Posted on 02/03/2008 5:59:25 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
Republican McCain Thanks Evangelicals for Support
? Spam? Show me where I’m wrong.
That is the DUMBEST statement I have ever read. Romney stabbed Massachusetts Republicans in the back repeatedly. The man lies like Bill Clinton and has flip-flopped on every major issue in the past five years.
Dumb, dumb, dumb...
That is exactly my point. We have two realistic choices right now. McCain or Romney? McCain has been sticking it to us conservatives openly and frequently and has never cared that he has done this. As a matter of fact he is proud of his record. I cannot stand him.
I've been as nice about it as I could, but you either lied or were ignorant when you said that Romney "survived" 20 years in Massachusetts politics, and this malarkey about Romney nearly beating Ted Kennedy is another bit of mendacity. He didn't. Ted Kennedy cleaned his clock, carved his initials, then sold it for scrap. The summer polls just show that people were ready to get rid of Kennedy, but as soon as they got to see his opponent firsthand in the debates they recoiled in horror and came running back to Muddy Teddy. That's not a near-win for Mitt.
I have not revised my "original argument" -- stating the facts is not an "argument". The two cases are actually quite analogous; Carter was leading in the polls until the debates.
You can join the Myth love fest if you desire. I will not vote for the liberal ass.
I don’t think anyone here believes that McCain is strongly pro-life.
But he probably has the best pro-life voting record of any of the candidates still standing.
Near is relative because no one has ever come that close to beating Ted Kennedy. It made Teddy get off his fat butt and work for the victory for the first time in decades.
As far as Romney's lack of experience, you are partially correct. I would count his unsuccessful run against Kennedy as experience and I would count growing up under George Romney's roof as experience. I would also count managing huge corporations as a situation where a person would gather great experience dealing with the Federal government. Couple that with a brilliant IQ. He knows a thing or two about Washington.
Ok. I will. Suit yourself with a McLame, Hussein or Hitlery. All are more liberal than Mitt.
>>>>>The summer polls just show that people were ready to get rid of Kennedy, but as soon as they got to see his opponent firsthand in the debates they recoiled in horror and came running back to Muddy Teddy.
Were you there? I was. And your argument reeks of a sophomoric theory cobbled together from Values Voter propaganda and news clips, not actual experience and observation.
First, “the summer polls” (here you go again). These were not transitory, one-week oddball samples. These were polls throughout the summer and right into October, basically for two MONTHS preceding the Republican primary and for 2 more months after Romney was selected to run. That’s pretty much the entire campaign.
And for most of that entire stretch (I have to say it multiple times I guess) he WAS BEATING - B-E-A-T-I-N-G - Kennedy in the polls.
I’m afraid you are also hysterically wrong about the reason(s) Romney lost. Since I was there and vividly recall the days during and after that debate, I can say with utter certainly that Romney was perceived to be WEAK, not that voters “recoiled in horror”. He didn’t sufficiently stand up to the vile attacks from Fat Boy, he stammered and hesitated at the podium rather than attack back, and that is ultimately why he lost.
You’re simply making up tales from thin air, and I am telling you what actually happened based on the facts and on reality.
This is the only spam I’ve ever actually enjoyed.
>>>>”but you either lied or were ignorant when you said that Romney “survived” 20 years in Massachusetts politics”
Neither. That was an error on my part while making a related point.
You’re all about “Gotcha”!, aren’t you.
No, you're lying, and making a damn ass of yourself. Only in Mittland is the victim of a 17-point landslide pulling off a near-win. Stick to the truth and you won't need to flail like this. Of course, that goes for Mitt too (I'm still shaking my head over his MLK prevarications).
Neither, huh? Sounds to me like you were ignorant.
This is about being correct about facts; you weren't, so quit whining.
Kennedy’s 17 point gain in the last one or two weeks of the campaign doesn’t negate the previous 14 weeks of running behind or neck-to-neck to Romney.
Romney was and remains the only person who has ever seriously challenged Fat Boy for his Senate seat.
I can’t understand why you are so cuckoo about this. Romney gave Kennedy a run for his money an nearly beat him. Then Kennedy pulled it together and won.
Why does this bother you so much? Makes no sense to me.
You may close the discussion, I’m done here.
While he is “thanking” them, he is saying under his breath, “What a bunch of fools, idiots, and suckers.”
Gee.
What was Mitt Romney’s position on abortion in 1999?
McCain at least has a pro-life voting record. Romney could not have been more pro-abortion without having performed them with his bare hands.
Both candidates have had their pro-abortion moments. At least Mitt doesn't lie about it.
________________________________________________________
McCain's voting record on the issue is just fine, says David O'Steen, the (National Right to Life Committee)director.
"He's been very consistent; he hasn't changed his position," O'Steen says. He says that his group has supported McCain in every one of his senate races. "We've always considered him pro-life," he says.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says her group has always considered McCain pro-life as well.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964362/posts
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.