Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rally for Romney: Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
National Review Online ^ | January 31, 2008 | Mark R. Levin

Posted on 01/31/2008 10:37:41 AM PST by Delacon

I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.

I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.

Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.

I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?

 

As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.

 

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

 

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

 

But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

 

Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).

McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2008; elections; hillarylite; marklevin; mccain; primaries; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-526 next last
To: americanophile

Romney’s record is there for anyone willing to look.

I guarantee you if he was running with a (D) after his name you would see his past clearly and fight like hell to keep him out of office.


51 posted on 01/31/2008 11:01:22 AM PST by DoughtyOne (PARTY WANTED: Full Time, Cons exp a must. Refs 20 yrs. No Amnesty sptrs. 1 vote per 4 yrs negotiable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: redgirlinabluestate

Thanks Mark for the wake up call. I’m making a donation to Mitt Romney right now. He wasn’t my first choice, but it looks like he will be my last. I can’t bring myself to back McCain.
There is too much water under the bridge for the conservative wing of the party to support him.

Go Mitt!!!!!!


52 posted on 01/31/2008 11:01:25 AM PST by Millie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Please pray for future President McCain--day minus 335 and counting! Vote Mitt=Get Billary!)

Better pray for our Country, if the best we can do is McCain.

On that note FreeRepublic has officially became irrelevant. We can now stand by and watch the MSM frenzy along with the collusion of the GOP leadership, as our country slowly ceases to exist, as a free Republic.

53 posted on 01/31/2008 11:01:36 AM PST by itsahoot (Gingrich: "We don't have a peace process. We have a surrender process." (Duncan Hunter gets it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

We all MUST Send Romney $$$$$ asap!


54 posted on 01/31/2008 11:01:47 AM PST by JFC (I am now a MITTEN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gunservative

Well, it’s going to be a long process, and when Hillary Clinton appoints 2 leftist, pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, you can expect to wait 25 years to undue it.


55 posted on 01/31/2008 11:02:13 AM PST by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: piytar
People seem to be forgetting that Romney was gov of Massacommunists!

Funny, that same "excuse" doesn't work for Huckabee, does it? MA had Republican governors back into the 1990s, and yet they did NOTHING to advance conservatism in that state. Indeed, Mitt did such a "good" job that there were 30,000 fewer registered Republicans in the state when he left office--and coincidentally, 30,000 more democrats.

If you want that same performance on a national level, support Flip.
56 posted on 01/31/2008 11:02:16 AM PST by Antoninus ("Make all the promises you have to." --Flip Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Yes!....A vote for Mitt is the only thing we have friends!


57 posted on 01/31/2008 11:02:41 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Neither one of those pathetic liberals was ever getting my vote.

I always respect your opinion, even if I don't always agree with it.

Who do you intend to vote for in November, if you do so at all? I'm trying to determine if there is a movement here towards a candidate, as it seems most FReepers are posting in opposition towards those already in the race.

58 posted on 01/31/2008 11:03:38 AM PST by TonyInOhio (Looks like I need to brush up on my Spanish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; DoughtyOne; JRochelle; Petronski; Cicero
Glad to see I'm not alone. Very disheartening times. I had just come to terms with the fact that Nat'l Review now stands for nothing after they suddenly began painting Romney as a conservative. I can sort of write them off as "the establishment," but when the grassroots-oriented talkies begin down this disingenuous, Orwellian route where Romney is a suddenly conservative... absolutely speechless. As Antoninus said, if we're down to Romney it's way too late. Pinning the hopes of conservatism on a liberal like Romney? That's a nonsensical option.

The discussion within the movement ought to be about post-2008 politics and where we ought to go. Because no matter which party wins the Presidency, conservatism has lost a major battle. And sadly, many intellectual and grassroots leaders are damaging themselves with this odd shilling for Romney.

59 posted on 01/31/2008 11:03:55 AM PST by manapua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nj patriot
In the real world in which we live, we rarely get everything we want. Romney, not my first choice, seems to be the leader I can rally behind. I will do so rather than go home crying.

Romney is every bit as bad as Christie Whittman. And we're still crying over her here in NJ, aren't we? Especially now that her brand of Republicanism rules the shell of the Republican party she left behind.

If you want that kind of experience on a national level, support Mitt.
60 posted on 01/31/2008 11:04:10 AM PST by Antoninus ("Make all the promises you have to." --Flip Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VegasBaby

“If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.”

Worth repeating.


61 posted on 01/31/2008 11:04:18 AM PST by teddyballgame (red man in a blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Millie

I just sent Mitt some money. McCain must be stopped NOW!


62 posted on 01/31/2008 11:05:25 AM PST by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mogollon
One of the FR threads today mentioned that James Dobson has given a "stealth" endorsement of Romney.

Do you remember which thread?

63 posted on 01/31/2008 11:05:41 AM PST by jan in Colorado ("It's easier to believe a lie one hears 1,000 times than to believe a fact that one has never heard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Sorry, that article is cr@p. Here’s just one example:

“1. Is your extreme negative position on McCain based predominantly on worries about your ability to continue to make a (very) comfortable living in a McCain administration?”

Apparently this author thinks gutting the First Amendment further would be no big deal, so he re-casts concern for that issue as simple - gasp - desire to make a profit. You know, CAPITALISM. How EEVVIIILLLLLL! /sarc

Typical left-wing dripe...


64 posted on 01/31/2008 11:05:45 AM PST by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Yet it’s McCain that actually discussed running with John Kerry on the Democratic ticket. Is everyone here crazy? Can you not see that the next president may appoint 2 Supreme Court justices...this will change the make-up of the Court for years to come. This will singlehandly put the conservative movement back 25 years. Wouldn’t you rather trust Mitt Rommey, who espouses conservative beliefs and will owe his presidency to conservatives over Hillary Clinton - a woman with unrestrained anitpathy for conservatism and little regard for the Constitution??


65 posted on 01/31/2008 11:06:03 AM PST by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

This needs to be repeated.

66 posted on 01/31/2008 11:06:25 AM PST by Azzurri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

of course not! they have to be green with envy at his success,money,great wife and kids with never any problems, no dirt except for what others jealous try to create about him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


67 posted on 01/31/2008 11:06:47 AM PST by libbylu (Mitten I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR MCCAIN OR HUCK..THEY CALLED ME RACIST/BIGOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

If Conservative Talk radio hosts lit a fire under regional “Rallies For Mitt” like many did for “Support the troops rallies” we could turn this around.


68 posted on 01/31/2008 11:07:08 AM PST by 1Old Pro (Mitt Romney For President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: manapua
The discussion within the movement ought to be about post-2008 politics and where we ought to go. Because no matter which party wins the Presidency, conservatism has lost a major battle. And sadly, many intellectual and grassroots leaders are damaging themselves with this odd shilling for Romney.

Exactly. In my opinion, many of them are going to go down with Flipper. The worst thing that could happen to them is for him to win. Mitt Romney is a liberal con-artist and will govern as such. No conservative should willingly help put such a politician in office.
69 posted on 01/31/2008 11:07:29 AM PST by Antoninus ("Make all the promises you have to." --Flip Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: manapua

You watch how many folks backtrack once McCain has been slaughtered at the polls. “Well, I never liked him, I just wanted to keep Hillary out. I knew all along what a vile man he was as it relates to conservatims.”

Backbone is standing on principle before the fact.


70 posted on 01/31/2008 11:07:36 AM PST by DoughtyOne (PARTY WANTED: Full Time, Cons exp a must. Refs 20 yrs. No Amnesty sptrs. 1 vote per 4 yrs negotiable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Hattie

i am in florida, sent mine in tuesday night. cannot believe it, except for the really really really nasty campaigning against romney, makes his comparison ads look really good.


71 posted on 01/31/2008 11:07:54 AM PST by libbylu (Mitten I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR MCCAIN OR HUCK..THEY CALLED ME RACIST/BIGOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: teddyballgame

The same people screaming vote for Mitt to stop McCain will be screaming vote for McCain to stop Hillary...

I stopped voting for the lesser of two evils this year. Our evil gets more evil every election. And that’s because we vote for them. I won’t do it again....


72 posted on 01/31/2008 11:08:10 AM PST by Robbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Minn. 4 Bush

I donated last night. After that cheap trick McCain pulled in Florida and would not admit he was wrong during the debate made me like him less. I saw how McCain reacted when he lost primaries back in 2000, have not cared much for the guy since then.


73 posted on 01/31/2008 11:08:37 AM PST by psjones (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

“There won’t be much rallying for Romney because many of see him as little, if any, better than McCain.”

Bears repeating. Romney is a crap shoot at best. A moving target of expediency.


74 posted on 01/31/2008 11:08:48 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

Thanks for the kind words. Barring some kind of major cataclysmic event (that I cannot foresee), I will be a presidential undervote.


75 posted on 01/31/2008 11:09:00 AM PST by Petronski (People get the kind of government they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Romney is a liberal.

What kind of sell-out "conservative" would rally for a phony used car salesman liberal like Mitt, whose single term as govenor brought gay marriage and socialized health care?

76 posted on 01/31/2008 11:09:52 AM PST by JohnnyZ ("Make all the promises you have to" -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Brilliant. Thanks for putting my unspoken sentiment to words.

I agree with your post completely.


77 posted on 01/31/2008 11:10:27 AM PST by Petronski (People get the kind of government they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Compelling piece and a harsh slap of reality. McCain is using liberal blue collar mantra to attack Romney’s wealth and ties to business. Romney, at least, shows some sense of class and restraint against this little tyrant of a man. Romney is all that’s left to vote for and walk away with at least some sense of dignity intact. McCain might as well be Hillary, but he can’t beat her in the general election. At least Romney has a shot at winning the Presidency. McCain has nothing, except the Mexican patron elite and his can of strawberries.


78 posted on 01/31/2008 11:12:43 AM PST by TADSLOS (Islam is a fascist ideology practiced through a cult and packaged as a religion of peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Apparently this author thinks gutting the First Amendment further would be no big deal, so he re-casts concern for that issue as simple - gasp - desire to make a profit. You know, CAPITALISM. How EEVVIIILLLLLL

Somehow, I think you're misreading that sentence.

Here's the question: Is it right for someone to take a position at odds with their principles just to defend their livelihood? And worse, leave this reason generally unspoken? These are exactly the kinds of tactics used by lobbyists.
79 posted on 01/31/2008 11:13:17 AM PST by Antoninus ("Make all the promises you have to." --Flip Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

McCain 08’ = Ford 76’ = Dole 96’ = Loser


80 posted on 01/31/2008 11:13:29 AM PST by lormand (Paulrhoids(TM) - The Hemorrhoids of American Politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
These guys got to know him and they like him. They trust him and they've endorsed him. Who should I believe? These guys who have the country's best interest at heart or Mitt's opponents who are selfishly fighting for their own political advantage? Hmmmm.
81 posted on 01/31/2008 11:13:56 AM PST by redgirlinabluestate (Unite 4 Mitt --- Stop McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
Didn’t he sign an “assault weapons” ban?

Romney's gun bill didn't ban any new weapons. The guns that were banned would have remained banned if Romney had signed the bill or not. Romney's bill was actually SUPPORTED by the NRA because it actually relaxed some of the existing restrictions.

It really was a damned if you do and damned if you don't bill. If Romney had vetoed it the same people that are complaining about him signing it would be complaining that he vetoed it.

82 posted on 01/31/2008 11:15:52 AM PST by Domandred (McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

Any many of you are wrong.


83 posted on 01/31/2008 11:16:46 AM PST by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
Get informed. Here you go: http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#guns

Remember, your choices are Mitt (NRA "B"), McCain (NRA "C+"), Obama (NRA "F") and Hillary (NRA "F").

84 posted on 01/31/2008 11:17:26 AM PST by redgirlinabluestate (Unite 4 Mitt --- Stop McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
Yet it’s McCain that actually discussed running with John Kerry on the Democratic ticket. Is everyone here crazy? Can you not see that the next president may appoint 2 Supreme Court justices...this will change the make-up of the Court for years to come. This will singlehandly put the conservative movement back 25 years. Wouldn’t you rather trust Mitt Rommey, who espouses conservative beliefs and will owe his presidency to conservatives over Hillary Clinton - a woman with unrestrained anitpathy for conservatism and little regard for the Constitution??

I remain unconvinced that if we could endure eight years of Bill Clinton (with his wife running the show), that we cannot survive four years of Hillary.  The alternative is to continue to install folks who will implement 50% or more of her agenda for her.  Isn't that clear to you?

Romney: State run healthcare - done
Romney: State funded abortions under the plan - done
Romney: Liberal court appointments - done
Romney: Reasoned gun control - done
Romney: Support for homosexual marriage - done
Romney: Change the marriage license form from 'Husband and Wife' to "Party 1 and Party 2" - done

Do I need to go on?

Put a (D) after this guy's name and you'd fight tooth and nail to prevent him from every residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I'm not supporting this man.  Disagreeing with us and changing with regard to one or two positions, I might be able to overlook it.  This guy qualifies to be a card carrying democrat.

He'll never get my vote.

85 posted on 01/31/2008 11:18:43 AM PST by DoughtyOne (PARTY WANTED: Full Time, Cons exp a must. Refs 20 yrs. No Amnesty sptrs. 1 vote per 4 yrs negotiable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

LOL!


86 posted on 01/31/2008 11:19:02 AM PST by redgirlinabluestate (Unite 4 Mitt --- Stop McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

But can you clearly blame Romney for the increase in democratic regsitration in MA? Lots of people around the country were pissed off because of the way the Iraq war was going, and I think that has contributed to republicans losing some support.


87 posted on 01/31/2008 11:19:13 AM PST by psjones (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter

There isn't much time. It would have been nice if the four of them could hold rallies together of separately for Romney, but it's not going to happen. BUT ...

The four of them could sponsor a debate where they ask the questions. The debate could be on Sunday afternoon in the hours before the Super Bowl when most of us are just waiting for all the pre-game shows to mercifully end. They could invite Romney and McCaine. I guess McCaine would decline so maybe Rush could pretend to be McCaine and give his answers as best as he could. As for TV, if FoxNews would cover it Rush could always stream the thing.

The hour is late.

ML/NJ

88 posted on 01/31/2008 11:19:35 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

I sure as heck don’t know who to vote for. I flip’d a quarter, Heads-mac tails-Rom...tails won, so recon that’s who I’ll vote for...some choice,eh.


89 posted on 01/31/2008 11:20:01 AM PST by JamesA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libbylu
“of course not! they have to be green with envy at his success,money,great wife and kids with never any problems, no dirt except for what others jealous try to create about him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

I’ve found it outrageous that these guys and their mouth pieces keep bringing up his money. You’d expect this from the dems but Republican’s playing the “class warfare game” is telling. I believe Charles Krauthammer said they hate him because he’s smart, rich and good looking - petty little men.

90 posted on 01/31/2008 11:20:11 AM PST by Minn. 4 Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You mean a history like when he vetoed in-state tuition for illegals, pushed for a marriage amendment in Massachusetts, opposed drivers licenses and benefits to illegals? Cut taxes and balanced the budget? That history?

Or just that he used to be pro-choice, just as Reagan and both Bushes were?


91 posted on 01/31/2008 11:20:25 AM PST by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: redgirlinabluestate
Mark is right. If you don't vote for Mitt, it is effectively a vote for McCain's nomination. You can spin it and deny it anyway you like. But those are the facts.

This is not some game. This is the future of our country we are talking about. The choosing of those next SCOTUS judges being key.

That is exactly the major issue here. And remember, a vote for McCain (including all votes for Huckabee) is a vote for Obama/Clinton, and thus, as you note, 30+ years of a leftward leaning Supreme Court.

92 posted on 01/31/2008 11:20:29 AM PST by Tirian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JFC

Yes, we must.


93 posted on 01/31/2008 11:20:37 AM PST by redgirlinabluestate (Unite 4 Mitt --- Stop McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I remain unconvinced that if we could endure eight years of Bill Clinton (with his wife running the show), that we cannot survive four years of Hillary.

Hillary plus even two years of a Democrat Congress means that millions of illegals will definitely vote and you'll NEVER get a chance to get rid of them.

Some kinds of damage are irreversible.

How's that?

94 posted on 01/31/2008 11:20:54 AM PST by Carry_Okie (We have people in power who love evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

 

 

95 posted on 01/31/2008 11:21:06 AM PST by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

“Is everyone here crazy? Can you not see that the next president may appoint 2 Supreme Court justices...this will change the make-up of the Court for years to come.”

Some are so blinded by their hatred of Mormons that they can’t see anything. It’s no accident that many of the people who immediately hopped on this thread to call Romney names are the same people who show up on anti-Mormon threads making vicious comments.

Mark Levin is right.

Romney is a decent man who has lived an exemplary life. He is no sleaze. I didn’t support him at first because of some of his past positions, but I do now. He has come around. Yet, some here persist in trying to demonize him.


96 posted on 01/31/2008 11:21:55 AM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I am already not planning to renew my NR subscription, and I have had it for many years. In terms of true conservatism, it is becoming a pointless magazine. The Romney cheerleading and endorsement are two cases in point. I can read Mark Steyn online, and if I feel the need to check out NR, I will do it at the library for free.


97 posted on 01/31/2008 11:22:11 AM PST by Cecily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: libbylu

You forgot to mention Romney’s good looks, all the way around. Slim, full head of hair and looks a lot younger than his reported 60. I told my husband I hope he looks that good at 60 :-),


98 posted on 01/31/2008 11:22:20 AM PST by psjones (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
That's not all.

This article speaks volumes about Romney's conservatism:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/09/romney_says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/

He reversed his stand and in the process obligated Catholic hospitals to provide abortificants.

What a guy. What a conservative.

99 posted on 01/31/2008 11:22:38 AM PST by manapua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

You don’t read too well do you. Go back and look at what I posted. If you don’t see any mention of his actions regarding homosexual marriage, get back to me.


100 posted on 01/31/2008 11:24:13 AM PST by DoughtyOne (PARTY WANTED: Full Time, Cons exp a must. Refs 20 yrs. No Amnesty sptrs. 1 vote per 4 yrs negotiable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-526 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson