Posted on 11/03/2007 10:34:50 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
“I feel like giving Fred $20 each time a Mittwit bumps a thread. Who’s with me?”
I would if this didn’t happen so often! I gave on Friday. Does that count? Once a month for all the Mitt lovers.
And this is exactly the same kind of ‘rebuttal’ you people offer every time someone brings up anything to do with Mitt’s record. The source is always too liberal. The cartoonist also does cartoons of liberal things. The MassResistance guy is a wacko, etc...
You refute nothing. All you do is impugn and attack, lie and obfuscate. I maintain that the only way people would come to FreeRepublic and take the RIDICULOUS positions that Romney supporters take, MUST be if they are getting paid.
So, how much does the job pay?
Mitt supporters have no reservations about the sources they use to go after Thompson, so I really don’t care.
I agree! The fact that Fred will be on Meet The Press tomorrow with Tim Russert is interesting, and I sure will be watching at 10:00AM Eastern! Go Fred!
I’ve never donated to any candidates before either, but I believe in Fred and have donated six times. I intend to keep it up. I hope others do too. The next quarter’s fundraising numbers could be good.
Still posting that “Monopoly Money” intrade stuff, I see.
You talk about putting money up, yet intrade is .01 per tick, .10 per point.
Yeah, that’s real money...not!
For a candidate who would spend 50 mil to get to 3rd and 4th in a primary race, I do not doubt that he would spend $100.00 to “game” intrades’ Romper Room to make it appear he is all that.
“I think Mitt would just like to have all his misspent money back, so he can hire new illegal lawnmowers and buy a new dog...”
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Too hot dang funny!!
BUMP
You left the words FOR NOW off the end of your post...
The fact that you admit to ‘hatred’ should clue you in to the fact that emotion not reason is driving your attitude.
First, you are blind if you havent seen anti-mormon attitudes drive much of the Mitt-bashing on FR. Second, there is a holier-than-thou attitude from some quarters that jumps to conclusions because he’s been a blue state governor. Some freepers have admitted as much, or talk of not trusting northeastern politicians. Thrid, the rebuttal to the Mitt-bashing items has been made, again and again, in response to the ad nauseum reposting of the same half-truth claims.
Never mind that Romney was a more conservative Governor than Huckabee, we are supposed to trust Huckster more because he’s got a southern accent and goes to the ‘right’ church, for some. And another clue for you - every single person running for President is a ‘political opportunist’ - they want the job. And if they *dont* want the job, get them out of the race now, cause they will be roadkill for Hillary’s machine. The difference is Romney had a whole successful career in the private sector, and has accomplishments to rest on well beyond politics.
My position is simple, logical, reasonable and consistent:
- Romney may not be as conservative as I am or as you are, but thus far he’s running the best campaign of the 8 remaining contenders; he is running on the Reaganesque themes of smaller Government, family values and a strong military, a platform that can unify the party and win over the country;
- his Massachusetts record is one of a moderately conservative governance on fiscal and social issues, who can beat the Democrats at their own game;
- who’s foresquare against gay marriage and who is right on key issues like free enterprise, immigration, and defeating the Jihadists;
- he is running pro-life, pledged to limit spending, has an immigration plan about as close to Hunter’s as we can get in an electable candidate.
Meanwhile, we have a would-have-been promising Thompson candidacy that gets mixed reviews at best. Rudy the ‘frontrunner’ is pro-choice, which is completely unacceptable.
Oh, and Romney beat the tar out of a liberal Democrat woman in 2002. If he could do it then, it can do it in 2008.
Perfect? Nope. No candidate is. But if Thompson continues to under-perform as a candidate, Romney is our best option to defeat Rudy and to have a unifying standard-bearer.
papasmurf, that Intrade market is based on real money. And a lot more than $100 for sure.
“You talk about putting money up, yet intrade is .01 per tick, .10 per point.”
LOL. Are you one of those type of people who thinks a company is worth less money if the list stock price is less than another company. Did you not look at *volume* of trades? Or # of outstanding contracts?
Plutarch, it concerns me that FredHeads don’t seem to understand markets very well. Thankfully, the candidate himself is more clued in about markets.
Many conservatives simply aren't that impressed with Fred Thompson. I realize that the hard-core Fred Thompson supporters can't understand someone not being impressed with their guy. One person even suggested that Fred Thompson was like George Washington. That would have been the funniest thing I've heard in a long time if I weren't so frightened by the fact that the person was serious.
We don't have any really good candidates in this race. That's the sad reality of our situation. I think most of them are basically good men, but they are not great candidates. Fred Thompson's weaknesses are a complete lack of executive experience and relative lack of experience in any political office. He's an insider because of his work for Howard Baker and as a lobbyist, but he's not even that experienced a legislator. He's taken some stands on the issues that have not been very good. He says now that he regrets campaign finance reform, but that change of heart shows that he doesn't have much foresight. We need someone who will see mistakes and avoid them instead of make them and regret them later.
Even my favorite candidate, Duncan Hunter, has some significant weaknesses. Besides the fact that he's doing horrible in the polls, he doesn't have executive experience either. As a House member, he's never represented a geographical area as diverse as an entire state. He knows the issues very well, but he's not a dynamic speaker. His website isn't being maintained well, and the lack of upkeep leaves me with the impression that he's just going through the motions now.
Given that we have a field of flawed candidates, I could see myself voting for Mitt Romney. I think he has the potential to be a better president than anyone else in the current field. If I look at the delegate count before my state votes and see Fred Thompson with a better chance to beat Rudy Giuliani, I may vote for him. Regardless of which candidate I pick, this primary vote isn't going to make me all that happy.
Bill
Romney in 1994 courted some groups by advocating tolerance and non-prejudice towards gays. If you want a gay-basher, he’s not your man. But he’s not for ‘special rights’ for gays in the form of special legislation, and that includes opposition to Kennedy’s ENDA bill and opposing the Democrat push to have gays serve openly in the military. Moreover, he is clearly pro-traditional family and has spoken out repeatedly and forcefully against gay marriage since 2003 when the issue came up in Massachusetts:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
Lopez: As you know, in recent days the Boston Globe and the New York Times, as well as the Boston newspaper, Bay Windows, have run pieces about your 1994 race against Ted Kennedy and your run for governor that appear to be in conflict with your current position against gay marriage. Are they?
ROMNEY:
“These old interviews and stories have frequently been circulated by my opponents ever since I took a stand against the Massachusetts supreme-court ruling on same-sex marriage. This being the political season, it is not surprising this old news has appeared again. But I have made clear since 2003, when the supreme court of Massachusetts redefined marriage by fiat, that my unwavering advocacy for traditional marriage stands side by side with a tolerance and respect for all Americans.
Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.
I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.
...
[on support for the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)]
“I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.”
My point isn’t that it’s worthless, it’s that it takes so little to manipulate it.
In fact, there have been many instances of manipulation at Intrade, most involving Bush and Clinton. My personal opinion is that Romney’s position is being manipulated, as well.
Why do mittbots always feel the need to personally attack?
What do you mean, buy a new dog?
Did something happen to his dog?
LOL! Doesn't look shabby to me. He seems to be running pretty close to the frontrunner. I wouldn't say the honeymoon is over; he still has plenty of states to visit.
Heck, I bit the bullet last week and signed up for the monthly thing. I even got a letter auto signed by Fred thanking me. That was kinda cool!
Sorry, honey, I saw Mitt up close in MA. He tried to out liberal Teddy the Swimmer when he ran for the Senate, and wasn't much more conservative when he ran for the corner office. I voted for him for Governor, because the alternative was a radical liberal. Since I have REAL choices this time, I won't waste a vote on Mitt.
Thanks for saying it like it is, well and clearly.
The only thing I would add is this: Like you say, none of the candidates are bad men. Several are quite good leaders, and could make decent Presidents. It’s just that they all have flaws when viewed from the perspective of ‘conservative standard-bearer’. They are either too marginal/fringe to win or too RINO-ish to pass the purity test; or both. We keep waiting for Reagan to ride over the hill on a horse. But he never does. And what if he did show up, and like Hunter, ended up at 3% in the polls?
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.