Posted on 02/05/2008 8:42:27 AM PST by grassboots
Huckabee might not leave America in a
worse position than the rest.
Fred was lock step with McCain on McCain-Feingold.
Was it the in state tuition for illegals or the $1 he required for the Mexican consulate that got you?
I think you took my post wrong. I read yours and merely repeated what you said because I agreed with it.
The liberal part was directed to the huckster.
I am sorry!
Will you also vote Michael Vick into the NFL Hall Of Fame?
I could support and vote for Huck if I thought he had a chance. However, at this point I believe a vote for Huck is a vote for McCain. Thus, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney if he’s still around by the time of my state’s primary.
No problem!
Anyone that votes for Muckabee has never lived in Arkansas. What I would like to know is, what has McCain promised Muckabee to stay in the race to take conservative votes away from Romney.
That’s true. That and his views on tort reform are two strikes against him, generally from conservatives.
Fred has admitted that CFR has not worked out as planned. What he would do with it as President is an open question. The Congress will probably do nothing about it or make it worse if the dems are in control.
His argument on tort reform centers on the federalism issue. On this issue his votes were a mixed bag as summarized by the Club for Growth here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/fred_thompsons_record_on_econo.php
I think Romney is genuine and I KNOW he is the best out there right now. I support him now and I will in the general election as well.
On the other hand, I think Huckleberry is just another jimmah carter and McQueeg is a traitor to conservatives. I could not vote for either of them.
I think Romney is genuine and I KNOW he is the best out there right now. I support him now and I will in the general election as well.
On the other hand, I think Huckleberry is just another jimmah carter and McQueeg is a traitor to conservatives. I could not vote for either of them.
My friend, scream that to the mountaintops, my friend!
my friend,
Scarchin
So would I. Whatever it is, I bet Huck doesn't end up getting it.
I'll only address two points here. First, the question of the Human Life Amendment. Romney has not been strong on this issue, to be sure, but to claim as he does that he openly opposes it is to stretch the truth. Romney has spoken often about returning the decision to the states, and some say that the Human Life Amendment removes any aspect of state control, but it doesn't, just as a state can impose different penalties for harm to others now, they could impose "penalties" for abortion that are not deterrents even if the HLA was passed.
But that's not Romney's argument or position. Romney was, like Fred Thompson, fond of saying that we could get the abortion question back into the democratic process, and that doing so would allow each state to make their own rules. But when asked more recently, he said that in the long term, he thinks that democratic process would include passing the Human Life Amendment.
Here is a statement made recently:
"Gov. Romney supports the Republican Party's platform protecting the sanctity of life," Madden told ABC News. "He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that the life issue can be returned to the Democratic process through the people and their elected representatives. Gov. Romney's support for the Republican Party's pro-life platform and overturning Roe v. Wade are complementary goals and beliefs."So he's not as outspoken about it as Huckabee, but he's not opposed to it, much less "openly" against it.
Worse for the author is his buying, hook line and lousy judicial logic, that Romney imposed, on his own and illegally, Gay Marriage. The court decision clearly imposed gay marriage on Mass, by ruling that the word "man" and "wife" had to be interpreted as "person".
Every person who heard the ruling knew that they had imposed gay marraige, which is why all the pro-marriage folks immediately pushed for an amendment to "fix it" -- why would we waste our time, if there was nothing to fix?
Every article from the time indicates that they imposed gay marriage. Plus, the idea that a court would make a ruling that did nothing, and that all we had to do was ignore it, is so illogical as to fly in the face of reason.
And if that argument was true, there is no way that a governor could possibly impose gay marriage in opposition to the law. A lawsuit would quickly put a stop to it, as happened when the Mayor of San Fransisco tried this. SO the suggestion that Romney had some sort of kingly power to violate the law with impugnity is again absurd.
Given that Romney has always been on record as opposing gay marriage and gay civil unions, it seems absurd that one day, for absolutely no reason at all, Romney decided to break the law and change marriage in Mass to something he opposed. Or that the pro-marriage community would let him get away with it.
I understand why slime groups like MassResistance peddle their fiction, it works for them. I don't understand how a thinking person could buy into their illogic. We all lived through 2004, and we all know the truth. We were there.
The fact that ANY serious person believes this is kind of scary, like "1984"-scary. That people can allow their own prejudices and notions to so interfere with their thinking as to adopt a position completely at odds with the facts is a scary thought indeed.
‘Huck has some nerve saying Romney hasn’t reached political puberty. Huck is still in diapers playing with squirrels in the backyard. His ‘recent’ conversions to conservative ideals are laughable, even more so than Romney’s, because Huck uses his Christianity to tout it all.
Huck is the biggest liar and charlatan in this election.
Amen!
Huckster supporters have the heavy duty blinders on all the time it would seem.
If a vote for him does get him into office it won’t be the office of the president.
The best he can do is get whatever crumbs McCain throws him.
It’s a pretty dam sad way to waste a good vote.
It never ceases to amaze me how proponents of a certain candidate can trot out the “What he would do with it as President is an open question” defense, but never allow it for those they oppose.
Fred also voted against repealing Affirmative Action.
He voted for Minimum Wage increases, property rights infringements for environmentalist positions, against discretionary budget limitations, approved billions in spending over budget, and on and on.
Oh yeah, he also voted for the Surgeon General who said this: “The only way we’re going to change approaches to sexual behavior and sexual activity is through school. In school, not only at the doctor’s office.”
Sure sounds like a Reaganite.
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.