He's a vindictive, bitter old angry 'RAT - lover in reality. And if he gets beat in '08, it's going to send him off the deep end.
I was reeeeeeally disappointed watching Romney treat him with kid gloves in that last debate. He passed up soooo many openings that McCain gave him to say the things that would have caused McCain to blow his stack with steam coming out his ears right there in front of millions of people.
We are looking for somone with BALLS!!! Excuse my french! But why Romney's handlers aren't allowing him to show us some mojo is beyond me. Do they have a tin ear, too, like Bush? Don't they realize that the BIGGEST complaint us movement conservatives have had against Bush is the fact that he has allowed the street-fighter 'RATS to walk all over him?????
Romney allowed street-fighter McCain to walk all over him and elbow him around at will during that debate, and couldn't even muster up any righteous anger or indignation at what that bald-faced liar was doing to him.
If he'd have taken it to McCain on that stage, I will guarantee you he'd have rallied the base to his side and he'd have won that Florida primary, hands down.
He has one more day to show some MAJOR brass ones, or it's over. If we can't have A CANDIDATE who is WILLING & ABLE & EAGER to take on the low-life 'RATS and USE FIRE TO FIGHT FIRE, how can we enthusiastically work for the Republican candidate between now and November?
McCain's done even before he starts. He may get some grudging votes from some of the conservative base, but they won't put themselves out to get out the grass-roots to make the calls and lick the envelopes, etc. He KIDS himself.
It is as Rush said the other day:
"One of the reasons why the conservative vote is split is not because the Reagan coalition has gone away.
You have basically three legs of the conservative stool.
There's subsets of this, but you've got the economic, the fiscal; you've got the social; and you got the foreign policy conservatives.
Among these foreign policy conservatives -- these are the neocon guys -- they believe in a big government.
They believe in big, active executive, compassionate conservatism. They love this. That's why they like McCain. He's a big government guy.
Without anybody in this race that has all three of those legs firmly understood, then the conservatives all over these states and all these primaries are splitting off one of those three legs, the two, three that matter to them most.
Like the social conservatives, a lot of them are going Huckabee because he's a minister, because of abortion.
The economic conservatives, a lot of people are going to Romney -- and those are the small government types.
The foreign policy national security conservatives, those are the most important ones, those are the ones going to McCain.
Of course, he's picking up independents and moderates as well, and so the reason for this fracture is ....because there's not one candidate that incorporates all three legs of the stool."
I agree with that completely.
Now if Romney can convince the national security / foreign policy conservatives that he has the BALLS to take it to the enemy, many of them will NOT BE AFRAID to vote for him.
Let's face it! National security is the number one responsibility of the President / Federal Government and our FREEDOM must be defended above all.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that many of these short-sighted, pouty "social values voters" would be perfectly happy living under a dictatorship as long as the tyrant is what they would call, "a Christian".
Well, I'll let a "mature" Christian answer that idea, here and now:
If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent.
But the inquisitor _who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven_ will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with _the approval of his own conscience_ and his _better impulses appear to him as temptations_.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be.
A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign.
It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated.
In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right.
We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future.
To attach to a party programme--whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication."
~ C.S.Lewis -- (Lewis addresses theocracy - the most potent form of Religious involvement in government - in an essay entitled, "A Reply to Professor Haldane" (75-76). On Sotries. ed. Walter Hooper. Harcort & Brace Co. Orlando, Florida. 1996.)
Of course he was merely agreeing with the Framers who held to the _biblical worldview_ and forbade a "religious test" for political office. bttt