Skip to comments.More Mitt Malarkey
Posted on 12/29/2007 9:10:23 PM PST by freespirited
click here to read article
.... or pandering. McCain's and Romney's Pander factors are out of the park.
No man, we can’t go for Keyes, he supported paying Slavery reparations when he was running for the senate. I can never forgive him for that...
I agree - I do not trust anyone who is willing to work with Ted Kennedy on anything.
And .. let us never forget that McCain considered being John [I was in Vietnam] Kerry’s running mate. What does that say about McCain’s character ..? To think that McCain would take sides with such a traitor to our military, is mind boggling..
McCain is a snake in the grass .. and when he was campaigning in 2000 - HIS WIFE WAS WEARING A “HILLARY” PIN. What does that say about McCain’s relationships with democrats.
At this point, I like Fred the best but am not sure he’ll still be around by the time my state primary rolls around (mid Feb).
Of the top five, I like Huck the least.
I agree on Huckabee. I started out anyone but Giuliani, but I think Huckabee is an even worse choice now.
I think this is a project of the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Something to do with the Journalism School.
Has been around for a couple election cycles. Claims to be nonpartisan and totally objective. I would not give it that much. It does tilt left but not nearly as much as the MSM and not all of the time. It will sometimes slam RATS.
Are you on LSD?
LOL. I'm strictly numbers-driven. The head-to-head test match-ups speak for themselves. I have seen state poll after state poll where GOP candidates are in the 40 percent range against Hillary or other RAT candidate but Mitt is only in the high 30s. He is the lowest vote getter in these tests.
I have great regard for his business acumen but facts are facts.
Actualy I like Duncan Hunter the best but was only picking from those considered viable. I’m not able to kid myself into believing he has a snowball’s chance. But if we could just hold the WH he could be Sec Def.
Can we find a pix of this?
And polls are far from "facts".
Mitt's an untrustworthy weasel, that's for sure, but no way does America elect Hillary Clinton as President and Commander-in-Chief. The mindless chattering class in this country is capable of electing some real garbage, but electing Hillary as President is simply beyond the pale and not a realistic possibility.
You might check with backhoe - he keeps quite an archive.
The picture I remember was of McCain and his wife on a stage at a rally - and I think it was during McCain’s “shadow convention” - because he was acting like a spoil sport because he didn’t win the nomination.
I can’t help but wonder if McCain will act the same way this time when he loses.
He still supports the assault weapons ban. That’s a deal-breaker for me.
The following links posted by raving utter and lifted by me
More links I found...
Yes, he supports it, and if it passes his desk, he’ll probably sign it, just like Bush would. That nothing has come to Bush in the 7 years he’s said he’d sign it suggests it won’t happen.
Still, Romney understands the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to have them with you for protection. Fred Thompson has said he supports allowing states to prohibit people from carrying their weapons for protection on public college campuses.
This is important in my state, where a gunman killed 32 people because nobody was allowed to have a weapon to stop him. Our state prohibits it’s citizens from having their weapons to defend themselves, and Fred Thompson said in response to a question that he supported allowing states to ban weapons from campuses.
So which is worse, not being able to buy a few guns that, if you wanted, you could purchase right now (the AWB didn’t require you to turn in weapons, it just kept you from buying in the future), or not being able to carry your weapon for protection?
Every candidate is a compromise, except maybe Hunter on this issue.
Meanwhile, Fred Thompson is a speech-grabber, having banned EVERY citizen from their free speech rights under the 1st amendment. Taking away the right to purchase a couple of more guns from the few people who would want to do so is bad, but not nearly as bad as taking away the 1st amendment rights to speech from EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN, at precisely the time (right before an election) that it is most important.
Under the McKennedy Amnesty plan, the invaders would only have to pay $2000 for U.S. citizenship. Less than the average cost that they pay a coyote to smuggle them over the border.
Then you are in luck since it looks like it won’t happen...
Romney maybe derailing himself in a most interesting way...
Yes indeed. That is Romney's Achilles heel. His ROI is way skewed and the GOP money boys see that.
That is something "self funding" can't help, and indeed makes it much worse.
One great thing about tonight is that you can see Mc Kennedy slithering out of sight for the winter. He tried to FLIP on AMNESTY but the people of Iowa were not fooled and he is gone except in Democrap states where he will find solice.
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.