Posted on 02/05/2008 2:01:07 PM PST by bw17
I feel so sorry for you. The everybody does it thing is so foolish.
What a load of garbage. There's an old saying, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
And I don't need your sympathy in any way at all.
Enjoy the returns tonight.
A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain.
***Here’s the counter argument:
Top Internet Evangelist says Romney Vote is a Vote for Satan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1965566/posts
The whole game plan was to stop Mitt.
McCain and Huck are on in the same.
SLIMEBALLS
You can take that up with Jim Robinson if you like. I don’t think he will listen to you though. You might be better off just leaving Freerepublic you don’t like certain people here.
Notice also how the obvious completely eludes the conspiricist:
1. McCain wants to win.
2. Huckabee wants to win.
3. Transferring delegates from McCain to Huckabee increases the chances of either winning.
No horns and pitchforks necessary for that one, and the simplified equation doesn’t even need to count Romney.
Here’s another simple one:
A. Some columnists and political commentators want to increase their audiences.
B. Some columnists and political commentators have a personal interest in Romney or a (justified) vendetta against McCain.
C. Promoting conspiracies over the obvious satisfies both 1 & 2.
Because McCain knows the delegates will be returned when Huck drops out.
Huck and McLame will INSURE a Hillary victory in November.
It’s not the fault of conservatives, the blame rests squarely on these two.
It was an evil underhanded low down dirty trick and robbed Romney supporters of their votes. Only low down dirty tricksters would pull a stunt like that. I want to hear from the Romney supporters who got robbed yesterday by the political thieves Huckabee and McCain. Now we know for sure they are both liars and unsavory characters.
Mitt Romney, as always, stands tall and takes it on the chin. Go, Mitt!
I don't like McCain either. It is possible that Huck's people didn't know what McCain's people were doing in WVa, but they certainly know it now, and they are denying it happened (which makes them liars).
Up until the WVa thing, and McCain's subsequent comments, I was planning to vote for him in the general should he take the nomination. Now, I'm not so sure.
However, my goal is supporting conservatives and attacking liberals
Then you can't be supporting McCain.
If you are being honest, you'll agree that some supporters of every candidate have said that.
McCain's voters switched to support their second choice, Huckabee, and defeat Romney, who they disliked. That's how the West Virginia process was set up.
Then you can't be supporting McCain.
Duh.
According to some of the delegates that I heard interviewed on the radio, they were pressured to switch by McCain's people.
And almost all of them did, except for a dozen who voted McCain.
It makes perfect sense to me -- most McCain voters are/were pretty disgusted with Romney and all the McCain voters wanted to see McCain win and Romney lose.
[from a prior post]
When we get delegates, we’re not getting mere voting tokens, we’re getting people who will make strategic decisions to get the state’s preferred candidate elected. You should expect your delegates to make those sort of decisions. Until a law or resolution is passed that declares otherwise, there is nothing unethical about delegates giving away votes if the intention is to the advantage of the original recipient’s campaign. In fact, it is definitely unethical for delegates to not act in the interest of the candidate for which they were selected. It is that simple.
[There’s a game called] Risk? [Like other multiplayer games,] When there are three or more players, you have to balance the strength of your opponents against each other, frequently sacrificing immediate progress, so that no opponent gets strong enough to defeat you. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the game we are dealt, and I’ll say it again in another way: Only a novice would play a three-way game of Risk as if it were only a two-player game.
I’m not defending anything else they may have done, but this news is not even an issue. [...]
Suppose one of your colleagues, “John”, couldn’t quite get a promotion, but decided to put in a good word for you only because he felt that if the other guy, “Mitt”, got the promotion, John’s future prospects of getting promoted would diminish. Of course, YOU believe you’re the most qualified anyway; so, what are you going to do? Would it be unethical for you to accept the promotion under those circumstances?
On other topics:
Huckabee IS telling the truth:
Romney: “...there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3003765
I suppose if Huckabee would prefer to see Romney elected, he could do Romney’s job of explaining that Romney was only trying to walk the verbal fence on ABC, but I doubt even that would satisfy the Romniacs.
I’m not impressed with Romney’s private sector experience either.
In fact, Romney’s not even impressed with it:
“If Bain Capital was going to invest in the auto industry, what segment would it invest in, and how would that help Michigan?” Salon’s Mike Madden actually got that in, but it elicited a non-answer: “I’ve been out of the private sector too long to advise people on that kind of thing.” In other words, his experience in the private sector is relevant, until he’s called upon to use it.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/one_lie_too_many.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1811514/posts
In fact, Romney’s private sector ties are precisely why Duncan Hunter doesn’t like him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bX2hkmE5zA
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/hunter_romney_china_bain/2007/12/01/53651.html
Speaking of Romney’s Bain Capital, they own Clear Channel. I hope that hasn’t influenced Rush and Sean any.
And if you’re worried about liars, then Romney appears to be in the club:
Claiming NRA support when he definitely did not have it,
Claiming a life time of hunting, implying lifetime NRA membership (only since August), lifelong support of gun rights (that would enrage any NRA member).
“I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.”
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/12/6645_mitt_romneys_fa.html
Etc.: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
“E—...What happened to you?”
You told me to be on guard because people like Huckabee were sounding two-faced. But I applied that criteria to Romney and found that he has an even has a more liberal legislative record than McCain. It’s true. Only his presidential campaign rhetoric is more conservative than McCain’s. That’s why I’m left with Huckabee.
The more I’m asked to look into Romney’s merits, the more I find he doesn’t really have them.
I’m really starting to believe that the only reason people prefer Romney over Huckabee, and the reason they keep harping on non-issues is that they mostly believe Romney is their best hope of beating McCain.
In the unlikely event that Huckabee wins the nomination by the same number of delegates he received in West Virginia...
I could see McCain keeling over right on the spot.
That would be the highlight of my year (although I don't like Huck either).
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.