Fred Thompson // Mitt Romney SC/NV Election day! (Vanity)

[JohnnyZ]

In the end, I think we are a lot more alike than we are dissimilar and as such a Romney-Thompson alliance only makes sense.

“Romney’s flipped all over the place,” Thompson began, adding that the country needs a president who is honest and has integrity. “How are people going to know where you will be in the future, when they’ve flipped all over the place.”

Not bloody likely you RINO-lovin commie! :)

[advance_copy]

MSNBC just called Nevada for Mitt Romney!

[Parley Baer]

You need to change your name to Johhny One Note. You give the Mojave Desert a bad name.

[truth_seeker]

“I suppose we can be be happy with the knowledge that wrestling is fake.”

Compare and contrast TV wrestlers and TV preachers.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Not a peep of support at my NV caucus today for anyone but Paul and Thompson.

The process was a disaster.

[afortiori]

I agree, process seems to always dominate in “cauci”.

[CowboyJay]

Romney + Thompson = victory!

If you put Thompson at the top of the ticket, I'm fine with it. Fred is Presidential material, and Mitt could deliver a few votes out west in heavily mormon states.

Mitt at the top of the ticket = deal breaker for me. Give him 4-8 years of watching conservative leadership in action, and he might be a servicable candidate.

As it stands, I honestly don't see anything but skin-deep differences between Mitt and Rudy. Both Socialists. Both statists. Both dead wrong on the 2nd Amendment. Both favor an authoritarian nanny-state over limited government. Both would move the party further to the left rather than leading the country to the right. Neither could even deliver their home state in the general election.

Why would anyone support either one over Fred? Regional sentimentality? Identity politics? I really am curious, because I haven't seen anyone make a believable case for Mitt on conservative grounds.

[newbie2008]

ttt