definition of "Hate Speech" gets broader everytime anybody takes offense to anything said. That stifles critical thinking out of fear of being sent to the principal's office. |
|
Asked if they were committed to South Carolina, spokesman Kevin Madden didn’t answer directly.
“We are very competitive across all these early primary states,” Madden said.
The move is striking for at least two reasons. First, Romney has touted his ability as the sole GOP candidate with the capacity to play in every state.
That he is now on his way to writing off a seemingly pivotal contest reflects the extraordinary setbacks his campaign has suffered with back-to-back losses in Iowa and New Hampshire — and the pressing strategic decisions they’re now grappling with as a result of those defeats.
The shift is all the more remarkable considering just how much Romney has invested in South Carolina. Romney deployed his first staffer to the state in June 2006 and has been on the air here since Labor Day.
/////////////////
If Hugh Hewitt was the Captain of the Titanic:
HH:The ship is sound. It is not sinking, we just need to "redistribute the weight" to the back for better efficiency.
HH:The iceberg is quite small as you can see from the waterline up. We're moving ahead confidently.
HH:There is no possible way the iceberg will overtake us.
HH:My shipmates have confirmed that 90% of this ship is still intact and solid. We will not be denied our course.
HH:No other ships will answer our calls...they are bigots!
HH:Glub glabba blub bolbal bla galba gub gabb
HH:--------- |
|
'"As governor of Massachusetts, you'd think he would have some pull in New Hampshire," he said.'
Sure, as in "pull my finger, Mitt".
+ + + |
|
Mitt can't even get his story straight. No ons knows what he stands for:
By Michael D. Shear and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer
For months, the pricey image machine that Mitt Romney assembled to sell himself to the American people had marketed him as both "Mr. Fix-It" and "Mr. Conservative Values," reflecting what top aides say was a difference of opinion among his cadre of media consultants and strategists.
The struggle culminated in the days after his dramatic loss to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucuses. Romney suddenly unveiled a new campaign message, arguing on the stump and in television ads that he was the candidate of "change," best able to fix what he called a "broken" Washington.
It even prompted his rivals to openly mock him during Saturday's debate on ABC. Chided by Romney for unfairly characterizing his positions, Huckabee shot back, "Which one?" Romney's face contorted into a grimace on national television. Later, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said sarcastically: "We disagree on a lot of issues, but I agree you are the candidate of change."
|
|
Romney may give up on South Carolina
By: Jonathan Martin -Politico
January 10, 2008
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Mitt Romney is going off the air in South Carolina, at least through next week’s Michigan primary. And he may not contest the Palmetto State at all.
snip
The South Carolina primary takes place the following Saturday, meaning Romney would have just a few days to campaign here — if he decides to make an effort at all.
****
That's All, Folks! |
|
I put this up not to trash McCain, but to show ALL of you that you'll have a fit with Mitt and others what they do to win, but flat out ignore what McCain is doing.
((If this is Striaght Talk no thanks )) |
|
Guys like you and Santorum with your all or nothing positions were never the GOP majority and do not reflect what Ronald Reagan was all about. You are taking positions like some John Bircher on Republican purity.
Even Hugh does not believe half the garbage he spews, he just wants Mitt in power because he would have special access as a "Friend of Mitt" |
|
Tuohy, Dan. 9 January 2008. "McCain's victory heralds comeback" _New Hampshire Union Leader_
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=McCain's+P rimary+victory+heralds+comeback&articleId=3c69e63e-829d-4e1 f-acb3-9ec09cefae64
Sen. John McCain claimed his second New Hampshire primary victory yesterday, defying convention and denying Mitt Romney a comeback in his back yard.
==
Yesterday's win was as spectacular as his campaign's belly-flop last summer, when McCain was forced to shake up his campaign and crawl back into the race.
==
Romney supporter Mike Doogue, a Manchester independent, blamed the loss on other candidates piling on criticism. He wonders how Romney can rebound. "As governor of Massachusetts, you'd think he would have some pull in New Hampshire," he said.
==
"I'm tired of picking the lesser of two evils. Everyone else is the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul is someone I can feel good about voting for," Banfield said.
Romney's ads attacking McCain's positions on immigration and taxes may have backfired. While the candidates repeatedly spoke of their ability to effect change, the negative campaigning may have struck voters as the same-old politics, said Jennifer Borda, a professor of communication and an expert in political rhetoric at the University of New Hampshire.
"I think that a lot of voters have been turned off by that," Borda said last night. "I think it's been a detriment (to Romney)."
|
|
Virginia Patriot too.
I have read Victor Davis Hanson's position and I am not misquoting it. What VDH is suggesting is rationality on the GOP side when it comes to immigration. A hard line approach will backfire and you will end up with Dems controlling the White House, Senate and House. If you yave little influence now, you will have zero influence on this issue then.
Victor Davis Hanson is right: "Republican candidates must risk angering their base by ruling out mass deportation. Democrats should support closing the border tightly and quickly -- and not cave in to open-borders pressure groups.
Making these tough choices now is what most voters want. The candidates of both parties in the next few months will either adjust accordingly or lose elections." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_mess y_politics_of_illegal.html
Mitt is a liar. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/a52da5d2-10bf-4ac 1-948f-40bb9972db73 He cannot win. When I go to the shooting range Phil, I will have fun both shooting and knowing that we have an excellent chance of electing a patriot to the White House like John McCain. |
|
I thought Mitt was a fighter. So why has he just given up in SC and FL, without a fight?
As I keep asking and getting no answer, how can a Republican win in November without taking the solid South?
It has not been done in modern times, and I can't see a way now. Mitt has lost in the Midwest, lost in the Northeast, and is not even in the game in the South.
Time to fold. |
|
This is from the Washington Post.
Why is it that man who is so against Special intrest money is doing just that. So much for the McCain -Fingold bill
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nonetheless, a recent study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute and the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen found that McCain has more lobbyists raising funds for his presidential bid than do any of his rivals. He has 32 "bundlers" of donations who are lobbyists. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) is the closest to him with 29 lobbyist bundlers, followed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with 18. |
|
When an actual primary is conducted that is not a crazy caucas as in Iowa, or a place where Democrats can vote for or against the GOP as in NH.
Once we get to states where actual registered republicans get to pick their guy, it will say a lot. |
|
I'm a centrist. I'm with you guys on some stuff, not others. I'm hoping you Republicans nominate someone I can vote for in the event the Democrats nominate HRC.
For years, Hewitt has described his position as "center-right." Whether that's accurate or not, "center-right" is a category no one would put Santorum in. Not even Santorum.
If you think hard-right conservatism is a winning election stance, Santorum's defeat is a massive example of why you're completely wrong from a pragmatic political perspective. It is very hard to defeat an incumbent senator without either a scandal or a political realignment. I disagree with Democrats who say 2006 was a realigning election. So, what you're left with is: Santorum got beat purely on the issue of Santorum's fitness to represent the people of his state. Fine gentlemen he may be, but he's a political loser by the only definition that matters: He lost.
Which brings me full circle to the issue at hand. Romney might have all the sterling qualities that Hugh sees in him. But he's not winning. He's losing. And no amount of spin is going to resuscitate him. He is to the GOP what John Edwards is to the Dems. A candidate that some activists love but most voters don't, who seems to be so devoted to the cause of Himself, he can't even acknowledge his failures.
If Romney wins Michigan or South Carolina, that will be an accomplishment worth noting. But do any of you think he's going to win either of those states? You don't earn the nomination unless you can finish first someplace bigger than Wyoming. |
|
So much anger here....
I think you must be LIBS.... |
|
|
Amen brother. This election is turning into what 1980 was for the Democrats when the traditional base abandoned the goofy liberalism of the "new team". They still haven't recovered. If everyone is abandoning the party, like conservatives are currently abandoning the GOP, you can't win anything. We are allowing the RINOs to do the Democrats work for them within the GOP and will suffer the long term consequences. Townhall and the other RINO websites will soon become low-traffic echo chambers for RINO whining and blaming. |
|
Mitt can't win. Bottom line. He invested all his time and resources in the "early state" strategy and got humiliated by Huckabee and McCain. It's likely McCain will again humiliate him in Michigan.
Mitt has spent the past two years reinventing himself as a conservative and posturing himself so he's in line with all the "right" positions. He's raised and spent over $100 million. New Hampshire is next door to his home state. Depspite all that, he managed to blow double-digit leads in Iowa and NH to two candidates who do not focus-group their positions and who spent a fraction of Mitt's fortune.
It's time for the Mitt people to realize Romney is a dud. If, by some stroke of luck, he were to eke out the nomination, Mitt would spend a fortune on negative ads and get destroyed by the Dems. He's out of touch. He's an empty suit. He's a proven loser.
Watch the Dem debates. This is the scariest batch of candidates I've ever seen. We absolutely NEED to win in November. Mitt will absolutely LOSE. It's time to look for a candidate who can win. Dump Romney. |
|
Hey, Mittbots, your boys taking a bath in the most recent polls.
I love the new spin. "We've received the most delgates and the most votes yet." True, but meaningless.
Slick Mitty's plan from the start was to win big in IA and NH with his overwhelming money and organization. Well, that plan fell flat.
Now, it's "we have the most votes/delegates." How about, "we got our butts kicked in states where we outspent every other candidate by at least 10 to 1."
Slick Mitty's time is over. Time to move on to someone who will be the nominee.
|
| | |