|
Mitt's religion isn't the issue. The left is after him with guns blazing. That should tell us what we need to know. Some are honest in their opposition, others call themselves Juan McCain supporters. |
|
|
I not a Mormon. Count me in with the Mitt supporters!! |
|
First off, I only use the moniker McTex or Mc_Tex (when I am at the office). I have never used ‘Ex-Tex’.
Secondly, Mitt has the money to win votes. He has campaigned in every state. Of course his huge media buys will buy votes. But that changes nothing about what I said. There are only 2 (now 3) people on Hugh’s blog who are Bishop supporters who are not Mormon.
Thirdly, what has Mitt won with all his money (almost completely derived from Mormon’s wallets) and massive organization (again which is largely Mormon)? He has won two Mormon strongholds and his home-state. The three states where he spent the most and ran double to quadruple the ads of his opponents (Iowa, NH, & SC) he came in a dismal third and fourth place.
Money can’t buy you love!
|
|
[Virginia Patriot on January 25, 2008 10:41 PM]"Huck's Plan
His rather recently revised immigration stance is actually quite good. He borrowed heavily from Mark Krikorian, which is a good thing in this case. It is quite a departure from what he espoused as Gov. The political winds have been howling since May, he's a little late to the party. If his conversion is genuine, great."
Do you think any of Romney's conversions are genuine?
If so, which ones?
Romney lying in 2002, or lying now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43TVmSoaQ7c
"Romney did say positive things about the first attempt at passing McCain/Kennedy in '05. He had figured out by January of last year before this year's amnesty fight which side he needed to be on."
"The three guys who had it right from the start are all out now. I was a Hunter supporter, then Fred"
What do you think of Hunter's endorsement of Huckabee?
23 January 2008. Hunter endorses Huckabee
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/23/hunter-endo rses-huckabee/
|
|
His rather recently revised immigration stance is actually quite good. He borrowed heavily from Mark Krikorian, which is a good thing in this case. It is quite a departure from what he espoused as Gov. The political winds have been howling since May, he's a little late to the party. If his conversion is genuine, great.
The three guys who had it right from the start are all out now. I was a Hunter supporter, then Fred, now it looks like Romney has the edge.
Romney did say positive things about the first attempt at passing McCain/Kennedy in '05. He had figured out by January of last year before this year's amnesty fight which side he needed to be on. We would need to be vigilant to be sure he follows through on what he's running on.
Rudy still just wants to ID everyone, which is pretty much the same as McCain/Kennedy amnesty/banana. Unacceptable, in my view.
|
|
Thank you for reposting your reply from January 23. I failed to notice it that night and when I noticed it the next day I had to kick myself.
I am not going to take all night getting bogged down nit-picking with you, but in answer to your questions two days ago, let me hit a few points.
Synthesizer (Syn) ask Western States (WS), "What do you think of Huckabee's "The Secure America Plan, A 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security"?
WS Response: I love it. I would really like to have Virginia Patriot pitch in on what he thinks about it. He has spent much more time on this issue. On Huck's "Secure America Plan" I suspect that we agree with our approval.
Syn implies, through linking to http://www.repealromneycare.org, what I am summing up as follows, "WS, what do you think of 'Romneycare'".
WS Response: I hate it. I am a rather extreme fiscal conservative and I shudder at the thought of the Government involved in any way with my healthcare. I beleive, that with all its faults, the healthcare system in the USA today, is better than anything that has more government involvement.
I am not going to bother trying to respond to links to google groups or to youtube videos.
Synthesizer, I think that you are some who feels passionately that Mike Huckabee would make a good president. I applaud you for your passion in this.
Don't make the mistake in thinking that I feel as passionate about Mitt Romney. In my opinion, Fred Thompson who I supported until he withdrew represented my convictions the best. Both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have issues in their political past which concern me. Unfortunately for my peace of mind, the fact that I feel Romney and Giuliani are flawed candidates does not mean that I don't also feel they are the two best options I currently have among the candidates.
|
|
I encourage any Pioneer who has let Synthesizer get under their skin, go to the Boston Globe line he posted above, in an effort to attack then Govenor Romney, and actually read it. Let me repeat Synthesizer's link here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/06/nh_wo man_challenges_romney_on_gay_marriage/
This story makes two important points. They are Romney's position on marriage and Romney's position on the rights of parents in non-traditional families.
1st, Romney stated the following: "Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,"
2nd, Romney expressed delight that a mother found joy in her family.
3rd, Romney pointed out that he beleived that parents have Free Agency and that children should not be torn away from their family just because it is non-traditional.
Pioneers, you should take pride in having found a canidate with such a balance in his understanding the Sanctity of Marriage and compassion for those who find themselves in non-traditional families.
Synthesizer, thanks for bring this balanced statement on family values to the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
[Western States on January 25, 2008 9:11 PM]"Why is anyone even bothering to respond to Synthesizer?"
I dunno. It makes no sense "to respond to" him. Did you have a response to what's below?
Didn't think so.
[Western States on January 23, 2008 9:23 PM]"This thread is in response to a story in which McCain was pointed out to be week in several key ways.
When other posters attempt to engage you on these issues"
Like who?
I don't support McCain.
similarities between Romney & McCain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=04d513a3-77c4-415f-a02 b-3294ad637f0f%40k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
It would be funny if Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's, and Mark Levin's attacks on Mike Huckabee resulted in Huckabee's close 2nd-place finish to McCain in SC, resulting in McCain of McCain-Feingold going on to get the GOP nomination.
It seems to me that those 3 talkshow hosts most care about possible future speech restrictions impinging on their livelihoods. All 3 appear to have drunk Romney Kool-aid, and fail to delve into Romney's recent leftist past and his complete lack of any core beliefs & principles.
"HE first SPONSERED McCain-Kennedy"
Romney-Kennedy has a nice ring to it.
Romney calls Ted Kennedy co-collaborator on health care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM
Romney Didn't Veto Govt Funded Abortion in MA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39MZyCNCJQ
http://www.repealromneycare.org/
Tanner, Michael D., of the Cato Institute. 11 December 2007. "Romneycare Gets the Flu"
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8836
"stand up to those who want to debate the immigration issue"
What do you think of Huckabee's
"The Secure America Plan
A 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security"?
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_i d=26
|
|
|
|
A link to google groups.
A second link to google groups.
A third link to google groups.
A link to the boston globe.
A link to the news department of Keith Oberman.
HELLO!! Why is anyone even bothering to respond to Synthesizer? Remember people, to synthesize means to make up or create. Synthesizer is making up anger and contentions. That is all.
Here, here is a news flash: Western States was walking down the street of his home town and rabbit hopped up to him and told him that it is "Duck Season".
That rabbit is just as solid news source as what Synthesizer often quotes. Google groups? Common Synthesizer, next you will be telling me that a Duck told you that it was "Wabbit Season". |
|
[Akennas on January 25, 2008 8:40 PM]"The synthetic cut-and-paste machine is indefagitable tonight, ain't he?"
Indeed. Check it out:
[Lmiller on January 25, 2008 5:23 PM]"People have a chance to say no to bigotry in this election."
Which election? The one in November?
The ones in the upcoming primaries?
If 'November': what percent of voters will choose to say 'yes' "to bigotry"?
religious identity: Mrs. Clinton benefits, Romney loses
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=719a46bd-40b8-4822-829 7-e163d94318cb%40y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com
[PC on January 25, 2008 4:49 PM]"Well, there you go
This is what we have to look forward to after Romney wins the nom."
What exactly can we look forward to? Questions about LDS thought?
//////////////////////////////
Romney on baptizing dead people, not a cafeteria Mormon
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-H83tfCfP8
Minnery, in video about Romney: Romney agreed Mormonism isn't a Christian faith
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006338.cfm
Romney's flip on LDS theology.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.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
2007 Romney, cited in
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/06/nh_wo man_challenges_romney_on_gay_marriage/
There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single
moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples
raising kids. That's the American way, to have
people have their freedom of choice....
12/16/07 Mitt v 3.0 OK with embryo killing:
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 16, 2007
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924
|
|
Being a veteran I did respect the fact that John McCain defended his country. 30 years is a long time and now the well respected war hero has disgraced himself and his legacy with his undisputed support for the invasion of our Country from Mexico.
Here is a special letter for Juan McCain
Dear John, < Very appropriate I might add.
You have used up all of your war hero capitol and have become the very thing you fought against. There is a special place reserved for you and your buddy Ted Kennedy will be waiting for your arrival. |
|
|
The synthetic cut-and-paste machine is indefagitable tonight, ain't he? Not an original thought in his RAM or hard drive, which appears to be infected by a nasty virus. In desperate need of a thorough virus scan and reboot... |
|
Joe, Pasadena Phil - truce, you guys!
Pasadena Phil - being just a leeetle paranoid about Joe's pointing out the article by Andrew Sullivan and Time. I am bothered by it, too, but a little research reassures me that the fundies were doing a little projection - i.e., they were reading into Romney's "Faith in America" remarks what they wanted to believe. Joe proved himself after Michigan to be a class act, I will take him at his word.
Joe - try not to let Pasadena Phil get under your skin. But let up with the national polls/electibility postings already, okay? We are ten months out, for Pete's sake! You as a McCain supporter of all people should know how unrelable polling can be - where was your man three months ago? As I mentioned elsewhere, that's why we have elections and contests. I am confident the GOP will coalesce around whomever wins the nomination, especially when confronted with slaying Billary the Two-Headed Dragon on the fall.
Gentlemen, shake hands and bury the hatchet - in the Democrats! |
|
What do I think? I say it here all the time.
But since you asked, I think you lie a lot and have a thin skin.
How's that. |
|
In the '94 campaign, Romney espoused campaign finance positions to the left of McCain-Feingold.
Romney's flip on campaign finance reform
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Romney on Campaign Finance Reform: cap spending levels in campaigns, abolish PACs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM0x8WnI4to&feature=related
18 February 2007. "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview
'This Week's' George Stephanopoulos Sits Down with Republican Candidate"
ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2885156
As you get older and you have experience -- I ran for office the first time, never having been in politics, 13 years ago against Ted Kennedy and since then I've learned a few more things.
I proposed, at that time, for instance, that we eliminate the Department of Education. A lot of conservatives thought that was a great idea.
I don't think that's a good idea anymore. I think we need the Department of Education. I think "No Child Left Behind" is performing a useful function in providing for testing.
It has a lot of errors in it and I'd like to change it, but I like the fact that we're testing our kids.
|
|
|
He was always on the liberal side of the party, I no not believe he reflects the wishes of the majority of the GOP. McCain will fracture and distroy the GOP, that, what he intended to do after loosing in 2000. |
|
[sara on January 25, 2008 4:13 PM]"about Mass. abortions under RomneyCare; you know that was court-mandated and there was nothing Romney could do about that."
Reference? What's your response to this?:
Romney Didn't Veto Govt Funded Abortion in MA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39MZyCNCJQ
http://www.repealromneycare.org/
"McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold are reason enough to not support McCain. Romney has no such disgrace on his record."
I take it you're unfamiliar with Romney's record.
Romney worked with Kennedy on RomneyCare.
Romney calls Ted Kennedy co-collaborator on health care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM
Mooney, Brian C., Stephanie Ebbert, and Scott Helman. 30 June 2007. "The Making of Mitt Romney
Ambitious goals; shifting stances" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ar ticles/part7_main?mode=PF
Within two days, though, Romney got a bracing response from an unlikely quarter. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal lion who turned back Romney's freshman venture into politics in 1994, offered emphatic encouragement. One of the great champions of universal coverage saw promise in Romney's gambit.
''We're basically stalemated [in Washington], so the states are going to have to try to come up with a response,'' said Kennedy, who would play a behind-the-scenes role at key points in the legislative process back home in Boston.
The healthcare campaign became the signature accomplishment of Romney's four years in office, showcasing the governor in all his complexity.
|
|
[sara on January 25, 2008 4:13 PM]"ALL politicians do some amount of shifting on positions when it suits their current campaign"
Fair enough. What are some matters on which a nominee Romney *won't* shift on while campaigning in the general election?
"Most of Romney's 'changes on position' are not so much that as they are taking a different emphasis because of a different target audience."
2 examples?
"Of course he never touted typical conservative values when he was courting a liberal Massachusetts electorate."
How come?
Romney lying in 2002, or lying now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43TVmSoaQ7c
"That doesn't meant he didn't have deep-down conservative convictions."
I maintain that he lacks any "deep-down... convictions"-- "conservative" or otherwise. All is negotiable with Romney.
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
What are some Romney 'deep-seated convictions' you're aware of (if any)?
|
|
Barnes, Fred. 09/06/2007. "McCain Helps Himself
And Romney appears vulnerable on Iraq." _The Weekly Standard_
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp ?idArticle=14065&R=1157667B
But Romney's tone and
tack on Iraq were noticeably different last Sunday
when he answered an antiwar questioner in
Nashua. Then, he agreed Iraq is a "mess" and said
he has a three-stage plan for the war, leading to the
complete withdrawal of American troops. The
soldiers would be deployed outside Iraq and "would
be available if needed," he said.
And Romney said he sees his plan, including the
final withdrawal, "happening relatively soon." He
didn't offer a timetable. But the second phase, with
Americans out of combat and assigned to train Iraqi
troops, might begin next year. In any case, his
three-stage strategy seemed to distance him
perceptibly from President Bush on Iraq.
At the debate last night here at the University of
New Hampshire, Romney explicitly moved back
toward Bush, identifying himself with the president's
desire to begin withdrawing troops as soon as the
surge is successful. He is "committed to success in
Iraq," Romney insisted, but wants the United States
to "not have a permanent presence in Iraq." Bush,
however, believes some American troops will have
to be stationed in Iraq for years.
==
Romney is not an easy target, however. His position
on Iraq has been a study in flexibility, though he's
never come close to opposing Bush on the war. To
counter McCain, he may simply invigorate his
support for Bush and the surge.
|
|
NYT:"We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle."
Interpretation: "we hated it when he occasionally acted like a conservative but since he bends left/capitulates most of the time we'll overlook that"
Go Mitt! |
|
Here's what I don't get about InsiderAdvantage. I always thought that pollsters were suppose to be purely scientific and unbiased.
Yet on InsiderAdvantages web page, one of their cover articles is CLEARLY PROMOTING THE MCCAIN CANDIDACY.
HEY MAYBE I AM WRONG:
I am not a pollster. Maybe I am wrong and almost 1/3 of all Registered Republicans in Florida ARE 20% DEMOCRATS AND 10% INDEPENDENTS. But seriously, does that sound RIGHT to you?
If that is true, how the heck do we keep winning Florida?
I wonder if 1/3 of all Registered Democrats in FL are actually Republicans?
|
|
We need to start turning our attention strongly to the Clinton agenda, while noting their antics.
Signing off. |
|
|
Morris' takes on all things Clinton have been amazing. (..like comparring Bill to a toreador's cape; in so doing, distracting scrutiny of Hillary on substantive issues. The Republicans can't resist..) |
|
exposing the crazy inside stuff that obscures the true story. The sad fact you have uncovered here is that there are evidently "information" brokers dishonestly attempting to pass themselves off as objective observers. They are not. Yet, as people have less and less time to dig out facts, distortions from these people could affect the decisions of honest ones.
Let's expose this stuff.
Amazing that the good, just and honorable still shines through and regular people, ultimately, are not fooled. Mitt Romney continues to rise. |
|
No Morman (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) would state the Mormans are not Christian, including Mitt Romney. Instead, certain Christian groups/individuals take pride in stating that. I for one will respect another's beliefs, and I believe that the majority here on this Web site feel the same way.
|
|
|
Morris' takes on all things Clinton have been amazing. (..like comparring Bill to a toreador's cape; doing all he could distract scrutiny of Hillary on substantive issues. The Republicans can resist.. etc.) |
|
Joe,
if you take a visit over to http://www.article6blog.com they talk about this briefly. It appears to be from an evangelical who is looking to lessen a gap between evangelicals and Mormons. It does look like it was taken out of context and something Romney did not, if fact, say. It is now being twisted in Time etc. as an accusation against Romney and is part of the reason I imagine that you made your attemptedly funny but actually distasteful suggestion that Romney will convert for more votes.
Of a more interesting nature on this topic is the fact that the poll Brian Williams referenced last night when asking Romney about the high percentage of Americans who don't believe a Mormon can unite the country was published today. The poll question asks only about ability to unite. There is nothing to suggest that it has anything to do with religion. Williams came to that conclusion on his own. What is worse, people will believe it. That is a slander against Americans in my opinion. |
|
|
Stop POINTING OUT THINGS THAT YOU FIND OFFENSIVE! Do you have a logic gene missing or something? No one, except YOU, cares about this useless piece of "information". You are not a reporter. Make an argument for once. YOU make an argument. We already know what Medved, the NYT and all of your leftist friends think. What do YOU think? |
|
|
because he will have the name and message recognition by the time he actually faces them to do Very well. Just like he's done in the primary so far. When it began, he had almost zero name recognition and how he is THE FRONTRUNNER. Hillary and Obama cannot match up with Mitt in a debate on substantive issues. Obama = airy aphorisms. Hillary = ugly personal attacks. Her strong negatives are increasingly in view. Mitt is wholesome, honorable and intelligent and he is right on the issues. He will prevail. |
|
I just got off the phone with Matt Towery of Insider Advantage.
I asked him why his sample in their most recent Florida Poll includes 29% Democrats and Independents when we all know this is a CLOSED PRIMARY and those folks cannot vote.
This is the line he tried to pass off on me (paraphrase mine):
He said that in actuality, Florida has MANY people registered as Republicans who actually identify themselves as Democrats and Independents and yet still vote in the Republican Primary.
I suppose this is not unusual, as a matter of fact, according to the InsiderAdvantage sample, ALMOST 30% of Floridians that are Registered Republicans are ACTUALLY DEMOCRATS & INDEPENDENTS and yet still vote Republican! Can we get a ROFLMAO for that one?
It's remarkable that almost 1/3 of Registered Republicans in Florida REALLY AREN'T REPUBLICANS AT ALL, and yet Bush won Florida two times in a row!
Sorry Matt, but that doesn't pass the sniff test.
Matt, I also happened to notice that your firm appears to have a bias towards Mccain as can clearly be seen in this article from your Front Page:
"Did MSNBC rig the Florida Republican presidential debate?"
http://www.internetnewsagency.com/news_detail.aspx?sid=94
CONCLUSION:
Lemme see. Apparent McCain Bias. Crazy Sample.
Yep, we get it Matt. We get it. Remind me to ignore your polling in the future.
|
|
...will not get the nomination.
I mean, Good Lord, that's like having the president of BET endorse you on race relations... |
|
|
And mitt will win. Stop with the religion issue. I think that Hucks religion is pretty bizzare, but I will allow him his 'freedom' of faith, even though I am called a cultist by his folowers. |
|
|
sadly, because he's the only candidate who cannot defeat hillary or obama |
|
seansfm writes: Friday, January, 25, 2008 4:08 PM
"Superior Political Courage, Conservatism, and Leadership (McCain) = a vote for McCain by me in March."
Irrational is believing these tunings about McQueeg is any of the things you mention. Also what does not pass the giggle test is that you said the Mitt started to persuade you to vote for him and that Hugh drove you away. Nobody believe you. If your mind is that easily swayed back and forth no wonder McCain has convinced you about the false attributes you say he has. |
|
You are being disingenous now. If there is a push poll is that news? The push poll question may be BS, but the push poll itself matters a lot.
My point is someone floated this (and it is already published in Time and The Atlantic). It is pretty outrageous allegation. Stop blaming me for pointing out something already in a national magazine. |
|
|
|
|
The NYT would never support a true conservative. |
|
|
The only conservative in the FL primary. |
|
The Stupid Party
The RNC wants an amnesty candidate.
Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, or until they are supplanted by the La Raza Party, why doesn't the RNC know that? How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? Nominating any of the amnesty trio (McCain, Huckabee, Rudy) is a losing proposition, we will not support them. If the GOP intends to surrender our sovereignty and abandon the rule of law, they will find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP |
|
An oldy, but a goody:
The Republican Party under GWB seems intent on political suicide. Pandering to citizens of other countries illegally in our country while telling us we must be vigilantes if we object to illegal aliens ignoring our borders and laws. Mel Martinez is RNC Chairman to ensure an open borders candidate in '08. The cheap labor express will be kept running, regardless of the consequences, to party or country. GOP-RIP
|
|
I'm not trying to have a contest here on who has flipped the most, I'm just trying to point out that ALL poiticians do some amount of shifting on positions when it suits their current campaign. ALL of them... even Mr. Straight Talk himself. Most of Romney's "changes on position" are not so much that as they are taking a different emphasis because of a different target audience. Of course he never touted typical conservative values when he was courting a liberal Massachusetts electorate. That doesn't meant he didn't have deep-down conservative convictions. As for your remark a while ago about Mass. abortions under RomneyCare; you know that was court-mandated and there was nothing Romney could do about that. Come on.
McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold are reason enough to not support McCain. Romney has no such disgrace on his record. Plus he's much more of a leader (not just manager) than McCain's ever been. There is no question but that Romney is the best candidate. |
|
INDEPEDENTS and DEMOCRATS?!!!
I just checked the newest Insider Advantage Poll that shows the race in FL a TIE between McCain and Romney.
HERE'S THE WEIRD PART:
Even though Independenst and Democrats CANNOT vote in the Primary, the poll includes ...
29% INDEPEDENTS and DEMOCRATS!!!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/InsiderAdvan tage_MajorityOpinionGOPFLPrimaryPoll-1-25-08.html
Huh? Of course, McCain gets these votes 5:1 over Romney and creates the tie. Without these IMPOSSIBLE voters, Romney would be ahead by 6-8 points in this poll.
So why the heck to they include them in the sample? |
|
not a million more trivial reasons to vote against McCain.
Hugh's exaggerations actually hurt his cause. The NY Times does not "love" McCain, you moron.
Romney scored some points with me last night, but his biggest cheerleader -- Hugh Hewitt -- has pushed me further back into the Mac's corner.
I can underrstand this however, since Romney's governing record, statements, and positions are far more LIBERAL than McCain's.
Oh yeah -- Romney does BY FAR the worst in head to head polls vs. the Dems.
So, no reason to vote FOR Romney + Irrational Romney Supporters (Hewitt) + Superior Political Courage, Conservatism, and Leadership (McCain) = a vote for McCain by me in March. |
|
|
If you believe the quote was made up BS, WHY ARE YOU REPEATING THE BS? You are spreading it because that is how you operate. So when did you stop beating your wife? |
|
This was reported by American Spectator on Monday. See link here - http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12602 -
Also, the same article states that Governor Crist will also endorse McCain.
Everyone is flocking to the winner.
By the way, isn't Mel Martinez the same guy that Hugh strongly endorsed and had on his show numerous times and now Mel is endorsing the "non-conservative" McCain? And haven't Hugh-backed candidates and favorites Tim Pawlenty and John Thune also endorsed that notorious "non-conservative" McCain?
Gosh, how can THAT be? |
|
[Joe on January 25, 2008 3:42 PM]"I did not make this up. Time and Andrew Sullivan (via The Atlantic) are reporting it."
You're being defensive over nothing. I looked at your 2 links. One references the other link, which in turn refers to
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006338.cfm
I went there, saw the Romney video, and at the video's end is the Minnery remark about Romney & Mormonism.
If any complaints are to be made, they ought be directed at Minnery. Not Joe.
|
|
Hugh never misses the chance to bring up McCain and his stance on global warming; a stance which I disagree with the Senator on. However, Hugh never brings up the fact that Gov. Mittens rolled out one of the most comprehensive state policies to combat global warming - the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan - way back in 2004. Now, Mittens is backing - nay, running - away from this. But you know about facts - they are stubborn things. Also, I find it - well - interesting - that Mittens uses "climate change" rather than "global warming" because his pollsters believe that is less frightening. You can read more about Mittens' pandering and vacillating here on "climate change" and other issues such as gay rights and taxes here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fac t_lizza
And so, as to McCain & Mittens (sounds like a new toy store franchise) and their stances regarding global warming, let's call that one a draw.
|
|
|
|
From
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/a_stealth_mitt_r omney_endorsem.html
"Mitt Romney has acknowledged that Mormonism is not a Christian faith," Minnery adds.
---
Let's see if I get this straight.
A chief spokesman of the leading evangelical public affairs organization in the country flatly asserts that a candidate for president of the United States -- who's a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- allegedly "acknowledged" that his faith is "not a Christian faith."
And Time just breezes right past that blockbuster?
Did Mitt in fact say his faith was not Christian? That would, you'd think, be front page news for a guy who's accused of reversing himself on a host of other issues and who has a pattern of statements later proven demonstrably false ("I marched with Martin Luther King," "I have a gun of my own," etc.)
But if he didn't say it, how does a prominent and credible organization such as FOTF explain publicly alleging that he did?
Not a pretty picture whatever the answer to those two questions.
Posted by Gary | January 24, 2008 7:57 PM
|
|
Weird. This morning, Romney had almost a 30 point Intrade Lead over McCain in FL. It then fropped to 6 points and now is back to 30.
Bizarre. |
|
I did not make this up. Time and Andrew Sullivan (via The Atlantic) are reporting it. I agree with you, I do not believe Mitt Romney would ever ever do this. I think it is a lie. Someone is floating this out there (remember its in Time and The Atlantic).
I am sorry I disappoint you, but someone is saying these things (and publishing them in major on line magazines). I think it is a political dirty trick. This is not something I sifted out of one of the surrilous posts you see here occasionally.
Read my posts above. I say it is BS, I say it is a lie. What part of that don't you get?
You tell me who is behind it. |
|
Antle III, W. James. 22 February 2007. "Abortion Contortions"
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11053
Of course, when it comes to verbal gymnastics on
abortion McCain is an amateur while former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney deserves a gold
medal. But that didn't stop Romney's conservative
coalitions director, Gary Marx, from attacking
McCain's commitment to life. "Ask the pro-life
movement where his leadership has been in the six
years since 2000 that he's been running for
president," Gary Marx said to the Politico. "What has
he done?"
That's a pretty bold question given that Marx's man
was officially pro-choice for five years after 2000 --
and at least six years before that. In fact, Romney's
abortion shift is so complicated even his special
adviser for life issues can't keep it straight.
Consider pro-life activist James Bopp's argument on
National Review Online: "In his 1994 Senate run,
Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens
for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he
declared himself to be pro-choice, because he
supported parental-consent laws, opposed
taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion
coverage under a national health insurance plan,
and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which
would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal
statute."
All true. But Bopp doesn't seem to realize that
Romney reversed most of those positions over the
course of the 1994 campaign. After accepting the
endorsement, Romney adviser Charles Manning
told the Boston Herald his boss actually "supports a
federal health care option that includes abortion
services, would vote for a law codifying the 1972
[sic] Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion
and backs federal funding for abortions as long as
states can decide they want the money."
/////
RomneyCare funds MA abortions.
|
|
[Hawk on January 25, 2008 3:00 PM]"I guarantee Mitt has never acknowledged Mormons are not Christians."
How? Have you followed Romney's every waking moment, and heard everything he's said? Were you in on all his meetings with church leaders, and all his hallway conversations?
Are you so familiar with Mitt's character that you are completely confident he'd never lie to a pastor to get their support and access to their contacts?
/////////////////////////////////////
Helman, Scott. 2 November 2006. "Romney consults evangelical leaders"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/02/romney _consults_evangelical_leaders/
Helman, Scott and Michael Levenson. 19 October 2006. "Romney camp consulted with Mormon leaders" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/19/romne y_camp_consulted_with_mormon_leaders/
Advocates for gay and abortion rights and the environment say the GOP
candidate misled them on his positions
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/78/
Kelly, Chris. 7 January 2008. "Mitticisms: 'Amnesty'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/mitticisms-amnest y_b_80162.html
....Romney ....he's the one candidate who's ready to
mislead on Day One.
Imagine if Mitt Romney sold you something -- let's
say some land in Glengarry Glen Ross -- and you
were trying to get your money back, and he started
pulling this... on you.
Luo, Michael. 22 December 2007. "Romney Learns That 'Facts Are Stubborn Things'" _The New York Times_
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/21cnd-romney. html?hp
Allott, Daniel. 20 December 2007. "Romney, get real about your abortion record"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7482.html
Romney lacks credibility on *anything*
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=99a7821a-ebdb-4003-b0a 4-5c849369e91c%40i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
Anyone who has seen Smiling Juan Hernandez on TV knows that he has worked for the Mexican govt., supports the complete erasure of our border and immigration laws, undermines our sovereignty in favor of Mexico. His loyalty is to Mexico, not U.S. Same with McCain. |
|
and roadways are the ones to be built to, provide transportation for all trucks from Mexico to Canada. His adminsration will make sure all these and illegal immigration thus provided by, be humanely and much more smoothly and effectively and accordiny to our christian teachings, and Geneva Convention, and follow all world wide laws, and regulations as well.
SARA
Very soon coming to your TV, ADs, trying to educate, us, hatemongers law-abiding-dunces, the benefit of the illegals in the American labor force, that they are not really a burden on our social services, education, health care, no it is all free, how dare to question, that is just mean spirited and un-American.
How many times do we have to say do it legally, go back, get in line, obay our laws, we are a nation of LAWS. We appreciate people respecting our sovereignty, if they want to live here. We just say no to invasion, |
|
Some of your recent posts have crossed the line.... A few nights ago I sent you a post for all to see that I thought you were one of the few "stand up" McCain supporters... you seemed vigorous, yet sincere and I admired that. In fact, I was public about it for other Romney supporters to see and hear...
But now you are going after his faith, which I and many others will think that that puts you in the same pit as McTex, Synthesizer, brianakura, etc.....
I am a non-mormon Romney supporter who happens to think that he is the best equipped from a skills position to guide this country... This was clearly evident in the Debate last night and it is becoming more and more clear every day... But, even if you don't agree with him and he is not your guy.... Respect aperson's right to worship how they choose and admire those who stick with it despite all the shots that they take from classless pundents and bloggers.
You want, those of us who do not support Mr. McCain to at least respect him.... which I think most of us do... But it seems now that you are championing a double standard...
I withdraw my complements and endorsement of your character...
|
|
From an article Rush talked about.
"One of the curiosities of American politics is the media's ongoing infatuation with John McCain. A bit of this is based on things such as McCain's opposition to torture (unfortunately, we can no longer treat opposing torture like opposing child molestation, i.e., something one assumes is standard equipment in a presidential candidate rather than a luxury upgrade). Yet most of the journalistic love affair with the Republican senator from Arizona is based on other factors.
Consider this typical endorsement from the Orlando Sentinel: While McCain "has stuck to his principles at the risk of sinking his campaign," Mitt Romney "has abandoned positions that would have alienated his party's conservative base." (Indeed, I checked a computer database and discovered that, in the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain.)
This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here's just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk's recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances:"
Read it and weep.
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CAMP OS-01-22-08
|
|
[Romney's 6 December 2007 Faith In America Speech, as quoted by Hawk on January 25, 2008 2:44 PM]"They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
Hawk, in that same prepared speech, Romney said he saw his dad march with MLK.
Do you believe that Romney claim?
/////////////////////////////////////////
Mitt Romney: From Flip-Flop To See-Saw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU
Tammy Bruce: Romney's fantasies become reality to him: 2:00+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlHy-2Er1I
Romney's flip on LDS theology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
|
|
"McTex is not Ex-tex. McTex is clearly an amnesty supporter, Ex-tex is not."
My apologies. I get the Mormon-hating blubberers mixed up - they all sound the same to me. |
|
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
|
|
When are you McCain supporters going to hurry up and leave the GOP and go help the Democrats win the election. Hold on.... you ARE helping the Democrats win the election by supporting McCain.
When the left MSM supports McCain you know there is a problem with the guy. But we already know this about McCain, yet some people who claim to be conservative, who claim to be decent Americans still support McCain. What gives?
The liberals are trying to destroy the conservative movement. Our job is to beat the left back, to win elections with conservatism, to save the country and our traditions... to keep America the strongest country in the world.
McCain and the suckers that follow him are undermining this effort along with the liberal left in this country. End of story. |
|
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
I guarantee Mitt has never acknowledged Mormons are not Christians. |
|
It's in Time and on Andrew Sullivan (here's a hint both get more hits than Townhall--especially Time). Did you see the links. I doubt my single post here (which is the only place I posted it BTW) is spreading the rumor very much. I think it is a friggin slander against Romney, how's that. I think it is complete BS. I do not believe Romney would ever do that--especially given his speech on religion just a few weeks ago (but even beyond that speech I do not think he would ever do it).
Is this some attack gigged up by Huckabee or a Huckabee supporter or just someone who hates LDS? I don't know who is responsible for this, but I am not the one who made it up. |
|
his National Director of Hispanic Outreach is none other that Dr. Juan Hernandez, notorious for his open borders stance.
How could anyone vote for this bum? |
|
I really doubt what Romney is alleged to have "acknowledged" in your post. I read the Time blog, and it just doesn't make sense. The problem is that there is no quote from Romney, only the FOTF spokesman.
Obviously this is only speculation on my part (since we don't have an actual Romney quote), but maybe Mitt was just acknowledging differences between Mormons and Protestants or Catholics - traditional Christianity. I think any of us Mormons here will freely acknowledge that those differences exist. We just hope that in the political world they can be put aside as we work with others of similar values for a free, prosperous America. |
|
[sara on January 25, 2008 2:30 PM]"I just heard Rush on the radio outline several of McCain's shifting positions recently... the extent to which he is against abortion, his sudden wanting to make Bush's tax cuts permanent after having voted against them twice, etc. McCain is the true flip-flopper."
Please list all the McCain flips you're aware of. I bet I can list at least twice as many Romney flips.
///////////////////////////////////////
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
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
Romney flip-flop on environmental issues;
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
vacillating Romney: wiretap Al Qaeda *only* if that's legal
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8f538aee-1ed0-4107-ade a-c3bd7a26e041%40s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
Romney's stellar judicial appointments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9380a1ac-650e-4e62-a8a 8-cc86e06ca2a1%40q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b321eb50-1b0c-4abc-8ef a-66b40fff3703%40e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com
11 April 2003 Boston Globe. Cited in
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQxZTZmZjRlMTRiOW U4OTAxZjZlM2I0YWJiNzU2MDM=
"I was very pleased," [Barney] Frank said afterward. "Here
you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse
a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the
height of his wartime popularity."
|
|
|
McTex is not Ex-tex. McTex is clearly an amnesty supporter, Ex-tex is not. |
|
"I saw the Romney video there, and at the very end a guy says that Romney acknowledges that Mormonism isn't a Christian faith."
See my 2:44pm post.
|
|
|
This is curmudgeon still wastes energy with left wing talking points and mindless snapshots of media bubbles. Why not go pound a habitat nail or find a job you enjoy. |
|
[Hawk on January 25, 2008 2:13 PM]"This is online candidate analysis is posted by James Dobson's Focus on the Family Action (the political arm of Dobson's Christian Empire.)
Romney gets glowing reviews. ....
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006338.cfm#
"
That link has this text:
"Some mainstream media reports have suggested there may be a "stealth endorsement" for one of the candidates in these videos -- which is not the case. Read comments from Tom Minnery and Tony Perkins."
I saw the Romney video there, and at the very end a guy says that Romney acknowledges that Mormonism isn't a Christian faith.
To those that believe Romney version 4.0's claim to be a hardcore social conservative: Romney has flat-out lied to activists before. Don't be surprised if it turns out he lied to you to get your support.
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/
Romney: I want all new computers to have a porn filter: 9:37
You Can't Trust Mitt Part 1: Abortion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbGNHaNFtw
|
|
[From his Faith In America Speech 12/6/2007]
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience."
To any rational person, this doesn't sound like someone who will ever renounce his faith for a presidential victory.
I believe it was either mis-quoted when the person claimed that Romney acknowledged Mormons are not Christian or it was a reference to one of his answers at an earlier debate (perhaps Dearborn Michigan if I recall correctly) where he acknowledged he has different interpretations of biblical christianity than others. |
|
You notice Daune wayne didn't come back after we questioned him about Calif.
Figures, what a fool! |
|
|
Yes I agree it would've been nice to have a Frank Luntz focus group on there last night, then we would have, once again, had a chance to see Mitt's numbers go through the roof and have all those undecided's in the room raise their hands at the end for Mitt! That's what would've happened; too bad we had to put up with MSNBC. |
|
|
I just heard Rush on the radio outline several of McCain's shifting positions recently... the extent to which he is against abortion, his sudden wanting to make Bush's tax cuts permanent after having voted against them twice, etc. McCain is the true flip-flopper. And as an Arizonan, may I add that he has been a disgrace as a senator. |
|
|
I don't know why you're all putting so much stock in the current national head-to-head polls; Clinton vs. Romney, etc. Most of the country who has not voted yet doesn't know that much about Romney yet; his name recognition is still very low compared to McCain, Clinton, Giuliani, etc. There is plenty of time before November for voters to get to know Romney and to like him, just as so many have already in the past several months as his popularity among republicans has increased. A lot of republicans won't vote for McCain, period; that fact has to throw those head-to-head polls off a bit. Romney will beat Hillary. Just you wait and see... |
|
John McCain now says he will "secure the borders first." But his immigration bill is likely to resurface. Then What? Will he veto his own bill?
|
|
"I cannot imagine Romney would ever do this (its the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints! for goodness sake)--even for a Dobson boost. The question is who is spreading this BS story?"
Joe, YOU are spreading this BS story!!! Knock it off! I wonder how many people, other than you, know anything about this. |
|
[Joe on January 25, 2008 1:55 PM]"I cannot imagine Romney would ever do this... even for a Dobson boost."
I can.
Cohen, Richard. 20 February 2007. "The Talented Mr. Romney"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/0 2/19/AR2007021900916.html
I have been following the zigs and zags of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and now Republican presidential candidate, watching him grow progressively less progressive, sort of making himself up as he goes along. As a result, I surf the Web with trepidation, bracing myself for the story that I fear might be coming: "Romney Says He Is Not Really a Mormon.''
I joke, of course. But the way things are going, I would not be surprised if the possibility of a Romney religious conversion has gone from inconceivable to a focus group for, as they say, further study. After all, the same bloc of voters -- conservative Christians -- that once found Romney suspiciously liberal on abortion and gay rights does not much like his Mormonism, either. This nice touch of intolerance has got to worry Romney. In recent polls, something like one-third of all voters have said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate -- and the figure is a bit higher (39 percent) among Republicans. Iowa, where conservative Christians comprise about 37 percent of the GOP electorate, could be trouble.
What's an ambitious, square-jawed opportunist to do? He might do as he has done in the past and change his position.
==
Within the past year, though, he joined the National Rifle Association -- an admission made under some duress Sunday to George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week.'' In fact, to watch Romney on the show was to see a thoroughly counterfeit man. If he were a coin, a vending machine would spit him out.
Mitt flip on LDS theology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
|
|
This is online candidate analysis is posted by James Dobson's Focus on the Family Action (the political arm of Dobson's Christian Empire.)
Romney gets glowing reviews. McCain & Rudy are criticized (which isn't unexpected); but the surprise is that this group doesn't seem to like Huck much either.
Could a Romney-endorsement from Dobson be forthcoming?
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006338.cfm
|
|
From
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080125/NATION/22254793 2
Inside Politics
by Greg Pierce
January 25, 2008
Perry vs. Romney
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, has written a book about the Boy Scouts, and he includes a less-than-flattering story about Mitt Romney, suggesting that the Republican presidential hopeful bowed to the homosexual rights lobby during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Here is a portion of what Mr. Perry had to say about Mr. Romney in the new book, "On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For," due out in February from Stroud & Hall Publishers:
"The ACLU's 'fingerprints' aren't on every effort to deny the Boy Scouts access to public facilities and events, though chances are they cheer when kindred groups initiate such efforts. Take the case of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. In the planning stages, when it was faltering financially, Mitt Romney stepped in as president and chief executive officer. He soon straightened things out and set plans in motion to make it a success.
"In 2000 he put out a published call for volunteers ... The Great Salt Lake Council of the BSA, the largest in the nation, with some 80,000 Scouts and 35,000 adult leaders, answered Romney's call for volunteers."
"Some time that fall, however, the Scouts were advised that they were no longer welcome to participate. Chief Scout Executive for the Council, Marty Latimer said, 'We don't understand what's wrong. They just don't want us and won't talk to us.' He said that Romney had not returned calls from several Scout executives seeking an explanation. The Council's President R. Lawry Hunsaker expressed surprise that Romney had ignored Scout leaders for he had once been a Scout and a Scout leader himself. 'We can't get him to return our calls.' "
|
|
|
Sorry CDubber, incorrect in addressing comment to you. |
|
A liberal (James Fallows) likes Romney and Hugh is SO excited. The little feller hardly even noticed that gushing over the kudos from Fallows completely undermines his first point, which is that if a liberal media source (NYT) likes McCain, that's all you need to know to vote against him.
By the way, when the NYT says "Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe," that's not really an arguable point if you take out the absurdly loaded "angry." The polls at this point clearly show that all GOP candidates but McCain only draw votes from a "small fringe," roughly the same as GWB's 31 percent support bloc.
Right now, the most likely Democratic candidate is Hillary, but she's also building up a base of loathing that would send some Democratic voters looking for a GOP alternative. If they look at the GOP ballot and see Romney there, however, they'll go back and vote for Hillary.
|
|
|
So after Mitt wins Florida (which he will)and after that point wins many super tuesday states are you still going to hold onto the mantra that its all Mormon support? The people at National Review are Mormons, the huge victory in Michigan was mormons? Even if all mormons in Nevada had stayed home Mitt still would have won handily. Give me a break, if you hate Mitt and Mormons, fine. But try arguing with more intellectual honesty. |
|
|
|
I actually do watch the main stream media and they had alot of good things to say about Romney after the debates.
Mostly they mention that Romney's campaign has been doing well lately because of resonance on economic issues.
Did you Mitt guys ever think the the media went negative on Romney because he spent millions on mostly negative ads against his opponent before establishing his reasons for being president or even who he was. That once he shook off the aura of rancor that seemed to hover over him and focused on issues where he had some real ideas to bring to the table, he started doing well.
Stop blaming the media for real problems with the candidate and just fix the problem!!!! Mitt did and started proving himself a viable candidate.
|
|
"don’t convince yourself that Rudy or Mitt would be any tougher on illegals as president than they were as mayor and governor"
Dreher, Rod. 10 January 2008. "Huckabee for President"
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/01/huckabee-for-p resident.html
....made me wonder: why haven't I come out for
Huck, given how interested I am in his campaign,
and how, in fact, he's the only Republican candidate
that interests me (Ron Paul was the other, but the
bigot-grams story ended that).
==
The first things that come to mind are Huckabee's
record. I don't know that I trust his about-face on
illegal immigration; today I sat in an editorial board
meeting with two pro-immigration advocates running
a sophisticated campaign to overcome opposition to
illegal immigration. One, a Republican, said, "We all
know how Romney and Giuliani really feel about
immigration, and we know that after the election,
they'll do the right thing." He didn't mention
Huckabee, but I'm not sure if that was just an
oversight. But what's the alternative? I'm
encouraged that he pretty much lifted his current
plan from Mark Krikorian.
///////////////
Huckabee's
"The Secure America Plan
A 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security"?
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_i d=26
Romney's flip-flops on immigration etc.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
23 January 2008. Hunter endorses Huckabee
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/23/hunter-endo rses-huckabee/
|
|
That we miss FoxNews doing this debates (heck I miss CNN doing these debates!).
As I commented last night.
I wish Frank Luntz was there. If I had one of his meters I would have turned it down so hard on Chris Matthews after the debate, Matthews' head would have collapsed into a black hole. |
|
"I am only aware of maybe two Bishop supporters who are not members of his church, besides Hugh."
Yes McTex (Ex-Tex (banned I suppose), whatever your nom de plume is today), all but *three* of the 530,162 primary votes cast for Romney thus far (the most of any GOP candidate, BTW) were Mormons. The fact is obvious and indisputable. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
McTex, do yourself a favor and stop typing. Seriously. You're just embarrassing yourself. |
|
Some of the posts on this board remarkably seem to assume that conservative voters are a clear majority of the U.S. electorate. As a Republican who lives in California, I never suffer that kind of delusional thinking.
As much as I dislike the NY Times, one comment of theirs is correct. The electorate clearly seek a big change in governance style after 8 years of GW Bush, whose record will unfortunately be a huge part of the problem for the next nominee. (Sorry, but we have to face facts. See Peggy Noonan's latest WSJ column about W's failures being the true cause of the GOP's problems in settling on a nominee.)
Politics is the art of the pragmatic. So which candidate will be perceived as more different -- that is providing a different leadership style than Bush --- Mitt Romney or John McCain? My own view is that Mitt -- who as even his admirers admits -- is perceived as a "mainline GOP candidate," will certainly be seen as the most "Bush-like."
That ought to genuinely worry anyone who knows that a minority party HAS to attract independents and we are starting out behind this time after 8 years of an unpopular president and the economy slowing. Without independents you will lose.
But of course if you really want to lose the next election, ignore all of the above.
|
|
I'm a Catholic, and a "MittBott". So make it three.
|
|
|
I will add that I work in a profession that knows government and politicians well, and there are ZERO Romney supporters, and more Romney-haters than I can count. And that goes for Democrats and Republicans. I am convinced that those who do not have an agenda to support Mitt (i.e. identity politics) or who are easily fooled by pandering politicians, can't stand the guy and see through his crap. It's just a shame more people don't pay attention, and instead pick candidates for the wrong reasons. |
|
I was just watching MSNBC while working out. First, they talked about the amount of personal wealth Romney has poured into his campaign and how "secretive" he's being about it.
Then they talked about McCain and how he's the only GOP candidate that is beating Clinton in national polls (they must have received your fax, Joe).
Next they interviewed Mike Huckabee, who they claim is "still fighting the good fight." Yes, that's a direct quote from the MSNBC anchor. She next asked him how he likes the weather in Florida. I kid you not.
To summarize, per MSNBC:
Romney: filthy rich and secretive.
McCain: nationally viable - a Clinton-killer.
Huckabee: a dedicated fighter who enjoys sunshine.
The liberal MSM hate Romney, people. They'll do everything they can to damage his campaign.
Conservatives, do the math. And vote Romney. |
|
|
|
|
For the record, I am not "white" I am Italian and your racist hate mongering at this point isnt really offensive, just laughable. I dont benefit from cheap labor and have never hired an illegal alien for any of my various projects and I am in the house flipping buisness. I admit there are some who like illegals for their cheap labor but I pay more every time because i do not reward that behavior. I dont reward people who come here and refuse to speak english, who hold back classrooms because teachers have to take special care with the illegals who cant read and they hold back the learning. The health care system where illegals PAY FOR NOTHING so californians pick up the tab. Illegals destroy property value by living five families in one home and making a complete mess of the neighborhood. Come here legally, assimilate, pay your dues and I wont have a problem with you. We have Asian immigrants ect who I have no problem with because they arent looking for handouts and dragging down the economy. |
|
Talk about spinning symantics. MANAGERS are LEADERS by definition. How do you manage without leading?
I guess McCain can tell us he will LEAD without MANAGING?
Anyway, utter BS. |
|
What a liar you are. In the first place there are more McCain supporters here, the most pro-Mitt blog in the country, than any other candidate.
Secondly, of the pro-mittbots almost all are identity-politics voters (i.e. Mormons). I am only aware of maybe two Bishop supporters who are not members of his church, besides Hugh.
Go sell crazy somewhere else...
|
|
I didn't say I thought the polls were right, there are way to many variables right now. They are just an interesting piece of info.
My point was that alot of people pick and choose what info they are going to believe based on if it promotes their candidate or not. But you already knew that. |
|
|
Romney has fallen hard on Intrade, and I'm wondering why as well. I'm starting to think that perhaps inner-campaign polling data is either showing McCain in front today, or that he is beginning to receive a bounce from SC. Either way, for those of us who know Romney is a phony, this has to be good news, coupled with two new polls showing McCain with a slight lead. |
|
I don't know if this has been posted yet but this could put the nail in the coffin for McCain.
McCain’s “Hispanic Outreach Director”, Juan Hernandez, is the same guy who was a close advisor to Mexico’s President Vicente Fox! Hernandez headed up a Mexican bureaucracy called the “Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad.” It was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the country, meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal aliens in America. U.S.-born dual citizen Juan Hernandez is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think Mexico first.”
Does John McCain agree that they should always “think Mexico first?” With Hernandez as his “Hispanic Outreach Director”, who began serving last year, I don’t think there is any question. Is there any reason that anyone should think open borders fanatic Dr. Hernandez wants President McCain to secure the border? Is there any reason that anyone should trust a man to secure the border if he is getting his “Hispanic Outreach” advice from Dr. Juan Hernandez? Is there any reason why anyone should not think that John McCain is committed to giving amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens in America?
Be aware John McCain supporters. One of his closest advisors is a globalist, open borders, illegal alien supporting, amnesty demanding dual citizen with his allegiance given to Mexico.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/john-mccains-open-bord ers-outreach-director-the-next-dhs-secretary/
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/dr-juan-hernandez-has -joined-the-mccain-campaign/
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-reply-100152.htm
|
|
Mormon flip-flop. (Funny how Hewitt, Romney's chief apoloigist, forget to tell readers about this):
"It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he could lead the country."
Boycott Hewitt until he treats McCain with the respect he deserves. |
|
haven't heard any big news, except for NYT endorsement.
McCain came out this morning and said Romney was a great manager, and that he is a leader.
I suppose a liberal republican is a moderate republican. Those who believe in small government, low taxes, but are also pro-choice. |
|
|
Now Shannon can you prove this... Polls go so many different directions that thinking they are right is a gas! |
|
When I left for breakfast this morning, Romney had a 30 point lead over McCain on Intrade after the debates.
Now I have just returned from lunch and Romney's lead is down to just 6 points (a 24 point precipitous drop!). Shocked by this I thought, "oh no, must be some big negative news on Romney came out or some poll showing McCain way ahead...", but from what I can tell, there is NO NEWS AT ALL that would cause this collapse.
One SUSA Poll came out showing McCain with a 2 point lead, but their poll included a large number of "Liberal Republicans" (whatever THAT means) who went 5:1 for McCain.
So what exactly is a "Liberal Republican"?
DOES ANYONE KNOW:
Is anyone aware of any BIG NEWS that caused this 24 point drop in a matter of hours? Like I said, I've searched everywhere and NOTHING.
Please God, don't tell me it's the NYTimes Endorsement giving Mccain a bump. I can't stand it! |
|
The entire 9% that do not favor McCain seem to be on this site consistently. So not to worry, on election day they will still be typing away.
Should the very same polls change in favor of Romney, PC will begin to link them religiously.
Are we quoting Michelle Malkin again? Have we not learned our lesson on what this woman does to your own credibility?
Romney v. Clinton = Pres. Clinton |
|
Do you live in say San Diego or LA?
|
|
I'd actually be in favor of secure open borders. Where the people who came in were actually legally allowed to work, and carried the same burdens and benefits as others. However having 12 million illegal immigrants living "in the shadows" does as much harm to them as the US.
And if the minimum wage law wasn't blocking a person's right to negotiate there own rate, then lots of legal residents of the inner city could compete with the illegals for those jobs.
|
|
|
I am getting really tired of people relentlessly propping up McCain by pointing at a poll indicating that McCain is supposedly the only one who can beat Hillary. What the heck makes you think this poll is any more reliable than the others. Several months ago Guliani was inevitable and led all national polls, now he looks like he is toast. Months ago polls said Thompson had a massive base of support and could easily take the nomination and now he is out. We have had one poll after another that is flatly wrong and you have the gall to say that one poll that says McCain is the only one who can beat Hillary should be the basis of choosing our canidate under the idiotic assumption that this poll has anything to do with what will be the case 10 months from now. |
|
When the liberal NY Times endorses McCain, that of course is further proof that McCain is a toxic candidate, is not a real conservative, and is unworthy of our support. (Unlike even a broken clock, it is impossible for the NYT to EVER be right.) But when a different liberal "elite-media voice" such as the Atlantic's James Fallows, concludes that Mitt Romney was a standout in last night's debate, we provide it as a link - why after all, that's more evidence, something to be seriously considered and received as totally credible from a reliable source.
Speaking of credibility, Hugh, any thought about whether you are destroying your own punditry brand with this absolutely over-the-top in-the-tank advocacy months before the GOP convention? If Mitt is not the nominee --- what sayeth you then on your program? If he is and we end up with the Clintons again --- what say you? I know . . . too bad . . . so sad . . . if only . . . maybe in 8 years but boy now that Hillary is in office we have lots to talk about.
Possibly my last visit, no matter who gets the nomination. This site is approaching parody status. |
|
|
Just for chuckles, would you entertain us with what exactly you think is the purpose of having borders in the first place? Does your house have walls and doors? Can anyone just walk in anytime they want? Just asking. |
|
Everyone knows that national polls are meaningless at this early stage of the game. Everyone but Joe, that is. Which is why he keeps quoting them. Because it's all he has left.
Give it up, Joe. Seriously. Go read your NYT. |
|
This is from Michelle Malkin. I have heard Dr Hernandez many times on Fox and thought he was absurd. No one would want him to advise them on the border. I guess I am wrong again.
Dr. Juan Hernandez, McCain Hispanic outreach director: “We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”
Last month, I received an e-mail from a concerned reader. She wrote:
“Hispanic Republicans here in Nevada had a chance to speak by conference to Sen. John McCain and many of us were appalled to learn that his National Director of Hispanic Outreach is none other that Dr. Juan Hernandez, notorious for his open borders stance. How can McCain reconcile the fact that he says he “learnt his lesson w/the American people” with choosing as his Hispanic Ntl. Dir. someone whose views and interests are so clearly anti-security and not in the interest of the American people or for that matter us legal Hispanic immigrants. Can someone question him directly on this?”
|
|
|
Like I said before, when you need a job that requires hard work who do you go to? You obviously have never been to a construction site, into a restaurant kitchen, or onto a large farm. Since you live in CA, why not take a field trip to the strawberry fields north of Monterey? How many hardworking white rednecks will you find there? That's what I thought. If you want to continue to enjoy cheap labor and affordable housing and food, then you'll need to find a more rational way of reforming immigration than kicking out 12 million workers. Illegals pay sales taxes, SS taxes, and often don't have anything to show for it. You can resent me calling you a racist all you want, but it's the truth. You're picking a racial minority and blaming the ills of healthcare and education on them. How exactly has healthcare been ruined? And what are the exact numbers on the education drain? Are classrooms overcrowded? Is ESOL straining the system? Please clarify. Poor white |
|
|
Bslim and boomshak have it correct. The voters today, except for the political geeks like us on blogs, those who have actually worked in campaigns, and listening feverishly to Talk Radio, know zilch about ISSUES. They know emotions. They know what the Big 3 media TV outlets tell them each night but that is it. The debate last night would not be old but new information for many viewers if , if they even bothered to view it. MSNBC is so in the bag for leftist voters, DNC that many would not even take a look. The NYTimes endorsement is double edged. The Indies may think it is grand, real conservs in the South will just turn off on St. John and since many primaries on the 5th are just Pub pushed, the media support may not get John wins when he expects them. He may be electible but my guess is that many will not go that way with Rush, Beck, Sean et al just showing their depressive views not only out on him but many Congressional offices who may or may not be real Republicans. After all, the Congress is going Dem by all levels of analysis. If , if the Pubs could pick up the 17 seats in the House , it would be a real miracle. With Russert saying to all 5 last night, 'how in the world can the public vote for a Party which has started this economic set of disasters', Pubs will have a hard time just responding to those charges. McCain will not be able to raise above those attacks with his lack of economic defenses but Mitt or Rudy might. And polls now just do not matter but they will when the nominees are finally selected. I am not going to trust the populace in general this time with a female and a minority running. Why? Because the race and sexism charge will actually resound with many non-issue oriented voters and that will go hard for any Pub nominee or Congressional candidate. Common sense rarely prevails unless a '72 scenario comes about again. |
|
... with a ballot left to cast reads this insightful column:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30434.html
|
|
" Mc_Tex writes: Friday, January, 25, 2008 9:13 AM
Oops Hugh left out...
Hey Hugh - why don't you mention all of the conservatives that have also endorsed him?
Did you forget about them or does their endorsement hurt your cause? You know when you lie by ommission it is still a lie."
Mc_Tex you omitted Sen. Jim Demint (R-S.C.)and others who support Mitt. Does that make you a liar. Man, you Captain McQueeg supporters can't take the fact that Lib's love McCain. Why? Because he is one of them. Just look at the list of reasons they like including this.
"We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle."
So Mc_Tex, is McCain pandering to you or is he a real conservative. The answer is he is pandering. Why? Because all his conservative positions have been election year conversions. That is undeniable. |
|
|
You are the racist. I welcome all who wish to become Americans the right way. You support exploiting illegal aliens. |
|
|
In Nevada, even if all mormons had stayed home, Mitt would have won handily. Even Keith Olberman was intellectually honest enough to admit that. Illegals do heavy economic lifting? They take much more then they give. They have crippled our health care and educational system by getting free health care and sucking money out of our education system. People dont hate Mexicans and I resent your blatant racist hyperbole. People who come hear legally pay taxes and pull there weight, illegals dont and its not fair. Live in California and then tell me what a great help Illegals are. Get a clue. |
|
BTW, don't you have anything better than the "respect our laws" argument WRT immigration reform? That seems like a pretty thin cover up for the fact that you're a simple bigot. I mean, we tried to change the laws regarding immigration reform and you people shot that down.
From where I'm standing, your stated objectives are pretty clear -
1. Kick out all illegals
2. Build a fence to keep more from coming in
The implied objectives are as follows -
1. We don't want guest workers
2. There are too many Hispanics here
3. We don't really care about the economy
4. And we haven't really thought about the age/demographic gap that makes a large foreign born workforce necessary |
|
Does a 55 mph speed limit make sense? Do you always follow the speed limit, just because it's the law? McCain and Bush tried to change the immigration laws but the racist base shot them down. The base prefers to have nothing at all, screw rational reform is their motto. Everything is about them, and keeping America as pure and white as possible.
We have a huge generation gap in this country. You talk a lot of game about respecting those that followed the rules and went through the system, but none of this addresses the fact that 12 million illegals are doing some pretty heavy economic lifting. Why kick them out? |
|
Briggsy, despite your endorsement Mitt is history. Accept it. Mitt pulled off NV because of Mormon support. He won in MI because his daddy was governor and he made some crazy promises to the blue collar types there.
The only hope for a GOP presidency in 08 is with McCain. Romney isn't going to bring in the indies. The only people who still support Flip Romney are the ditto heads and those who take their marching orders from the GOP establishment and conservative MSM (Malkin, Hewitt, Rush, Fox, etc) and old high earning geezers.
It's time to face the facts people - if you want to salvage the economy and win the war, we'll need to make some sacrifices. This means raising taxes on some folks, putting the economy and compassion ahead of racism and hatred of Mexicans, and giving more to the military. We've had 8 years of mostly talk, it's time to seal the deal and finish what W started. |
|
Yes, hispanics can certainly be as American as you or I, I know some. However, Mexicans are not Americans, Guatamalans are not Americans, Hondurans are not Americans, El Salvadorans are not Americans. They can be, IF they apply for legal entry and follow our EXISTING path to citizenship. When someone lets himself into your house without your permission, do you consider him a guest? I don't. What is happening is NOT immigration. Immigrants get visas before entering. Illegal aliens prefer the term migrant, but do not have an open-ended right to migrate from their countries to ours. The debate must center on the willful disregard for the laws of this country. I know many immigrants from all over the world and it is especially for them that I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. Some have waited years in refugee camps in southeast asia for their chance to become Americans. They respect this country, our laws, language and culture. All of them took the time, effort and expense to do it the right way. We should honor all those who have and not insult their sacrifices with another amnesty. The amnesty of 1986 has resulted in 10 times the number of illegal aliens and a general disregard for our laws. Another amnesty would be equally successful.
|
|
Until we have the nominee...all this is--is speculation of course. But, I believe Florida will shake the tree to 2-apples. Anyone that stays in besides the top-2 is gunning for a VP slot or cabinet post or in Ron Paul's case, they have enough money to stay in and push their platform. Financially, Romney is the only candidate right now that has deep enough pockets to stay in for long after Florida and Super Tuesday. I still can't believe we might have to choose between Romney and McCain!
All of us need to continue to monitor the MSM and do what we can to call attention to their new campaign to promote Romney. The head-to-head polls demand that they do this. The Talking Heads fear McCain... if they ever thought about it, other than the war, he is one of them. |
|
|
Is among liberals who will vote Democrat in November. How many ways does it have to show up in the polls for McCain socialist one-world "conservatism" advocates to recognize it? Unbelievable. |
|
|
What's going to happen to the economy when we kick all of the illegals out? Is Flip Romney going to put his sons to work for us? Or will his brilliant rescue involve laying off more labor, like when he was at Bain? Or maybe he can go around promising to save auto industry jobs in MI and giving the oldsters some handouts in FL. He's all talk. |
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again -
Illegals do my landscaping.
Illegals painted my deck.
Illegals wash dishes and serve/cook food in some of my favorite restaurants.
Illegals make low cost food production possible.
Illegals make low cost construction possible.
The bottom line is that illegals contribute. What do you do? Kicking-out violent offenders is a no-brainer, but pushing more than 12 million hard working folks out for no other reason than that a bunch of old racists are scared of the Mexis (because they work harder and in many cases are smarter) is just retarded. |
|
Your right buddy. I don't watch in on FOX.
Loser is all he is. |
|
of course.
McCain is giving America the bird on immigration. |
|
PC, is that all you have? Do you deny the fact that Romney is plastic, is trying to buy the presidency, and that he's the fake conservative? He goes around promising this and that to each and every group of primary voters - hardly conservative. He talks a big game on immigration and on being tough on terrorists, but when push comes to shove he ran a sanctuary state and a sanctuary mansion, and he literally has no skin in the war on terror, as opposed to McCain.
He's a phony. The only thing going for him at this point is that he pitches racist anti-immigrant rhetoric to the base. |
|
Thanks for the heads-up, I did not know "Smiling Juan" Hernandez was in McCain's camp. If you have ever seen him on TV, you'll know he thinks we should not enforce any immigration restrictions.
We must elect someone who will not try to shove "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", amnesty, down our throats. We tried that once in 1986 and it failed miserably. We now have 10 times the number of illegal aliens. We will either elect a President who will uphold the laws or one who will change them to accomodate the illegal aliens. If we do the latter, we are voluntarily committing national suicide.
|
|
McCain in Florida and if McCain wins, it is over for Romney. If Romney wins, he will probably be the nominee,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You people crack me up. NONE of you have anyidea when HUCK, ROMNEY or McCAIN will quit.
Were still a long way off.
Now after Super Tuesday that will make a real difference. |
|
Gerald Rivera endorses McCain
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
gezzz talk about the kiss of death!
PS he's another open border fool too! |
|
|
I thought in general it was a good debate. All the candidates did well. If this was the NFL, time of possession was won by Romney...didn't seem fair to let him have so much time...do you think the MSM wants Mitt...could they make it any more obvious? NY Times not pretentious at all! While McCain was okay he wasn't great. Huckabee was solid and make a good case for the Fair Tax. Once again, it is obvious that very few people have actually read the entire Fair Tax proposal. Ron Paul...came across passionate but agitated and a little confusing...needs to work on his delivery/speech patterns. Rudi did well, but too little too late, he is toast in Florida. Unless Huckabee gets some kind of huge underground boost over the weekend, it will be Romney Vs. McCain in Florida and if McCain wins, it is over for Romney. If Romney wins, he will probably be the nominee, but not for sure for at least another 7-8 weeks. Polls have the race within 3/10's of a point. I do give kudo's to Romney for making the funniest line of the night...something we all think but might not imply in public. Bill with too much time on his hands... |
|
Typical McCain voter and Romney hater.
Enough said. |
|
Jimmy and Jack McCain (the future CINC's two sons) are in the military - soon to be headed to Iraq.
Mitt's five sons are golfing and "contributing" to defending the nation by supporting dad's campaign.
In a nutshell, that's the key difference between the two. One is an uber rich flip flopping plastic consultant, saying anything and spending his own fortune trying to buy the presidency. His "business management" prowess basically amounted to laying off labor, to increase the bottom line for shareholders and C-level fat cats. The man might look good and say the right things to the right people, but please remember that under it all is a pair of magic underwear.
McCain on the other hand is the real deal and will win the nom.
|
|
Are you kidding. Bill will be everywhere but the White House.
I wonder if they ever got the stain out of the carpet? |
|
Russert needs to ask the important questions to the candidates like this:
Assuming hypothetically Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, will she give Bill Clinton a decent job in her adminstration or will she literally bite his head off and eat it at the Inaugural Ball (like a praying mantis or black window spider)?
|
|
Looks like McCain is coming out swinging at Romney today. Look for the MSM to help him as much as possible.
Joe, I appreciate that you'd support Romney if he gets the nomination; i'm not sure I'd support McCain. If someone is going to grant Amnesty, raise taxes, finish off the first amendment, screw the court, etc., I'd rather have the dems take the blame than Republican leadership (Republicans would be dead for sure). I don't think Hillary will just walk away from Iraq . . . she'd just take credit for the success . . . .
As for the national poll match ups, I think they are all irrelevant--the general changes everything, no matter the candidates.
|
|
Dr. Juan Hernandez, McCain Hispanic outreach director: “We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is this what America needs? So much for border control john!
|
|
I am feeling really encouraged about the GOP chances....HillBilly and Obama may lay mauled and bloody in the street for us to simply drive by, and stare in amazement at their foolishness.
So let's not forget the true enemies of our country: unbridled socialism, higher taxation, death culture,open border/amnesty,and the retreat in the face of Jihad Marxists.This IS the Democrat platform, none of our candidates will endorse that. |
|
Some people seem to think this can happen, but I say it's virtually impossible. He's too gaffe-prone, too liberal, and as dumb as a post.
Not to mention that he ran a shabby anti-Mormon campaign. He HATES Romney with a passion, Romney would have to be an idiot to choose him, and I'm pretty sure he's not.
So Long Huckster. Don't let the door hit you. |
|
Thomas Sowell:
"Quite aside from age, there is all too much evidence already that John McCain is not the kind of man who has given in-depth thought to many of the serious issues on which he shoots from the hip, which some people equate with “straight talk.” The media have dubbed him a “maverick,” which is another way of spinning the fact that he is headstrong and unreliable.
Senator McCain’s teaming up with Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration, and with equally left-wing Senator Russ Feingold to violate the First Amendment in the name of “campaign-finance reform,” are classic examples of a loose cannon.
Senator McCain is not a bad man. He has some admirable qualities. But there are plenty of good people who would be dangerous in a job for which they are not suited.
Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said that some people “may do the worst of things without being the worst of men.” The White House is not the place for that."
|
|
|
No worries - Huck is done after FL too. |
|
|
I don't hate anyone, but if Huckabee is anywhere on the ticket, maybe I won't vote for president. |
|
Earned the label of flip flopper on Iraq War. Where he was famously for it, before he was against it, and then said he'd keep troops there. Basically Kerry endlessly vacillated between positions with no logical explanation other than "looks like the polls are going that way."
Romney's "flip flops" have been uni-directional, and explained by his experience as governor. Guess what - when you see Gay Marriage ordered by judicial fiat, that makes you an opponent of it - because you see the public is against it. When you are pro choice on policy (but against abortion) and then see the state legislature try and expand the rules to allow STATE FUNDED embryonic stem cell research, you get more pro life.
Other things Mitt had to compromise on as Gov of MA, the legislature had a VETO proof majority. For example the gun legislation made it easier to get gun permits in MA. It was a net plus for 2nd amd rights.
I live in MA and Mitt was by far the best for fiscal conservative, vocal leader of conservative values, and competent administrator we have ever had. He also kept his campaign promises, so when he says he'll battle the islamic terrorists, secure the boarders, I believe him.
|
|
Angel - I know you probably hate McCain as much as the rest of the GOP does...so we'll welcome you aboard the Romney train January 30.
Good Luck to you. |
|
|
If you are looking for a concise but interesting analysis of last night, may I suggest Dean Barnett's piece over at the weekly standard on the debate. He is a Romney shill but has fairly criticized him as well. It is a quick read and interesting. |
|
It looks like Fred's departure from the race has produced essentially no net change among the other four contenders. Today's Rasmussen poll (a 4-day average of which 3 of the 4 days are now post-Fred) show the following movement, as compared to the last poll before Fred's exit Tuesday:
McCain 26% (up 2%)
Romney 21% (up 2%)
Huckabee 17% (up 1%)
Giuliani 12% (up 2%) |
|
I think that HH is the go-to guy for all things political. What say you? (Lame, overused expressions courtesy of HH ....)
Seriously, when I think back on how hard HH campaigned for Mr. Maria Shriver, ridiculing authentic conservative Republicans, declaring himself the "State Sommelier" ... If HH could be so blind to Schwarzenegger's politics, we can't trust him about Romney. I wish that HH could be a teeny bit objective on his third-tier radio show, instead of turning it into a "Romney for President" ad. |
|
|
Nothing Boomshack said about average American voters surprises me. It is the great American tragedy. We have arrived to the point where Republicans do not know what a conservative is - each of the remaining candidates thinks they are conservative if they are just barely to the right of Democrat candidates - what can we expect from the voter? Ignorance of the electorate is the greatest danger in a democratic system and we are there. How else could someone with as little credentials as Huckabee actually get serious consideration. None of the republican candidates could possibly be acceptable to a serious conservative. |
|
"Your man Mitt is Mr. Switchback. Mitt changes positions based on the circumstances, while he promoted cutting spending last night, he promoted massive spending in Michigan. It just depends. McCain has been consistently pro life, Mitt is not."
Intelligent people like Mitt can differenciate between spending and investing. (Mitt made his millions by investing, so he is better qualified to understand the difference between spending and investing.)
Mitt's discussions on Michigan involve investment, not spending. BIG BIG difference. Investing creates jobs, creates wealth, creates competitive advantages, and more.
I'm glad Michigan voters understood the difference between Mitt & McCain.
McCain spends.
Mitt invests.
I want a Washinton that thinks more like Mitt and less like McCain. |
|
Wow Joe, you can stay pretty calm most of the time, but you have resorted to convenient labels here. I clearly don't agree with everything McCain says, and though I prefer Romney, have criticisms of him as well. That isn't the point though.
Your man McCain has been less than straight forward and increasingly so lately. I have always said that John McCain is at his best when he is not afraid to tell it how he sees it. My point is that we don't apply the label universally. We use it when it is convenient.
On spending. Yes, McCain generally has been great on decreased spending, but he too favors spending on some things. Romney can also be in favor of spending cuts and spending in other areas. Your man promised some spending in Michigan too. He promised to subsidize salary losses. I still don't know that I like either proposal, but I sure like money to reinovate within the American auto industry better than a subsidized salary loss. |
|
I find your ability to reason universally refreshing and I agree about the changing positions. I thought it was a dangerous thing when the flip flop label was used against John Kerry though he clearly went to extraordinary lengths to earn it at times.
We WANT our representatives to change their minds about issues. Isn't that why we speak up when we disagree with them? Isn't that the whole point of things like the Right to Life march?
My point is that flip flop has become a convenient label to throw at someone rather than really looking at the candidates and their positions. |
|
|
Just post I hate Mitt everyday instead of these endless and meaning links to Realclear Politics. You hate him we get it. Stop wearing out your keyboard telling everyone. Go somewhere where people agree with you. Hummmm does the NY Time have a message board they Hate Mitt and jones for McCain just like you. |
|
So last nights debates McCain said if he was wrong on G/W that's ok?
Ahhhh John do you have any idea what your saying.
How many people will lose their jobs because of this crazy globla warming BS.
Keep telling us on how great mc cain is Joe.
|
|
|
|
McCain is generally pretty straight on his positions. Agree or disagree with his points, but he generally does not shy away from they.
Your man Mitt is Mr. Switchback. Mitt changes positions based on the circumstances, while he promoted cutting spending last night, he promoted massive spending in Michigan. It just depends. McCain has been consistently pro life, Mitt is not. |
|
|
Anyone or anything that the NYT endorses has got to be a nightmare for the average American. I suspected all along that McCain was bad news, now I am convinced of it! Thanks, NYT. |
|
I still haven't seen someone demonstrate that Romney flip flops which means going back and forth.
McCain was for Lower Taxes when Regan was there, against the Bush taxes, and for them now. That's a flip flop.
McCain was amnesty, then said he'd secure borders, then told Hannity "his position hadn't changed." (It was linked on Hot Air.) That's a flip flop.
McCain was "100%" pro-life, then for embryonic stem cell research, and now says he's getting close to being against embryonic stem cell research. That's an impending flip flop.
Not to mention that John McCain is a straight faced liar when it serves him: Last night when challenged about his own admission that he was weak on economic issues, he claimed he'd never said that, and that he was actually strong on economic issues. John McCain was against John McCain's economic experience before he was for it.
He lies when he says that he was against the bush tax cuts, purely for spending purposes: at the time he was against them, because of populists reasons.
He lies when he says we would not have gotten Alito and Roberts on the court without Go14.
And you know what? None of this bothers me. Politicians HAVE to make concessions! And politicians have to market themselves. If John McCain were to have given "straight talk" about his (honestly held) belief that he is weak on economic issues, he would have lost 5% in the FL polls. Its really not that big of a deal to me, the issues is - does he have the right broad policy goals, and can he get the right people to deal with the policy details. But he sees himself as the best option to be CIC and if a fib about his economic ability gets him there, he's okay with that. So am I.
|
|
Florida.
McCain current support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If he loses the first major contest where Independents cannot INTERFERE with our nominating process, his National Poll #'s will plummet.
Also expect the donations to flood into the Romney Camp if he wins and all but dry up for McCain if he loses.
IMHO, If Romney wins FL by 5 or more, the nomination is his. |
|
Romney is tagged with more flip flops, and your Olympic analogy is colorful and amusing.
Still, do we apply that with equal opportunity or reserve it for those we don't like. I was actually surprised at some of McCain's comments of late, because he is getting off scott free for changing position (and doing so late in the game) and has even been (presumably accidentally?) dishonest at times. Still, he gets a pass? Huckabee went from criticizing the other candidates for tough stances on immigration to promising to deport every illegal alien? Where is the flip flop charge? Oh right, we only use that against the guy we don't like. |
|
I was out last night and met an attractive young woman, about 26 years of age. She was studying for her masters degree.
The discussion turned to politics and I explained that I supported Romney because it is about time we have a President who can run the country like a profitable business.
She said she was a Republican. I asked her who she supported and to my shock she answered:
JOHN EDWARDS!
I said, "John Edwards! Why are you supporting the MOST LIBERAL of all the Democrats if you are a Republican?"
Here was her answer:
"Oh, I though John Edwards WAS a Republican..."
FOLKS, THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE AVERAGE AMERICAN VOTER. Clueless at a level you almost cannot imagine. |
|
Mitt Romney looks at the polls showing him gaining ground in Florida, some having him in first place, and played ball control last night. He's probably also figured out that going negative didn't do him much good in Iowa and New Hampshire.
John McCain knows he's sitting pretty, that the polls that don't have Romney in first have him in first, that he's in good shape in most of the Super Duper Tuesday states, and that he, too, had more to lose than to gain from going negative on anyone.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTgzMTY5YmM3 MzdmMGNlN2E5NGNhMjIxZTNhNjA4MGI= |
|
General Hillary Clinton is so busy fighting the race war she started:
She won't notice:
|
|
Joe, stop trying, they're not listening.
If it's a choice between McCain winning and Romney losing, they'd rather lose. It's more important to them that McCain and all other moderates get defeated. |
|
He'll claim credit for Iraq turn around: Hillary claims she was more courageous going one step further and pushing for a pull out.
She'll pin him down and force him to explain his border plan, he'll anger of his own base.
He'll champion who he's going to bring to the white house for economic purposes, she'll chortle that the republicans have been in control for 8 years and there is substantively no difference between Bush and McCain - and imply that she can bring back the booming 90's (a myth many still believe.)
She'll nudge and cajole him until he loses his temper "I was a GD POW in 'Nam while you were at Woodstock" - it'll scare people who don't want a hot head president.
He'll talk about earmarks, she'll say "20 years as a Senator 4 years with total control of the government, and John McCain was such a leader that earmarks increased."
All the while the 527s will run ads pointing out to liberals why they don't like McCain (no pet projects, reduced gov spending, lower taxes, more war) and demoralizing the base for all the McCain/Famous Democrat agreements.
The problem with those polls is they are being taken in an environment that is no where near what the general election atmosphere will be.
|
|
Hillary has moved her efforts elsewhere and is attempting to marginalize the importance of SC (hinting she doesn't think she will win it.)
Obama already leads the race in delegates...and SC win for him will be a pretty big deal.
I'd rather have Mitt run against Hillary than Obama. This could get interesting. |
|
|
Not one point the Times made in defense of Captain McQueeg had anything to do with Republican principles. Why do people support him again? |
|
I didn't hear one word about his new “tough on illegals,” stand last night, and he avoided the chance to go after McCain on McCain’s supposedly vulnerable point when given the chance. That's probably because Romney understands he can't afford to run as the anti-immigrant candidate in a state with a significant hispanic presence in the GOP electorate. That’s why Romney and Rudy are actively pandering to hispanics by running ads in spanish, causing even Michelle Malkin to see no fundamental difference between them and McCain.
It seems that we’re all open borders champions of bilingualism, at least while campaigning in Florida. I point this out only because some people are still clinging to the notion that there is a true conservative left in the race. There isn’t. There are four Republicans with big flaws. And they mostly have the same flaws as each other. It’s not a question of voting for the true conservative in the race, unless you’re still capable of kidding yourself about Ron Paul. It’s a flawed electable McCain, or a more flawed, unelectable somebody else. Choose your poison, but don’t convince yourself that Rudy or Mitt would be any tougher on illegals as president than they were as mayor and governor. Last night’s silence speaks volumes. |
|
He has pissed off too many of the GOP to ever rise above 40%. He has run out of steam 2-3 times after reaching 28% - 30% in any polls. (This is because the real GOP [the remaining 70%]doesn't like him...and will vote for anyone but him.)
As Rudy & Huck fade away...expect Romney to take an insurmountable lead over McCain.
Romney is going to win Florida by a minimum of 5% - 10% and all 57 of its delegates. With that will come the momentum that takes him all the way to the nomination.
GO MITT!!!! |
|
I agree all politicians flip flop a bit, but Mitt Romney is the Mark Spitz of flip flopping...
a Jim Thorpe, Michael Jordan and Mohammed Ali rolled into one candidate. Actually Mitt makes Spitz look like a piker on gold flip flops because he has dozens and dozens of them. Mr. Olympic indeed!
And B2slim, what do you mean there are no "current polls" Go look at those Real Clear Poitics averages posted above. Those are all taken over the last month. If you go back in time the numbers hold steady (with Mitt losing and McCain winning). Mitt might have made the lack of name recognition argument last year, that no longer plays. Mitt's name recognition is high, but that does not improve his numbers. |
|
If you watch all of the Print Media
the big Networks
the liberal cable
DO YOU EVER see a headline starting with
Romney
Obama
headlines always go "MCCAIN" "etc" "ROMNEY
Headlines always go "HILLARY" "BILL" Obama
YOU rarely see any flattering picture of
Romney or
Obama
THE media knows it's trade and they have been shoving MCCain and Hillary the identical twins down our throats for over a year:
Only the Political Junkies know what is really going on: |
|
Joe a poll of TH shows people are sick of your poll postings and are not influenced by them.
Seriously - head to head polling data (aggregated nationally) - before people even know who the candidates are? That's your argument why I should support McCain?
First of all the honeymoon between MSM and McCain will end the day he seals the general. Then he will be bulls eyed - as Romney is now, and Rudy before him. That right there will change the polls to so he loses the purple states and % lead. Romney on the other hand is probably at his lowest "national" level.
Second of all McCain will have no ability to get the mojo back. Doesn't have the money or fund raising capability to fight back against MSM, Clintons, and the 527s (ironic, right?).
Third of all McCain is lousy in these debates. He does well with GOPers because the debates are more civilized and because we're more of a substance crowd. The general populace remembers "lock box" and "strategery." McCain goes out and says the same stuff over and over, and doesn't have the spontenaiety (like Huck or Obama) or command of the facts (like Romney) to deal with the challenges.
|
|
If you had listened to the polls last year, Rudy would be the front runner now. The Romney/Hillary match-up right now looks like a definite win for Hillary, but if Romney gets the GOP nomination, I think this will definitely change. From his performance last night, I get the feeling that Romney will be willing and able to go mano-a-mano with the Clintons, but do it in a "genteel, professional" manner that will not make him look as nasty as she does. Plus, there just isn't that much dirt on the guy for Mrs. Clinton to dig up.
I think there are a lot of voters who, right now, all they know about Romney is that he's a Mormon and was governor of Massachusetts. Once they actually compare him seriously to the Bill and Hill show, perceptions will change.
Not saying McCain probably isn't the best GOP candidate against the Clintons - it will be very hard for her to attack a war hero without shooting herself. But he does have more for her to attack, I think. And I respect McCain and will be very sad if she attacks him, because he is a patriot and really does care about this country.
My bias right now is Romney, because I disagree with McCain on issues such as amnesty for illegals, but that doesn't mean I want to see a patriot dragged through the mud by a Clinton.
Re. the other candidates - I am glad Ron Paul is still in the debates, he makes sharp observations and asks good questions.
Bottom line I will vote for any of the GOP candidates against Hillary. But I do favor Romney. |
|
If you study the Trend lines carefully:
McCains dips go deeper: and his trend has been down:
Romney's has been inching up and really turned up recently:
He has mostly UP spikes and McCain has had big
DOWN spikes:
Intrade shot up to 60% for Romney
McCain has never hit that point
His Intrade number has been dropping for a long time:
|
|
I am making a bit of a hypocrite out of myself, because I tire of Joe's constant links that are often to people as unobjective regarding McCain as Hugh is about Romney (see Medved), but since Joe felt inclined to share Buchanan's funny one liner about Romney's appearance, I thought I would post this in the interest of full disclosure.
What Pat Buchanan says about John McCain:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/01 /25/what_mccain_means
In the end though, how much does it matter to any of us what Buchanan says about any of these guys? |
|
Grief:
are you illiterate people allowed to vote ??
There are zero current polls:
PLUS McCain has 25 years of name recognition
Romney has to gain Name Recognition:
unless you are a die hard winter sports fan
NO ONE KNOWS the name Romney:
Romney has not spent his entire life jumping up and down in front of cameras: Very few folks have ever heard the name:
WHEN they call you check the most familiar name:
Not the best qualified: etc. |
|
Funny didn't we see this years ago (NYT endorses Stalin)
Hey John getting help from the NYT is like petting a rattle snake! NOT GOOD! |
|
I really believe that meeting in your mountain hideout will not be necessary, but I appreciate the invitation. I agree with B2slim that Hillary has been preparing for McCain for years and I don't believe Mitt has the weaknesses she can exploit.
I honestly believe he will win. |
|
Hillary has been planning her scorched earth attacks against McCain for over 6 years:
TRUST
You will see Ross Perot's article calling McCain a backstabber in every one of her ads |
|
Joe,
first of all, I distinctly you and your polls about a year ago telling us all that Romney didn't have a chance to win the nomination. He certainly has a chance now. I don't know that any GOP candidate has a fabulous chance in November, but I will respectfully wait for the actual campaign and not the perception polls now. In fact, who are they asking anyhow?
Secondly, for all the flip flopping labeled at Romney, do you feel the same about your guy McCain? In just the last two months, he has flopped on at least two issues. Are you an equal opportunity sceptic when it comes to changing positions or the reasons behind positions or is it something to hold against one candidate and not another? |
|
One thing people don't seem to have thought about much.
If the economy continues to deteriorate (and I believe it will), even a John McCain in the White House will not be able to get an immigration anarchy bill through Congress.
Washington WOULD NOT DARE pass a Ted Kennedy style immigration bill if we are in a deep economic slump.
If McCain is the nominee, I will watch the economy closely. If it is bad enough, I might even hold my nose and vote for McCain in the general election if I can be confident that his "erase the borders" legislation has no chance of passage. |
|
Bless Romney:
he was to polite to add "GENERAL MCCAIN" to his comments
BUT WE CAUGHT IT:
General Hillary and General McCain taking all of the credit for success in Iraq:
|
|
|
|
WELL
there you have it:
NYT confirms and documents that
McCain and Hillary are identical twins: |
|
Unless you are all to stupid to catch it
Romney already put a huge dent in Hillary's face:
McCain has yet to lay a glove on Hillary
Frankly
McCain and Hillary are identical twins
the NYT confirms that |
|
If Mitt is the nominee, I will support and vote for him.
And when he loses I will try not to say I told you so.
That is because I will be holed up in the mountains hiding from Hillary Clinton and her politically correct possee.
You will be welcome at my fire. I will share a cup of joe and whatever is bubbling in the dutch oven. |
|
|
|