When a Democrat pulls off an upset in California, it's a "win." If a disfavored Republican does the same, he's "stealing." Just ask George Stephanopoulos, appearing on today's Good Morning America.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS [pointing to map]: This is Barack Obama's targets tomorrow night, this is what I'm going to be watching. If he wins Massachussetts, where he's got the support of Ted Kennedy, he's going to have a good night. If he wins Missouri, right in the middle of the country, he's going to have a great night. If he wins California tomorrow night, it is going to be very hard to deny him the nomination.
View video here.
Robin Roberts was hopeful.
ROBIN ROBERTS: And it's conceivable he could, with the momentum he --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely he could. The 'x' factor is absentee voting. You've been allowed to vote in California since January 7th; Hillary Clinton is expected to have the lead among those early voters.
But when it came, a bit later, to handicapping the GOP field, Steph had a sudden change of lexicon.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now Mitt Romney is doing the political equivalent of that Manning-Tyree pass we saw just a couple of minutes ago. He is flying across the country tonight, going to California, trying to steal the state from John McCain. If he can do that he stays alive; if not, he's done.
Bonus Coverage: High-Fivin' Hillary
That's an exultant Hillary high-fiving a fellow NY Giants fan at a Superbowl party she threw yesterday in Minnesota. Odds Hillary knows the names of three Giants other than Eli Manning?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Hillary Clinton...NY Giants
February 4, 2008 - 11:38 ET by taterHillary Clinton...NY Giants fan since yesterday.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
"Well, you know, I've
February 4, 2008 - 11:56 ET by motherbelt"Well, you know, I've always been a Giants fan......"
(even growing up in Chicago....)
I wonder if she will invite them to her home; you know, like they had the Yankees to the WH when they won the series...
Oh wait! She doesn't have to do that...she's already been elected in NY!
Odds that Hillary knows the
February 4, 2008 - 11:46 ET by HermanoOdds that Hillary knows the names of three common NYers?
poor forgotten
February 4, 2008 - 12:08 ET by TruthMongerpoor forgotten Razorbacks:(...
...it's a team from Arkansas, Hillary...
...Arkansas is one of our 50 states...
...it's by Texas, Lousiana...
...it's called the Ark-la-tex region...
I know this stuff - I'm from Minnesota...
...Minnesota is one of our 50 states - ah, never mind...
Great Catch Mark! Right in the same broadcast!
February 4, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Dee BunkGreat Catch Mark! Right in the same broadcast! Anyone who can't see how outrageous this is has their head buried in the sand.
Oh, that Hillary! Isn't she
February 4, 2008 - 11:54 ET by Chris NormanOh, that Hillary! Isn't she just so down to earth and normal? Why, I bet anyone could have a beer with her and talk sports...
Wow, Mark, how blatant is
February 4, 2008 - 12:15 ET by motherbeltWow, Mark, how blatant is that?
The thing is Steffie doesn't even know he's doing it, it's so ingrained.
With Romney, he's just "staying alive." With Obama it's going to be difficult to deny him the nomination.
(How close is the race between Obama and Clinton? I haven't kept up).
Oh, and George, we know the only reason anyone would deny him the nomination, don't we?
Odds --
February 4, 2008 - 12:01 ET by dervishare about the same as her being able to drive herself home in New York.
grand theft government...gone in 60...decades...?
February 4, 2008 - 12:03 ET by TruthMonger...really looking forward to Mitt "stealing" the nomination from McCain, and then "stealing" the White House from Obama - just like Bush "stole" his elections...
And then hopefully we can "steal" back congress and continue to "steal" the supreme court, etc...etc...
always wanted to be a pirate - almost got all three DVD's memorized now...
If anybody is going to steal
February 4, 2008 - 12:25 ET by NewsbusterbrownIf anybody is going to steal the GOP nomination, it's McCain, since Republican core voters distrust him more than Romney.
hear hear to that...
February 4, 2008 - 12:36 ET by TruthMongerhear hear to that...
Actually not "stealing", but more like "buying"...
February 4, 2008 - 12:25 ET by vrwc13"Will Romney buy the White House?"...
"Mitt Romney might go down in history as the presidential candidate who spent more of his personal income than any other in his pursuit to win the White House."
http://www.worldnetd...
"McCain borrows his way to the White House"
On the other hand, John McCain finished 2007 with $3 million in campaign monies and a $4.5 million debt, according to Federal Election Commission records. We just learned he was so strapped for cash at the end of last quarter that he had to take out a special life insurance policy as a guarantee for payback of his debt. McCain's financial consultant said, "I can't imagine any other campaign doing what he did. We were down to nobody. To nothing."
"The only fiscally wise candidate"
"As I echoed in last week's column, GOP candidate and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee is the only presidential hopeful who is not spending recklessly or rashly."
...so ask yourself...
"Where would Romney be right now if he were running on a financially level playing field with Mike Huckabee? Where would Mike be if he had the same financial empire as Mitt? If Mike beat him in Iowa despite Mitt's 10-1 spending against him, Mike would certainly be winning if he could do the same in other states. If Mike is among the last four GOP candidates standing now (third in delegate count), just think what his placement would be with a surplus of funds to battle on the airways like McCain and Romney are."
v
"Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," Huckabee says in the ad. "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever."
"Where would Romney be?"
February 4, 2008 - 12:35 ET by RJAs virtually every commentator has said, Romney would beat either McCain or Huckabee head to head, regardless of money.
Right now, it's two against one.
I haven't seen one Romney
February 4, 2008 - 12:40 ET by TruthMongerI haven't seen one Romney ad yet - I found out who he, McCain, and Huckabee were years ago and was already sold on Mitt when he declared - but then again we NB folks are actually informed about our civic leaders - actually tho Huck probably benefits from lack of exposure - the less people know about him the better off he probably is:)...
At least Romney is using
February 4, 2008 - 12:38 ET by HermanoAt least Romney is using his money and not mine. And he is doing pretty well on the fund-rasing, too.
Mike Huckabee is the only
February 4, 2008 - 12:40 ET by Jack BauerWell I guess if you think spending money others have given you is better than spending your own, maybe one could conclude that
I enjoy reading your posts, but think you're on the wrong tack here vrwc
I'll put it another way.
If you spend your own money, don't go into debt, and can afford it.. how is that reckless or rash?
I just don't get that argument?
Isn't even Mitt Romney entitled to Life, Liberty and the "pursuit" of happiness.
It's his money. He earned it. He can spend it. Conservatives should have no problem with that, IMHO. Why should anyone tell him he's being reckless?
it's probably more about
February 4, 2008 - 12:42 ET by TruthMongerit's probably more about the anti-Mormon thing, actually - but "spending recklessly" sounds better:)...
...TM, to be honest...
February 4, 2008 - 13:16 ET by vrwc13...it's both....
edit: but more...
"...your hyped-up "arguments" against Romney are, at bottom, based in an emotional dislike of the man and his religion." RJ
...would better be stated as...
My arguments against Romney are based in a dislike of the man, his charactor, his liberal-turned-conservative-for-convienience stance, his support of abortion before he was against it, and his religion.
v
But evil people and impostors will flourish. They will deceive others and will themselves be deceived. 2 Timothy 3:13
well at least you are
February 4, 2008 - 13:53 ET by TruthMongerwell at least you are forthright about the religion angle - Huck shares my religous views more closely as well but don't you think he constantly says the most bizarre things? He's talking conspiracy theory today...
Thanks for being honest.
February 4, 2008 - 18:31 ET by Gary P JacksonThanks for being honest. Now you know how all of us feel about McCain, and to a lessor extent Huckabee. We don't like them!
Of course, I'm sure you never voted for Ronald Reagan either. He was a dimocrat who turned Republican. Reagan signed an abortion bill into law.
But one thing Reagan or Romney haven't done is release over 1000 criminals back into society, causing more crime, and even murder. Reagan never negotiated with terrorists, as Huckabee wants to. Reagan did pardon illegals, as a humane gesture, but did so with the understanding the borders would be closed. Huckabee is an open borders guy, just like McCain.
Sadly, Huckabee has made some sort of deal to stay in the race, even though he has zero chance of winning. This may very well give us a McCain nominee, if the polls are wrong, and Romney doesn't win big tomorrow!
Should Huck do the right thing, and drop out, he will be thought of favorably. But Huck is not an honest or honorable man. He has told lies about Romney, he's telling lies about Sean Hannity.
He's been promised some deal by McCain if he will stay in and double team Romney. All is fair in love and war, and politics too, but anybody voting for Huckabee needs to come to grips with reality, your vote, in fact, is a vote for McCain.
..and Romney allowed abortion and same-sex marriage on his watch
February 4, 2008 - 18:50 ET by vrwc13"Mitt Romney pushed through same-sex marriage all by himself, in the absence of any authority or requirement to do so, having a complete misunderstanding of his role as governor and of the significance of the court's opinion," said Keyes. http://www.worldnetd...
...some conservative.
v
"Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," Huckabee says in the ad. "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever."
Romney "allowed" abortion
February 5, 2008 - 04:00 ET by Gary P JacksonRomney "allowed" abortion on his watch because it's the law. You don't seem to understand that a President, or a Governor has little power in this area.
As for the gay marriage statement, you are nothing more than a liar. Mitt Romney, in fact, asked the Massachusetts Supreme Court to place an amendment on the 2006 ballot BANNING GAY MARRIAGE! http://www.washingto...
Your misguided hatred for the man has tainted your heart, and clouded your mind. You should be ashamed!
Keyes: Romney responsible for same-sex marriage fiasco...
February 5, 2008 - 18:38 ET by vrwc13http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=60022
...read the article...he made it happen!
v
vrwc - Mitt is the only one who can come close to the Dems
February 4, 2008 - 12:40 ET by Dee Bunkin fund raising. Why do you find it more admirable to be bought by other rich people? I think it's great that he's using his own money and he's still also out raising the rest of them.
Where would Romney be without his money? Nowhere because he wouldn't benefit from the Free (more favorable) Press that McCain and Huckabee get. Make no mistake - the favorable press will be over for these two in the General and they will have no money to get their positions out.
Romney is the only choice
"Where would Romney be without his money? Nowhere"...
February 4, 2008 - 12:47 ET by vrwc13...precisely the point. With his money he has been able to re-define himself from gov of a liberal state, supporting abortion, to Ann's "Smittin" girl, suit with lots of money, buying his way to the Whitehouse.
v
"Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe," Huckabee says in the ad. "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever."
Not surprisingly, vrwc, you missed (or ignored) Dee's point
February 4, 2008 - 12:52 ET by RJMcCain and Huckabee both benefit from getting far more....and far more favorable....free media coverage.
Mitt's money just levels the playing field a little.
Good rationalization
February 4, 2008 - 12:57 ET by vrwc13Good rationalization RJ...not buying it.
v
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Of course you're not, vrwc
February 4, 2008 - 13:01 ET by RJLike Huckabee, your hyped-up "arguments" against Romney are, at bottom, based in an emotional dislike of the man and his religion.
Nothing anyone can say, no matter how logical, will change that.
You are almost there RJ...
February 4, 2008 - 13:10 ET by vrwc13You are almost there RJ...
"...your hyped-up "arguments" against Romney are, at bottom, based in an emotional dislike of the man and his religion."
...would better be stated as...
My arguments against Romney are based in a dislike of the man, his charactor, his liberal-turned-conservative-for-convienience stance, his support of abortion before he was against it, and his religion.
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
well at least you admit you are against him because of his
February 4, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Dee Bunkreligion. It's the same reason most liberals are against Bush and will be against Huckabee and Romney also. It's sad that you can be this way seeing how unfair the media is to Christians or any people of true faith. If you want Christianity to flourish you need to be supportive of people being allowed to choose their own faith. Christianity is nothing without free of choice of faith.
Let me ask you this Dee, in
February 4, 2008 - 13:43 ET by vrwc13Let me ask you this Dee, in 4, 8, 12. or so years from now, if a Muslim (if that is not the case right now) or Scientologist, or a avid Atheist were running, would you vote for them?
http://www.mikehucka... ...says:
Faith. Family. Freedom.
...and I believe they are in that order (Faith, the family, then freedom) for a reason, or at least they are for me.
v
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
<crickets>
February 4, 2008 - 14:34 ET by vrwc13As good a place as any to
February 4, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Gary P JacksonAs good a place as any to jump in.
Are you kidding me with this "buying the White House" BS?
EVERYONE RUNNING is trying to buy the White House! The difference is, Romney believes in himself enough to use a lot of his own money. Of course, he has raised a ton of money too.
McCain and Gomer Pyle are having to use other people's money almost exclusively. So who is is gonna be more beholden to special interests?
Romney is trying to buy the White House with HIS money. Huck and McCain are trying to buy the White House with other peoples money.
If anyone is being reckless
February 5, 2008 - 04:37 ET by Conservative VoiceIf anyone is being reckless its the jealous McCain, who is in the hole millions...my guess is Huck isn't that far off either.
Got to love so called conservatives who play the class envy card...and double slam freedom of speech ( political ads is the very thing Free speech is suppose to protect, and that takes money ). Not to mention a slam against private property. So vr, any other parts of the Constituition bill of rights you think Romney shouldn't have...oh ya, Freedom of Religion.
Huckabee Fiscal Conservative with campaign money...
February 5, 2008 - 18:44 ET by vrwc13http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59916
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=60018
...in otherwords, Huckabee is not going into debt...check your facts!
v
free to worship as he pleases, just as I am free to vote as I please...Constitution in action for both of us!
VRWC - Huckabee isn't going into debt because he can't pay it
February 5, 2008 - 18:56 ET by Dee BunkOther candidates know they can raise more and pay it. Huckabee knows he can't win and that is why he isn't taking on debt.
VRWC - Huckabee isn't going into debt because he can't pay it...
February 5, 2008 - 19:07 ET by vrwc13Dee, I am sorry, but look at what you wrote: "VRWC - Huckabee isn't going into debt because he can't pay it... Other candidates know they can raise more and pay it. Huckabee knows he can't win and that is why he isn't taking on debt."
Now tell me in all honesty, how do you know?
You don't.
So why would you say these things?
v
it's obvious vrwc - Huckabee isn't stupid. He knows he's done
February 5, 2008 - 19:12 ET by Dee Bunkit's obvious vrwc - Huckabee isn't stupid. He knows he's done. He's just playing spoiler.
Dee... As much as I
February 5, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Clear thinkerDee...
As much as I dislike Huckabee, from what I'm seeing in the early results, he seems to be doing better than expected.
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
Clear - where are you looking at early results?
February 5, 2008 - 19:27 ET by Dee BunkI want to see them too.
CT...maybe that's why no one took me up on this?
February 5, 2008 - 19:34 ET by vrwc13http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/02/01/scarborough-mccain-cant-win-without-rush-dobson#comment-535259
v
...medium rare please, for mee...
Nah, vrwc, it's just that
February 5, 2008 - 19:42 ET by RJyour idea of "debate" is having others chase links...while you pretend to yourself you actually said something important.
Occasionally yanking your tail is ok, but mostly you're boring, boring, boring. :^)
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "
Huck wins WV
February 5, 2008 - 19:46 ET by botgwith McCain trailing, his backers switched their support to Huckabee to deprive Romney of the win.
with backroom deal from McCain!!!!!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
vrwc - I missed this question from you before - my answer is Yes
February 4, 2008 - 23:55 ET by Dee BunkYes I would vote for a Muslim, Scientologist, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Jew or Mormon. The religion that someone subscribes to doesn't matter to me as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. If someone from any of these religions was pro-life and commited to fighting radical Islam and also believed in free markets, Freedom of (not from) religion and our constitution then I wouldn't have any problem voting for them.
I prefer people who are humbled by a higher power so an Atheist would be my last choice all other things being equal. As long as the Atheist didn't intend on limiting religious freedom then I could still vote for them.
vrwc13
February 4, 2008 - 13:13 ET by shawn228I personally have no problem with Romney spending his own money. It would be a shame if he lost millions from his hard earned personal fortune if he does not get the nomination.
Also I have no problem with George saying Romney might come back and steal it. Obama has momentum on his side and is basically tied with Hillary. According to the polls, Romney is behind by double digits against McCain nationally. He would need a huge comeback so nothing wrong with saying what he did.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Shawn - the race as defined by delegates is much closer
February 4, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Dee BunkShawn - the race as defined by delegates is much closer between McCain and Romney. Delegates are what matters and if you have to use polls, Romney has a bigger lead over McCain in California polls than Obama does over Hillary.
Any non partisan person would see that George has a dog in this race and has no ability to be fair.
Well Dee
February 4, 2008 - 13:36 ET by shawn228I have seen countless articles on NB about how George fawns over Hillary, do you mean his dog is Hillary or Obama?
Hillary and Obama are almost all tied up nationally but Mccain is leading Romney overwhelmingly nationally.Yes CA is too close to call right now but momentum is clearly on Mccains side right now. It would not surprise me in the slightest if Mccain pretty much clinches the nomination tomorrow. I will not lie, I partisan on this one and I hope Romney loses.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Shawn - Obama is George's first choice - Hillary is his second
February 4, 2008 - 13:47 ET by Dee BunkShawn - Obama is George's first choice - Hillary is his second and McCain is his third. It's the same as it is for you. I wouldn't expect you to complain about Stepho when he's advancing your agenda. You should at least entertain the possibility that some day your views may change and such a partisan media isn't good for America.
Dee
February 4, 2008 - 13:58 ET by shawn228I have been saying for months now that I would strongly consider voting for a Republican, if Hilary got the nomination. I believe myself to be fair and I have called Dems on dirty tricks ie the CNN hatchet job on one of the debates.
You can't critisize me for being partisan when you are partisan toward the GOP as well.
The facts are Mccain is heavily favored in winner take all states like New York, Conneticut, New Jersey, Arizona and Deleware. Your right CA is not winner takes all, so McCain has the chance to pick up many delegates there as well. He is also endorsed by a popular CA Governor. By the end of Super Tuesday, he might have picked up half of all delegates needed to win race. So momentum is on hi side, so there is nothing wrong with what Stepho said, because in a way he would be stealing it, because it is unexpected. Did not hear any critisism when people were saying Hilary Stole New Hampshire.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
I can criticize you for pretending not to be partisan. I've
February 4, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Dee Bunknever claimed I would vote for a Democrat or claimed to be nonpartisan.
They referred to Hillary as stealing New Hampshire for the same reason. Obama is their first choice and who they think should win. They can't understand anyone not thinking like them.
Come on Dee
February 4, 2008 - 15:02 ET by shawn228For at least a month and half now I have been saying that I am not a Romney fan. If you can find any thread that I have critisized any candidate in the past month except for Romney or HRC, I will be very surprised. I have never once said i was not partisan when it comes to Romney.
The polls clearly showed Obama ahead by as much as 10 percentage points and Clinton came back to win. That means the polls were way off, which does not happen very often. The numbers were what baffled the msm in NH. Not understanding why anyone not thinking like them is a far fetched assumption.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Agreed RJ
February 4, 2008 - 13:19 ET by candanceWhen Romney ends up on the cover of Newsweek after winning one state we can start talking about their odds being equal.
Look, Stephanopoulos
February 4, 2008 - 13:47 ET by motherbeltLook, Stephanopoulos putting it that way doesn't mean cheating, but is does show his bias.
In his mind:
the Democrat nomination is up for grabs, therefore Obama could "win" it. Or maybe HRC will "win" it.
In his mind:
The Republican nomination, on the other hand, belongs to McCain ..that's why he characterizes a Romney win as "stealing" it from him.
Dee, so much for Romney getting less press than Huckabee!
February 4, 2008 - 14:18 ET by vrwc13"Where would Romney be without his money? Nowhere because he wouldn't benefit from the Free (more favorable) Press that McCain and Huckabee get." Dee
http://newsbusters.o... Thanks Mark Finkelstein
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
You distort the facts again, vrwc
February 4, 2008 - 14:56 ET by RJTrying to use a snapshot of a single week as representative of overall media coverage is disingenuous.
RJ...just because you're my pal...
February 4, 2008 - 15:22 ET by vrwc13http://www.journalis...
http://www.journalis...
...get a grip RJ, and do a little research yourself before jumping to conclusions.
Facts:
1)Huckabee wins Iowa January 3rd
2)the folllowing three weeks Huckabee trails, significantly both McCain and Romney in media exposure
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
Sorry, vrwc, I don't have any "pals" who are...you know.....
February 4, 2008 - 15:22 ET by RJTossing out two more one week snapshots at a time when media interest in Huckabee was waning is still disingenuous.
How about if you try this week?
Again, one week snapshots, even the one I've provided prove nothing about the overall coverage.
"I really like Mike Huckabee." -uber liberal Mika Brezinski
"We're finding that evangelicals aren't as conservative as we thought." -Tucker Carlson
"We're finding that evangelicals aren't as conservative...
February 4, 2008 - 15:29 ET by vrwc13"We're finding that evangelicals aren't as conservative as we thought." -Tucker Carlson
That's o.k. Jesus was thought a "liberal" sometimes too. Puts us in good company.
v
32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' - Jesus
In a secular discussion, hiding behind the Bible is the act
February 4, 2008 - 15:39 ET by RJ....of someone who understands that he's lost the argument.
- Dee says: "Where would
February 4, 2008 - 16:01 ET by vrwc13- Dee says: "Where would Romney be without his money? Nowhere because he wouldn't benefit from the Free (more favorable) Press that McCain and Huckabee get."
- I respond with a NB article and link showing one weeks proof of Huckabee getting significantly less media coverage.
- you, RJ, come back saying: You distort the facts again, vrwc
February 4, 2008 - 13:56 ET by RJ
Trying to use a snapshot of a single week as representative of overall media coverage is disingenuous.
- I respond with two more weeks, a total of all three weeks, right after the Iowa Caucus that Huckabee wins, of again Huckabee getting significantly lower media coverage
- and you RJ, claim that I am "dishonest" and "disingenuous"?
Get a clue RJ.
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
VRWC - you are still missing my points
February 4, 2008 - 16:15 ET by Dee BunkAll press is not created equal. Huckabee gets positive Press and Romney gets negative Press. The front runners will and should get more Press. The two Dem front runners and the two Rep front runners should all have somewhere near the same press and they don't.
If Huckabee were the number two he'd have just as much negative Press as Romney. He's getting positive press because he's a spoiler that benefits McCain. If he were a spoiler that didn't benefit McCain he'd have the same amount of press - just more negative.
You're still misrepresenting, vrwc
February 4, 2008 - 16:21 ET by RJYou began with a link that you pretended showed more than a one week snapshot.
Your latest post ignores that leading up to Iowa, Huckabee got significant positive coverage, and that after Iowa, he even made the cover of Newsweek.
(BTW, did the "study" weight the type of coverage? For example, did the Newsweek cover rate as the same as a mention in a newspaper? Was positive coverage rated the same as negative coverage? Don't know? Then your links are worthless for your intended use.)
The point is, you continue to pretend your links "prove" something, when they don't...and that makes you disingenuous.
Wrong again RJ...
February 4, 2008 - 16:37 ET by vrwc13"You began with a link that you pretended showed more than a one week snapshot." RJ
huh?
Dee, so much for Romney getting less press than Huckabee!
February 4, 2008 - 13:18 ET by vrwc13
"Where would Romney be without his money? Nowhere because he wouldn't benefit from the Free (more favorable) Press that McCain and Huckabee get." Dee
http://newsbusters.o... Thanks Mark Finkelstein
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
...wrong again RJ.
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
haha, vrwc...in order to be "wrong again"
February 4, 2008 - 16:51 ET by RJ...I'd have to be wrong the first time....and I wasn't.
You didn't mention that the link is for only a one week period. Instead, you pretended that it provided a larger picture. Either you didn't know what you should have known or you weren't being truthful.
And you still hide from the questions asked several times by both Dee and myself: "does the report rate Romney's negative coverage the same as Huckabee's positive coverage? How is the Newsweek cover weighted?"
If you can't answer those questions, your link is worthless for your intended purpose....and continuing to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
And how much is Her Royal
February 4, 2008 - 13:23 ET by motherbeltAnd how much is Her Royal Clintoness spending to win? Does it matter if the money comes from "supporters"? Let's face it, Money is the "mother's milk" of politics....everyone said from the beginning that HRC was inevitable because she had more money than anyone else. So now all of a sudden, money is bad because it's Romney's own? Obama raked in about 3 million last month....that is going to be used to "buy" him the election (or at least try.). It's what they all do. Like it or not.
mb... Pow!....Right in
February 4, 2008 - 13:37 ET by bigtimermb...
Pow!....Right in the Kisser!
Excellent post.
Who was talking about the
February 4, 2008 - 13:45 ET by vrwc13Who was talking about the dems...we all know they are mostly a bunch of crooks.
Republicans, conservatives are supposed to be above reproach...
v
"when you wrestle with pigs, all you get is muddy and they love it"
Oh, it's that "hypocrisy"
February 4, 2008 - 13:52 ET by motherbeltSo we are only going to talk about Republican spending on elections, not Democratic?
Oh, it's that "hypocrisy" thing, right?
Yeah, the Dems have that down...if you don't have any principles, you can't be accused of violating them.
vr... You worry too
February 4, 2008 - 13:52 ET by bigtimervr...
You worry too much...it is romney's own hard earned money...get over it, you sound like the msm talking heads with their agenda's...green with envy.
Hope you are happy Huck is aiding McCain...with glee too.
Are you going to vote for McCain if Romney doesn't make it...especially if McCain did make him his VP running mate?
Just curious.
I won't be voting for (and in no particular order):
February 4, 2008 - 14:05 ET by vrwc13I won't be voting for (and in no particular order):
1) “legislative fix” (communism)"it takes a village" (socialism), pro-choice (baby killing), experienced (carpetbagging senator), "i'll take that money" (anti-capitalism) empty pantsuit running on on someone's coattails
2) the aboves current opponent who "ranks" right up there with her on the "liberal" scale, and fits the socialist, baby-killing, in-experienced tags also
3) the ex-gov of a liberal state, who was for abortion-before-he-was-against-it, sheep-in-wolf's-clothing republican(?)
...other than that it is Faith, Family, Freedom; and in that order.
v
But evil people and impostors will flourish. They will deceive others and will themselves be deceived. 2 Timothy 3:13
vr... Give it a rest for
February 4, 2008 - 14:09 ET by bigtimervr...
Give it a rest for a few moments would ya? We all know how you feel about Romney...it gets old for, just speaking for myself of course.
Please answer my direct question(s) above...what is your problem with answering a direct question?
I'm waiting....
I answered your
February 4, 2008 - 14:14 ET by vrwc13I answered your question:
Romney - no
McCain - not sure
v
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
Thomas Jefferson
vrwc13
February 4, 2008 - 14:40 ET by shawn228She clearly asked you what is wrong with Romney spending his own money. According to your answer do you mean you don't want Romney spending his own money, but your not sure if McCain can spend his own money???????
<<<edit>>>
I think I read this wrong vrwc13. Sorry my fault
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
shawn...re-read the thread...
February 4, 2008 - 14:44 ET by vrwc13...I answered BT's questions.
<<<>> it's o.k. thanks.
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
vrwc13
February 4, 2008 - 14:44 ET by shawn228You replied before I clicked on "post comment" when I edited it. My apologies.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
vr... Thanks for the
February 4, 2008 - 14:42 ET by bigtimervr...
Thanks for the answer....
I have to say I am not surprised at your answer...
If you think like a socialist when it comes to hard-earned capitalism, or capitalism of any kind, which it seems you certainly do with your disdain for Romney and his money, in fact you sound exactly like McCain when it comes to this very subject.
I do appreciate your reply though.
BT -- sorry to say this,
February 4, 2008 - 14:52 ET by Jack BauerBT -- sorry to say this, but he's mirroring the glib, class-envy rhetoric that slips too easily from Mr Huckabee. Don't we expect that from the liberals?
Sure Mike has the best one-liners... Wall Street v Wal-Mart... but he should reserve that for those who really do hate Wal-Mart. And that is not Mr Romney.
Bulls-Eye Jack!
February 4, 2008 - 14:58 ET by bigtimerBulls-Eye Jack!