Posted on 06/12/2007 6:42:44 PM PDT by DieselHoplite
“officials from Michigan, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, where a license is necessary to hunt such small game, said they could not immediately locate any license for Romney.”
From the beginning he said he used to hunt in Utah. Look, I don’t see why you have a problem with this. His parents had a summer home in Utah and his uncle had a farm in Idaho so he may very well have taken a few shots at some rabbits or whatever. He never said he was an avid hunter. Maybe someone will ask his cousins to confirm the story about the semiautomatic or maybe they already did. The bottom line is that this was just a story he told a group of people at a campaign stop in iowa. I don’t know if he exaggerated or not but for you to claim that he is a liberal like giuliani based on this alone seems a bit too much. This story may well be true, who knows. Maybe everyone should have their childhood stories investigated to make sure we are not dealing with liberals in disguise. One can never be too cautious.
What would be cool would be Thompson being the clear leader but prevented a first ballot victory, then agreeing to select Romney as his running mate. That would gain more attention and end with a dynamic ticket.
Well, well, well! Fred Thompson’s views on abortion in 1994 were exactly the SAME as Romney’s.
The Thompson staffer who filled out the NARAL questionaire filled it out correctly.
You obviously did not follow the election too closely. Bush did not get a bump for winning Iowa. McCain had huge momentum after the NH win. Only after he started opening his mouth and trashing evangelical leaders did McCain tank. It had NOTHING to do with Iowa.
He certainly didn't believe in children when he ran as a pro-choice politician for so many years.
Iowa doesn't matter.
No state matters.
Unless Fred, Rudy, or John is in the lead.
Fred has a 0% score from NARAL and a 100% score from National Right to Life.
That’s ACTION, not words.
Ask George Herbert Walker Bush ;)
The good news is that Giuliani is sliding. Anyone but a baby-killing advocate.
He was also the gov here in MA. MA TV goes into NH, so NHers are very familiar with him. That's a big advantage in the NH primary.
He looks and sounds a lot better when he has a script and has all the makeup/hair that the law and order people put on him.
I followed the election of 2000 closely enough to notice that Bush was the nominee and McCain was not.
You think McCain lost because he couldnt win over evangelicals, failing to notice that McCain’s skipping of Iowa was highly correlated to his inability to appeal to that major segment of the base.
The Presidential primary is like a decathalon. Real winners play in all events.
Hey, I am willing to bet all these anti-Fred campaign experts that old tired Fred with no Fire in the belly who entered the campaign too late and won't be able to raise enough money atucally does better than Romney in the primaries. $10, $100, $1000 whatever. Fred will beat Romney.
Furthermore, Romney has FIVE children. He now has ten grandchildren. It looks like he passed along his belief in children to his children. That's good evidence of his belief in children to me.
I see you looked up my posts and decided to respond to them on another thread. This one. Good for you! : )
McCain downfall happened the day he attacked Robertson and Falwell. He then went on the Micheal Reagan show to try to spin things and acted like a manic when he raged against Micheal when Micheal was actually trying to help him out. At that point McCain had the upper hand in the race, but completely lost it. McCain blamed the pushed polls that happened in South Carolina which occurred about the same time, but the reality is that had nothing to do with his national downfall. It was the Robertson and Falwell attacks and then the disastrous appearence on Reagan's show. Skipping Iowa played ZERO role.
Since '92, at least, when he ran against Kennedy as the true "pro-choice" politician in the race.
Furthermore, Romney has FIVE children.
As does Thompson (though one is deceased).
I see you looked up my posts and decided to respond to them on another thread.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Apparently no state matters except where Romney is in the lead, right? Because with the exception of Iowa and new Hampshire, he isn't doing to well in states with published polls:
| State | Rank | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 1st (tie) [Guiliani] 2nd [Guiliani] 3rd [Guiliani, McCain] |
Rasmussen LA Times/Bloomberg AP/Ipsos |
6/12 6/12 6/10 |
| CA | 2nd (tie) [Guiliani, McCain] | Survey USA | 6/4 |
| FL | 2nd [Guiliani] 1st |
Insider Advanatge Datmar |
6/11 5/23 |
| IA | 2nd [Romney] | Public Policy Polling | 6/4 |
| NC | 1st | Public Policy Polling | 6/7 |
| NH | 4th [Romney, Guiliani, McCain] 4th [Romney, Guiliani, McCain] 4th [Romney, Guiliani, McCain] |
University of New Hampshire Survey Center Mason Dixon Franklin Pierce College |
6/12 6/8 6/6 |
| SC | 1st | Public Policy Polling | 6/4 |
| WA | 3rd [Guiliani, McCain] | Survey USA | 5/3 |
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.