Skip to comments.Romney is the winner in Kansas, if not D.C.
Posted on 05/05/2007 4:12:43 PM PDT by Unmarked Package
America is not purple. It is very red and it is very blue.
For those of us who have been arguing that there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats, last night was a reminder of the stark differences that still divide our country. The GOP contenders were so much more conservative in tone and content than last weeks Democratic pack that we should all expect another divisive general election.
Republicans were so much more hawkish on matters of war and peace. Last week, Hillary Clinton got praised from pundits for promising retaliation against any power that nukes two American cities. Last night, John McCain promised to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell while Mitt Romney simply said, He will die.
Thats a far cry from Obamas promise to face terrorist attacks by focusing on first responders and studying the lessons of Hurricane relief.
Republicans also struck a tougher tone against illegal immigrants, abortion and foreign types running for president. The Democratic field all defended the practice of partial birth abortion, while Republicans were overwhelmingly pro-life. That may be why Rudy Giulianis worst moment for Republican voters was when he said overturning Roe v. Wade would be okay.
Okay? Good Lord, man. Get yourself a pithy two minute abortion answer and repeat it in front of the mirror a hundred times.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
No respect for Hunter?
What the hell does how massachusetts voted have to do with anything? Bob Dole was from Kansas, which, like ND, SD, NE, OK, ID, WY, UT, and AK has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964.
That didn’t mean a damn thing when the votes were cast.
The truth is, other than some FRee Republic stuff, I simply have no idea who the man is.
What I do know for certain is that I ain't ever voting for a Democrat, and that includes McCain, and Giuliani.
I want to vote for someone who is proved to be consistent, and not a compromiser or BS Artist.
In the end though, I'll vote for the Republican candidate, as long as it ain't Rudy or "Mad McCain".
I think the biggest difference between the Democrat and Republican debates has gone largely unreported. In the Republican debate, all of the candidates recognized the reality that we are at war. At the Democrat debate, half of their candidates denied the War On Terror’s existence and of those who said they do recognize it, two of them agreed only after seeing Hillary and Obama raise their hands. Talk about being out of touch with reality. That is the biggest lesson I took from the two debates.
"Indeed. I've been searching Lexis Nexus a bit recently, and I ran into some information that supports this wholeheartedly. Some key quotes from a Herald article on the final 2002 debate between Romney and Shannon O'Brien (a fine debater): Nearly 44 percent of likely voters said they watched the debate. Among that group, Romney holds a 7-point lead over OBrien, while voters who didnt see the televised clash back OBrien by a 5-point margin. And then most illuminating this: Among independent voters who viewed the debate, Romney holds a whopping 63-19 percent lead. Romneys lead among independent voters who said they didnt watch the debate is at 10 points, the same level as five days ago. Thats a 34 point swing. 34 points. In one night. There are barely words to describe the depth of that shift. Get Romney before the American people, against a Democratic opponent, and youll be weeping with joy."That is a remarkable account, one that should be considered more widely.
Romney’s the kind of guy who could match wits with [Bill] Clinton - even beat him - in a debate (he’s destroy Hillary), and that’s what the country needs or we’ll have 4-8 years of the press and liberal cultural establishment steamrolling another poorly communicating Republican president.
‘Polished’ and ‘smooth’ are only negatives if one lacks substance. When one has substance these qualities amplify, if not follow from, substance.
Interestingly, the only person who seems to have given Hunter any praise outside of FR has been....Romney.
When asked who else he thought had done well, Romney said he thought Hunter had spoken very well on some key issues.
That is indeed true.
We’ll see what comes of this in the coming months.
Hey, I want Hunter around. He absolutely has the right idea on illegal immigration. And when it comes to national defense, he’s head and shoulders above anyone else.
I’m pulling for Romney, but I want to hear more from Hunter. And even if he doesn’t take the Oval Office, he’d make a very good VP.
How nice of Scarborough to say something positive about the Republicans. (Sarc.)
After hearing about Romney’s praise for Hunter, I immediately thought of a Romney/Hunter ticket.
I’d prefer Hunter to be in the main hot seat, but I wouldn’t mind him as VP or Sec. of Defense. I mean, he turns 60 next year; he’s surprisingly young (relatively speaking, compared to McCain or Giuliani). If this year doesn’t work, I could see him trying again next time.
That's interesting. Republicans in the Liberalist of areas dislike Romney. That can only mean one thing...Romney is *gasp* TOO conservative for them.
Joe Scarborough, former Republican CongressCritter from Florida, should have hosted the debate. He would have been more fair than Matthews or Politico.com, both big liberals. The quality of questions was antagonistic and/or just plain stupid.
Now we know at least there are some big differences between the parties. I see that as giving voters a choice not as a way to divide one against the other. Do you want your president to be for partial birth abortion oor not? For sticking with the plan of the military surge or no? Now the voter can choose.
Why aren`t you supporting Mitt? If he gets the nomination, will you vote for him?
I aggree with you, Romney is very sharp and sincere. I believe he is the man that we need and alot of junk is being projected onto him because he is good. Happens to all good people to some degree. I remember how Reagan was made out to be dumb and not a hard worker. Yet he was very sharp too, and always witty.
You just don`t get it——we need stupid nominees from states like Wyoming (nice place but)to defeat the Rats and their pals in the MSM. Romney is to smart, to capable, and he doesn`t even own a M-60!I`ve heard he likes tacos and once read a whole book that didn`t even have pictures.
“Im a Kansan and Im most definitely not for Romney.”
I’m a Mormon and I’m not for Romney. Although I like him a bet better than Harry Reid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.