I too voted that way I felt exactly the same between one and two...Huck has been working with McCain for the divide and conquer and get a job somewhere in his cabinet...plus I very much agree with mattm...I posted his same sentiments elsewhere this morning.
I voted that it was due to the MSM promoting him, as that probably was the biggest reason.
I had also mentioned last night that crossover may have had a lot to do with it as well, though I made the crossover voters out to be somewhat malicious in there intent.
I am beginning to back away from the malicious aspect of it somewhat as I am now thinking there may be a considerable number of "moderate" dems who do not like Broom Hilda and are not exactly thrilled with Obama's promise to surrender to Osama as soon as he gets elected.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
That is funny with the JD bit...I told my other half last night I wished I had a couple shots of JD on the rocks...been ages and ages, but I sure would of liked a few...
Maybe we can meet half way on super Tuesday and commiserate if the leftist McCain wins....lol!
I hope to goodness not, but it is looking dim, plus he has the msm like he always has, then he too will be attacked...that has been their plan all along.
What I find so frustrating with McCain's stupid supporters is that they, like their senile candidate, do not realize the the liberal MSM is just toying with McCain right now. Like a cat toys with its prey just before eating it.
If McCain should manage to win the republican nomination, the MSM will turn on him so fast that McCain's diminished capacity will not allow him to realize it for at least a week. Perhaps even a month. I have watched him carefully in the debates, and he appears to be easily confused. He will get soundly trounced in the GE, whether it is against Obama or Broom Hilda.
If there is a silver lining in all this, and I am seriously trying to maintain an optimistic outlook here, just maybe the republicans will use the next year or so and clean house from top to bottom, then mount a huge effort in the 2110 mid-terms, and be really ready in 2012. Just because Broom Hilda is in the White House does not make her a dictator. She still has to get her plans (schemes) through the congress.
Remember, many of the democrats elected to congress last mid-term were not all flaming loony libs, as they came from fairly moderate, if not somewhat conservative, areas. They, like their constituents, are not all that impressed with Hillary.
It will not be easy for her, and if the republicans can get their opposition tactics in gear once again and find their lost spine, it will be even more difficult for her.
Well, it makes me feel better, anyway. Okay, maybe just a little better.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Well, it isn't over yet...we have one week to go...and I will be gone on Wed. I think, so if it is bad I won't be posting the next day...which will be a good thing...lol!
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think it would come down to McCain being the candidate...never.
Go Romney go...
Btw...if I hear one more time the glee from the leftist talking heads on the networks hoping Romney goes broke by staying in the race I am going to scream...I find it deplorable, disgusting.
I hope McCain is not the nominee, either. Believe me.
But even if he is, it isn't going to mean the end of the republic. The executive branch is only one of three branches of the federal government.
Thank God our founders had the foresight to put that system in place, as it was designed so that no one branch, on its own, could beach the whole country.
You know, I think I am coming out of the depression I have been feeling for the last 24 hrs.
Now I am getting angry.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Why do you think the DNC moved all their delegates to convention time?
IMO, something really needs to be done on our part to defend from all this. Like, e-mailing the RNC chairman or something.
The Dem party, in the long run, is just one big mass of the same thing. All the same feelings and intent are associated with all its members, no matter who their nominee will end up being. They have very little moral grounding in anything, and they are such a huge party that they can cheat like this and get away with it with considerable ease. They know our weakness and it is likely that they are trying to use it against us. Now that we know theirs, it's about time we did something to defend ourselves against it (not, of course, by fruitlessly trying to play their game against them). The reason the Rep Party is voting for McCain is because WE'RE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE VOTING HIM IN. Plenty of room for malicious intent, if you ask me. Taking a few steps to lessen the negative effect wouldn't hurt at all, if you ask me again.
The current nominating process is stacked against conservatives. Just look at the number of conservatives that have already dropped out, and we haven't even made it to Super Tuesday, the first real opportunity for actual conservatives to vote en masse.
The current process is hideously flawed and needs to be fixed.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Democrats. Their Fla. primary votes don't count toward anything, UNLESS instead of voting in support of a Dem, they temporarily change their party registration to Rep, vote in the Rep primary (in a way that is destructive to the Republican Party), switch back to the Dem party no later than 29 days before the general election (according to Fla. law), and vote Dem. They are essentially choosing the Republican candidate who they think would be the easiest to defeat in the general election. Having their cake and eating it, too. Some might call it cheating. I call it an abomination that needs to be addressed by some higher-ups.
bigtimer...are you concluding that the media is rooting for a Republican victory in November? I believe the pre-Fla. primary national polls were showing McCain as the only Republican beating Hillary one-on-one.
I think Fla. went for McCain because of military support in panhandle, Cuban-American support in Miami, endorsements from Gov. and Martinez, support by independents, and Guiliani's freefall, which benefited McCain more than Romney.
Many people rely completely on the MSM for news. Name recognition will play a big role for many people. With that in mind consider the 100 US Senators.
Which of those 100 US Senators have been getting free national media coverage for years, way before the "election cycle"?
Lets See:
Hillary Clinton (D)
Ted Kennedy (D)
John McCain (R)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R)
Maybe you can come up with a few more, but out of 100 Senators some are clearly given disproportionate free coverage. Of all Republicans, McCain has had the most of this for years.
Oh it is miraculous alright. Miraculous that he calls himself a Republican.
But you cannot deny McCain has for years gotten the most free coverage of any Republican- unless you have not been watching the news the last few years.
That is not saying the media has not recently given coverage to Huckabee also. I suspect for much different reasons.
People have told me over and over again, how great the movie "The Lord of the Rings" is. When I finally watched it, I was like wtf, this show blows.
No matter how much I see HRC on tv, it does not make me like her more. My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes. The results of this poll remind me of how the Liberals cried over spilt milk in the 2000 and all conspiricy theorys.
If McCain wins the nomination, just suck it up and either vote for him or not. He is gaining momentum because he is popular and he will get the votes that would have gone to Guiliani.
"My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes."
You can, but you are not the average voter. The fact that you spend so much time posting on a political site says you are NOT the AVERAGE voter. Not even an average Primary voter.
Name Recognition counts a great deal for those who rely on TV and maybe newspaper news only. They get only a fraction of the history or stands of a particular canidate that you get by hanging around political site.
I am not as politically savvy as most on this site, but yes I probably know more than the average joe. I will again refer the 2000 election, since so many say the msm is so tilted toward the liberals, why did Bush beat McCain the primarys, why did Bush win the general election. The answer is, if the liberel bias is as bad as you say, the McCain would have got the nomination and Gore would be President.
...voted Republican every election, decade after decade, then wouldn't liberals have good reason to fear the influence of conservative bias coming from the MSM?
This is the reality which survey after survey shows that conservatives have faced in the 80-90percent liberal voting MSM for decades.
Ever consider the possibility that conservative base was motivated after 8 years of Clinton, that Bush had good name recognition, that conservatives found a way around MSM bias with radio, that Gore is a very off-putting pompous a$$ (with a capital "P"), and that without the backing of the MSM Gore might have only gotten 40% instead of 50% of the vote?
The reason for Hillary's coverage, positive and negative, should be self-explanatory.
Kennedy likewise. His name is Kennedy. He's been there forever. All three brothers met violent deaths. He's controversial...both hated and revered.
McCain has had high profile for some time. Former POW, repeat candidate for President
Hutchinson: Female senator from second largest state in union.
I don't think it really breaks along party lines. Bob Dole was widely covered before long before he was presidential candidate. Jesse Helms was controversial but well covered. There may be some validity to your argument, but I don't think it's the controlling factor.
Note: rereading your post, alamojb, I may have misunderstood your point. I initially thought you were contending that overall the media were covering Democrats more because they like Democrats better. But, it may be that you are just illustrating the value of name recognition regardless of party.
Yes the conservative party sure has changed. Just like JFK would roll over in his grave if he saw what the Democratic party has become. Although If Clinton was JFK, Monica would be floating in river right now
Voting for a RINO just because you think he is the only one that can beat Hellary makes no sense to me. If McCain gets elected, we aren't much better off than if the witch herself won....
Again, I would love to be wrong on this one. I would be quite happy with Romney as President, and I will vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. But I would also be far happier to have McCain over Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the two are worlds apart on many issues. It seems that we all optimistically think "well, that could never happen -- this country won't really elect Hill-Bill" -- well, I'm more pessimistic, and tremble at the prospect. Even the Democratic strategist on O'Reilly admits that she'd rather have Romney the nominee because he doesn't stand a chance in the general election.
Privately they are afraid of running a Senator while the economy slows down. An outsider economic star like Romney running against someone on the Hill is their worst nighmare.
This has been reported by peole who have had private conversations with Democrat Strategists.
Any illegal sympathizer, moderate, or media member will get more of what they want from Hillary or Obama they will not vote for McCain.
It really troubled me that McCain lied about Romney supposedly agreeing to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. IMO that was so sleazy. Now that lie was either intentional or the dudes......bonkers. :)
I'd say the Mormon thing in tandem with Mitt's utter lack of integrity.
How can you trust a guy that has fundamentally changed his stance on every single major social issue for the sole purpose of being able to run for president? He's manufactured and as such has no principles.
If I'm a Republican, I'd be scared of what a guy with no principles could do if elected.
No way. I'm way more scared of McCain. He could actually win.
Romney doesn't have a chance to win so why would I be scared of him?
You somehow assume that my criticism stems from fear. It stems my disgust surrounding a human being that could sacrifice every single one of his principles like Mitt for the sole purpose of advancing a career. That sickens me.
Well, that and his creepy religion of racism and child abuse.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain, if nominated, CAN win the general election. Romney canNOT. As such, I'm more scared of McCain.
I will support whomever gets in the WH that will continue to fight and win the war on Islamofacism....whether it be McCain or Romney...none of the Dems have the guts to even say the word; win. However, I am afraid of you, leon...because I am always afraid of igorant, and "creepy', lying bigots who make themselves out as intellectuals. They and you are dangerous to the country I, my father and my son fought for in WWII, Vietnam and Iraq. I have seen bigots throughtout my life and have hated them deeply...especially since my aunt (a Mormon) married a black man in the '50s. Watching what happened to my aunt and uncle and and their family over the years has convinced me that the racial and religious "creepy" bigots in America are on the political left and the Democrat party. And "that sickens me".....your hatred has no place in America.
Her own people were the ones hating her. You know that whole Black people are evil aspect of Mormonism.
Sorry. I dislike Mormonism b/c it's a religion built on CHILD ABUSE and RACISM.
This is fact. My apologies for not accepting this type of behavior. If that makes me a bigot, than stamp it on my head. I'm proud of fighting against such a disturbing religion.
You act as if I have no reason to distrust Mormons while there are 10s of thousands living all over central america having sex with Children, forcing girls into incestuous relationships, maintaining their communities through fear and threat of physical violence, preaching that black people are inherently evil, and spreading an overall disturbing message.
I feel that my opinion is warranted and as such is not bigotry at all. Fighting against abuse and racism is what I'm all about. If you think that makes me a bigot so be it, but I'll be damned if I'll respect a religion that has dabbled so heavily in disgusting behavior.
Actually, Leon, opponents of LDS use the fact that before 1978 they did not allow blacks in leadership positions proves racism. Of course, it was not that long before that that the governement finally allowed blacks to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. Of course, you like to used the argument that "they said that" or "they think that" as proof of something. "Fact" requires proof, not "they said..." Also, you will not be able to prove CHILD ABUSE allegations. (Just because they allowed 13 year-olds to marry back in the days before the US defined an age of consent does not mean abuse. In order for me to believe that this is the CURRENT POLICY OF THE CHURCH, I would need to see some proof that this is currently occuring. You can go back a few years if you must, but you should also be able to document several cases. )
BTW, the reason the Mormons eventually settled in Utah is because bigots ran them out of Missouri.
1) I charge Mormonism as racist b/c of the preacher thing AND b/c of their scripture. The descendants of Cain? Ever heard of it?
Furthermore, you are correct it wasn't THAT long, but it was a FULL DECADE later. That's a pretty long time.
This is a FACT. Everything I've stated above is FACT.
2) Child abuse occurred in the past and it occurs to this day. Forcing a 12 year old girl to marry and have sex is abuse. This happens daily in the Mormon community. Perhaps not in America, b/c Americans are smart enough to figure out right and wrong, but in Central America, these sick people continue to enforce this sick lifestyle on innocent children. This, again, is a fact.
3) Bigots ran them out of Missouri? Yeah, b/c they were child-abusing polygamists. Sorry speaking out against abhorrent behavior does not make one a bigot.
1. Descendents of Cain? Musical group out of the UK? Oh, and how long after we gave blacks voting rights did it take for us to allow them to the front of the bus? I guess 15 years looks pretty good now, eh? Of course, they are still racists even though they ended racist practices before you were born.
2. What is the median marraige age of non-Mormons in Central America? What is the median marraige age of Mormons in Central America? (Oh, in case you missed it, Romney is not from Central America.)
3. Of course, the Church renounced polygamy in the 1890s.
Of course, the Church renounced polygamy in the 1890s.
Of course, there is a religion that still practises polygamy TODAY.. and one of the current Presidential hopefuls has half his relatives who still profess it.
In fact, his grandfather had three wives.
And the practitioners of that religion also begins with the letter "M."
CLUE -- it not MORMON.
Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!
I think Leon has been taking (or teaching) classes at the John McCain School of Slander. Lesson #1 Let's throw up a bunch of BS we know to be false and see how much sticks. Lesson #2 Let's through up a bunch of BS we don't want to check because we don't want it to turn out to be false.
1) So you don't know the book of Mormon. Strange that would you comment on something you don't know. Check out what the Mormons believe about Black people (which is why they were so long in accepting blacks). Hint: The descendants of Cain. Look it up and get back to me.
2) Romney's family is from Central America. Mexico to be specific. Again, you shouldn't comment on things you don't know.
3) Yes the Church in America banned Polygamy. The Church everywhere else in the world continues to practice polygamy with no end in sight.
But Leon, you commented a couple of weeks ago that Romney's family left the US and then came back. So technically, you are right - they are from Mexico. But they are also from the US. (So are you being disingenuous solely for the purpose of this discussion?) And Romney is currently (and always has been) a subject of the US Church. That is kind of like saying that I like beer because my ancestors are German. So the Mormons say it's OK to be a descendent of Cain. That sounds to me to be very unbigoted.
I thought you were trying to impart some knowledge by your "comments" but it seems you are only trying to "comment" on your own disdain for Mormons because in the past they practiced bigotry and polygomy.
His father was born there. His father wasn't from the US at all. You are misinformed.
Seriously, read about Cain before making asinine comments, but since I've already implored you twice to have a clue what you're talking about before commenting and you've failed to do so, I'll give you a quick break down.
Mormon theology teaches that Cain and his descendants were placed under a curse by God. What was that curse? Black skin. This was the basis of the Mormons exclusion of blacks from the priesthood.
Don't believe me? Let's take a look at the actual scripture from the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses which are both held sacred by Mormons then (these are just a few examples of many):
1) "And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Nephi 12:23)
2) "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)
3) "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 6:8)
And let's close with this gem from the almight Brigham Young:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110)
So there really is no dispute over the racism of Mormonism.
It's right there in their scripture. Racism is an inherent part of their religion.
Did I say I didn't believe you? I am pleased you have given me some of the actual scripture by which the Mormon Church bases their belief system. (I have seen this kind of verse in my Bible.) And your point that the Mormon Church still practices this racism is where? This is my point, Mormons of this country in this century do not practice racism and do not practice polygomy. I could make a similar case (i.e distrust or hatred towards some people) against every religion and every government that has existed based on your kind of arguments.
How about George's father and mother? Didn't they leave the US for Mexico? (Oh, you mean family, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
BTW, Mexico is not considered Central America, unless I am mistaken.
Don't let this little tidbit interrupt the Mormon Church-bashing. Please continue dazzling us with your vast knowledge of the religion, Alan.
...southernmost region of North America, lying between Mexico and South America and comprising Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize. (Geologists and physical geographers sometimes extend the northern boundary to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico.)
According to that statement, we could both be considered correct, if we were talking about tectonics. But we aren't, and ALWAYS always trumps SOMETIMES.
The simple fact of the matter is that you went out of your way to try to go after me and you weren't even right.
Sorry tiger. Don't know what you want me to say. Geopolitically, Mexico is not commonly considered part of Central America, but physiographically it is. Both are legitimate measures.
Pumpkin, you give me too much credit, thinking I devote a large amount of time to point out your errors. I hardly "go out of my way" to do that. It is rather easy, but may appear hard to you, but, hopefully, someday, when you grow up, it will become easier for you.
Displaying homophobia AND 2 feeble personal attacks in one post? Man, my dental work must be drilling deeper than usual today. I think you need another shot of novocaine, Alan.
Snice my Leon Filter is working well today, you are actually saying "all homophobes like me know that only gays say 'pumpkin'"". Okay. Got it. Anything else? Fashion Tips for Homophobes, perhaps?
I have Mormon friends and business associates. When it comes to integrity, they are far and away better than any other group of people I have dealt with. Ever.
And that includes some so-called "Christians" I know.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
conservative. You guys don't trash McCain like this. If you really thought he was just pandering you guys wouldn't care. You didn't care with Clinton I and you don't care with Clinton II and you didn't care with Kerry or Gore. Liberals didn't care when Clinton faked being religious they only care when people actually are religious. Mormon, Christian, Jewish it doesn't matter; real faith scares liberals.
Our dislike of him makes him a conservative? Huh? Wonder how Barry Goldwater got that title when I wasn't even born. Interesting.
While McCain has made some liberal moves, he's remained true to his principles.
Romney's a life long liberal that switched to conservative at the behest of the Republicans to try to save a floundering field of candidates.
McCain's made some mistakes, but he hasn't gone 180 on all of his fundamental beliefs.
Mitt's a manufactured conservative. Nothing more. Unless of course I'm wrong that his family donated money to abortion clinics, he openly stated that he was pro-choice, said he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, and supported universal healthcare in Mass.
I like McCain as a human being. For all his political mistakes, the guy actually has integrity. He's stood up for what he's believed him. This is painfully clear in all of your whining about him being a RINO. He didn't tow the party line. He did what he thought was best.
That's not the same with Mitt. Somebody told him what to do and how to do it, and he did. He created an image for himself that isn't rooted in the reality of his life. He's a manufactured conservative. Nothing more than a PR stunt.
Furthermore, Mitt is the topic at hand. We're talking about the number one factor in McCain's win. That would be Mitt. As I stated, the number one factor is Mitt's major weaknesses.
Free- there is a reason why all the libs here and the media hate Romney. It sure isn't because their worried he'll go back on his conservative stances. They know Romney has charisma and is the one who can beat Clinton or Obama. They want a dulldrum like McCain so they can have a free ride.
I guess I can't think of you actually dissing Romney. I know Shawn and Jason have. Admit it though, McCain is your favorite Republican candidate right?
Im wondering if there is another factor, the illegal vote. The illegal population might have voted for McCain. And then we get crossovers from the Dims who know or at least think their votes are void. So if your vote doesnt count vote for the canditate teh Dims can beat.
I choose, bugging the spelling policia, Media because they have the most influence.
Got to keep working - get the truth out about McCain:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population. While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
Thanks to the great (conservative) one, Mark Levin for compiling the above.
but I'm having flashbacks to a 76' Ford candidacy that excluded a better candidate to reward an inside/washington guy. what we'll get with McCain is the chance to honor him for his war service (thanks!) and in so doing lose the White House (again).
Attention all those who are doing all the handwringing and hair pulling concerning John McCain and his win in Florida- Deal with it!!! Am I thrilled with the choice of candidates this election? No-I am a lifelong Republican, and would be happier with a more conservative field, but it is not going to happen this time. Like it or not, Republicans, and this especially includes conservative Republicans, have to get a handle on the reality of the fact that we all have two very clear, stark realities come November-either grit your teeth and support the Republican nominee (likely at this time to be McCain), or get used to the idea of a second President Clinton or a President Obama. It is that simple. Republicans of all stripes, conservatives and moderates, need to come together, and fast, and make up their minds to support the nominee, whoever that is. He was not my first choice, but it appears now that the strongest candidate to go up against either Clinton or Obama, would be McCain. Like it or not. If we don't want the looming disaster of a Democrat in office this time next year folks, then we ALL as Republicans need to get a grip and come together as a party behind our candidate, or we face a very long four years (or more) ahead.
Compromising principles is not an option. This is not a dictatorship (yet) and in four years we can vote again. There is no need to support a RINO like McCain at this time, or ever. His record is so glaringly anit-conservative it's not possible for many to concede a vote for him. If he wins, then he wins, but he won't have my vote.
Plainly speaking they are or were all options for some voters. McCain seems to be a great option at this time for Indy's. I wouldn't expect or advise anyone to sacrifice their principles to vote for any candidate if they didn't want to. All one can do is educate on your own preference and hope to win them over--and hope it carries over to the polling booth. McCain can't win me over, but he may win some others.
Never been told that life itself is a compromise? Any Repub is better the broomhilda or jughead. They could hand the country over to the terrorists at worst or ruin it economically or philosophically at best. We all have our favorites but you need to see the results of no compromise. There may not be another four years.
Didn't have to be told... but I'm not convinced there's any major differences b/w H, O or McCain. He's a corrupt Washington DC insider IMO who judges his positions by sticking his finger in the wind. Based on his prior record, how can we be so sure he would stick to his guns on the WOT? Which, when his position on immigration is taken into account, turns out to not be so strong in the first place. I am confident that even with a D in the WH, Republicans who continue to stand for conservative principles both nationally and locally, will provide a strong contention to any democrat proposals.
Do you really believe that McCain will be as harmful a president as Clinton or Obama? It is amazing to me to see how blind people are to either of the dem candidates, and how much disdain they have for McCain. It almost borders on McCain Derangement Syndrome. If this is how many Republicans think, then we are in big trouble in November.
Quite likely. The main problem I have with McCain is that he is not the candidate that registered Republicans and conservatives prefer, but that of the moderates and Indy's. It's insulting when those who may vote D at the end of the day are playing an active part in selecting your nominee. McCain is their man
Yes. I really belive McCain will be as damaging as Hillary.
You forget, even with a Democrat controlled Congress, Bill Clinton wasn't able to damage the country as badly as he could have without seperation of powers.
Meanwhile, judge appointments are key. Key. Hillary will appoint activist judges. McCain will appoint activist judges.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
No, you forget..."Bill Clinton wasn't able to damage the country ..." Have you forgotten how he sat back for eight years and did nothing of any real substance to deal with the increasing threat from radical Islam, which directly led to 9-11? That didn't damage the country? What are you thinking?? Hillary will be far worse than her gutter wallowing husband.
Perhaps you should think in terms of his damage to the Republican Party.
What we all saw happen to the party under GWB will be far worse under McCain, as he is more liberal than Bush is, and is openly hostile to conservatives in general. If he becomes president, the party most likely will split, and it will take a couple of decades for that to play itself out. That is when you will see irreparable damage done to the republic by the left.
Most congressional republicans will stand up to Broom Hilda. They most likely would not against McCain. At least not as staunchly, anyway.
Hillary, by herself, cannot destroy this country. The destruction of the Republican Party just might.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
McCain knows we conservatives hate his a** and don't trust him as far as we can throw him.
Not that I'm expecting the cat to change his stripes, but I think he's going to have to veer hard right to satisfy us. Whether he stays there if, big if, he's elected is another story.
I've not read this whole thread, yet, but I personally suspect Crist & Martinez's (particularly Mel Martinez...ratfink chair of the Republican party, in case anyone has forgotten THAT little factoid) endorsements had alot to do with tipping the "undecideds". Of course, they're all mostly moderates, anyway, and not conservatives.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I am more worried about the damage to the country, than I am the damage(if any), to the party. As far as the damage that you allude to that happened under GWB, that was more a result of the onslaught from the radical left, than from anything inside the party. Has Bush been a perfect president? No. but he has managed to keep us from being attacked again for the last 6 1/2 years, and I believe that McCain would continue to hold the hard line against our terrorist enemies as Bush has. Do you really believe that Clinton or Obama would be as steadfast in that regard? "Billary" would probably pull out the 'ol Kleenex and have a good cry the first time she got roughed up by some thug from another country that she had to deal with, and Lord only knows what Obama would do. I don't like to think about it. As far as the party splitting, it has begun that already. And damage (I hope not irreparable), has already been done to the republic by the left. Unfortunately, this election appears to not be about who's the best, but maybe, who's not the worst. Believe me, I am not happy to say that, but I feel it is true.
Forget it. I tried the same tact over the course of a few hours last night. I was crushed under the stampede of opposition - save for one or two. I just hope that this split won't harm the relationships between the friends and (usually) political allies I have made here over the past couple of years, almost.
Thanks for the words of support...but I'm not going to give up and neither should you. There have to be others out there who are more clear thinking about the situation surrounding this election, and who understand the staggering seriousness of why it is so important who wins (or who doesn't win).
I think my mistake was trying to reluctantly look ahead to the posssibility of McCain as the GOP nomineee, while the shock, anger, disppointment, and bitterness over his win in Florida was still very fresh (and those were just my feelings). I have committed to reluctantly vote for the GOP nominee - whoever he is - not because I necessarily support him - but from my fear and loathing of Hillary and my sheer terror of Obama. My distaste for McCain isn't enough to overcome my sickness at the thought of seeing one of Dems taking the oath of office. It will be far easier to undo four to eight years of McCain than even one term of Hillary or Obama. We can't even undo much of the damage inflicted by Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton. Can you imagine the entitlement programs, debt, and judges Hillary or Obama will install? Can you imagine the dismantling of the military that will be done by either of these two? Can you imagine the craven crawling to the UN? McCain may be a liberal Republican, but despite some of the hyperbole here, he can't be as radical a leftist as either Obama or Hillary. Please people who read this, don't interpret this as a defense of McCain.
I couldn't agree more...I just wish others would see the situation as clearly. McCain may not be perfect (who is?), and the level of hysteria surrounding him is a bit baffling to me, but he is infinitely a better choice for president than either Clinton or Obama, for all the reasons that you laid out, and more.
Clinton or Obama will do their best to dismantle the military, and run up the debt on liberal give-aways and entitlement programs. I do not believe that McCain will do any of these things. I also believe that McCain will continue the hard line against the radical Islamists as President Bush has done. National security is everything to me in this election...and matched up against Clinton or Obama, it is simply no contest. I know you don't see it, but those are my reasons why.
I sympathize with your dilemma, but after reading most of your comments, I fear that you are confusing "republican" with "conservative."
McCain has done much to seriously undermine our efforts in the GWOT. While Obama would most likely surrender to Osama in short order, Broom Hilda will not. While she may not be the smartest woman in the world, she is far from the stupidest.
No way she will want to attach defeat (or surrender) in Iraq to the democrats.
John McCain is a L*I*B*E*R*A*L.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Sorry, but I don't believe I am confusing "republican" and "conservative". I consider myself a "conservative", and a "republican". But I am also a pragmatist. As I have said before, and will say again, McCain was not my first choice, this year, or in 2000. I supported GWB against him in 2000. However, given the situation we are facing this election year, I believe he is the best option for defeating Clinton or Obama, both of which to me, are disasters waiting to happen. Do I agree with everything and every position that McCain has done and and has taken? No. But I cannot believe that he would be more dangerous an option concerning national security, than Clinton would be. Do you really think that McCain would want to, as you said of Clinton and the Democrats, "attach defeat(or surrender) in Iraq..." to the Republicans? He is, and has always been considered to be a hawk when it comes to national security and defense issues. Absolutely nothing in Clinton's or Obama's history give me any reason to believe that they would be more competent to handle the national security issues that the next president will have to confront. The only reason that Clinton voted to go into Iraq was because it was the popular political consensus at the time. As soon as things got difficult there, and her radical left support system began to make noise and threats about her initial vote of support, she changed her tune. She is just like her useless husband. She has no convictions or moral compass which guide her. She goes with whatever is the path of least resistance and is politically expedient at the time. Obama, as we know, never supported the mission in Iraq...then or now. Clinton and Obama are both totally unacceptable in any circumstance that I can think of. McCain is not perfect, but given the other options, I believe he is the only acceptable choice.
My issue is still that if we do vote for McCain (assuming he gets the nod) and he wins, we are going to have someone who's largely the same on critical issues as the Dem nominees. Maybe not exactly the same, but in most of our key areas close to the same. Okay, so we have McCain in the White House, but what happens in 2012? The Republican Party is now honor bound to support McCain, so we're automatically going to get eight years of a lackluster, toss 'em all under the bus, RINO president. Suppose by 2012 we could get Candoleeza Rice to run? How about George Allen? Matt Blunt? Do we really want to tell these folks "no thanks... we'll keep McRINO" in 2012?
As you said, it would be great to have a strong Conservative field to choose from, but we don't. So instead of choosing the lesser of a trio of evils, I would rather write off 2008, endure four years of a Dem in the White House, and hope that the Republican Party gets it right in 2012.
If McCain gets elected, there will be no republican party in 2012 to speak of. Better the republicans be in opposition for the next four years than partners in the crime itself.
Otherwise, what will they have to run against in the 2010 mids and 2012 GE?
-See my response to bt above.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
I'm not sure what's happening here. I think someone's been passing out kool-aid. I will vote for Romney and then support the GOP nominee whoever he is. My conservative principles are strong enough that I can't let Hillary or Obama win without a fight.
No! I'm not going to vote in the general election for just any Republican because we belong to the same party. I will vote for the person whose positions on issues best correspond to mine -- doesn't have to be a clean sweep -- but I'm absolutely not giving up my principles just to stay "true" to the Republican party. I may not be able to vote this time out!
is candidates further and further away from the conservative base. Now they want us to 'accept it.' No thank you. If we don't stand our ground here, we will have to stand our ground later (but much further to the left than we have already traveled).
This is not a matter of staying "true" to the Republican party. I am assuming that you are in fact a Republican, and if that is so, being a Republican and believing in Republican principles, you could not vote for either Clinton or Obama. You say you won't give up your principles just to stay true to the party-fine-I admire that. But look at the alternative. Would you really rather sit this election out and not vote for the Republican nominee, even though he may not be your perfect choice, and end up with Clinton or Obama as president? What would you rather do? Go down the narrow ideological path and refuse to see the reality of the situation? As I said, I also am not thrilled with our choices this year...but I am appalled at the idea of Clinton or Obama as president. No candidate is a perfect match for everyone. But this country is at a point in its history where it absolutely can not survive a Clinton or Obama as our leader.
What would be the benefit of having someone in the White House with an "R" after his name, if he would govern the same way a "D" would? Is it just a matter of the letter? Big, fat, deal!
Maybe Republican ideas really are dead. Maybe the country just wants whoever will give away the store to them, and promise them a FREE chicken in every pot.
Maybe people really aren't interested in conservatism and limited government any more, and the only way for a "Republican" to get elected is to promise the same things as the Democrats.
And BTW, it might be time that we start using quotes around the word Republican in reference to McCain.
Abe Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg:
Listener: 5
Lincoln: Wrong. 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
A.B.Stoddard (I hope I have the spelling right) just said a mouthful about why the conservatives do not like McCain...she made the list of the main opposition to him, she was on with Dick Army.
I disagree profoundly with that statement. I don't beleive any democrat harnesses the kind of power it would take to completely destroy this country. There are those eleceted representatives and the electorate that would not allow it. I understand what your sentiment is, and I don't like democrats' socialist ideas, but this country is stonger than any candidate and will survive 4 yrs of a D admin, if it comes to that.
It is becoming depressingly clear to me as I read many of these postings, that many of you out there have already decided that we will have a President Clinton or Obama in November. We will have that either as a result of not supporting our nominee, or by not voting at all. How sad...
I do have enormous faith in my country. But I also remember the eight years of Bill Clinton that my fellow countrymen voted into office twice, so I don't take anything for granted now.
I hate to sound cynical, but the sting of that threat started wearing off a few weeks ago. A lot of people know full well how evil Hillary is but cannot muster enough imagination to believe McCain would be able to stop her legislation.
Put a Democrat Congress in McCain's hands and watch Hillary barrel her way into getting what she wants.
...but cannot muster enough imagination to believe McCain would be able to stop her legislation.
Are you kidding? McCain would not only fail to stop Broom Hilda's legislation, he would most likely willingly sign every bill she sends him, no matter how loony it was.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Absolutely....I just wish all those others out there who have McCain issues would get it... I am afraid, however, that they will get it... just too late...right around January 20, 2009, when she (or Obama) is sworn in.
Brownback was the candidate favored by many social conservatives (at least those in my circles) way back in the beginning. Unfortunately, he, like most of the others, just simply aren't electable on the national stage. Even less electable than any of them was Alan Keyes, even though he blows them ALL out of the water in terms of intellegence, orator ability, vision, backbone and conservative principles. Hillary and Obama are far more socially liberal than McCain. McCain is a moderate; Hillary is a liberal.
Exactly...Brownback is very conservative, and if he is able to endorse McCain, that tells me that he understands what is really important in this election. We need someone who is going to able to defeat Clinton or Obama and their liberal, leftist agendas.
I firmly believe that McCain is the least likely candidate to beat the Dem nominee (whomever it may be). He is dishonest. He can't be trusted (clearly proven through his Senate career and most recently campaigning). A large number of conservatives, given a choice between 'dishonest' and 'more dishonest' will choose neither. I'm not condoning that action (or non-action), but it is what it is. We had better hope super Tuesday yields different results.
I have been suffering through the intense McCain McMediaMania down here in Florida for now going on three weeks. I have heard every tale of him being a hero at least 50 times, how he's really a conservative, how he was the lone wolf in supporting operations in Iraq.
I have heard every favorable thing you can possibly say about the guy, but there's two words that have never been mentioned, by anyone on any media outlet, and those words are Keating Five. Now why is it, in an era when political scandal trumps all other subjects, is this scandal never mentioned? Anyone else think it's because the Dems are holding it back for the general election?
the whole Keating Five episode has already fallen down the collective memory hole. It happened almost 20 years ago and I don't recall it ever being made into an issue when McCain has run in the past.
And reign in control of our lives via the bogeyman known as AGW---the vehicle to push socialism. McCain is one of theirs---why do we let him put an "R" behind his name???!!! This is so infuriating!!!
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
McCain won due to positive free media, he has the backing of the party elites, McCain's push-polling shameful lies, and once again independents were able to vote in a Republican Party.
Add me as one of those who will not vote for McCain, ever. I fear McCain more than I do Hillary, and at least with Hillary we might win back Congress in two years, as the people tend to like Congress to be a different party.
No...you had to be a registered Republican...I have family down there, and used to live in the state, and you have to be a registered Republican to vote. When you go to your polling precinct, they check your name in book or file to see if you are registered as a Republican. I know this for a fact.
Please check the exit polls -- not sure if I am exact, but think it was aprox 20% of independents and 3% of democrats that admitted that they voted in the republican primary again not sure if I remember exact but believe that amounted to 5 or 6% of republican vote total. wonder who got THEIR votes
Declared Independents were not allowed to vote in the Florida primary. I said that it was a closed Republican only primary, which means that you must be a registered Republican to vote. If an Independent (or a Democrat), chooses to change their affiliation in order to vote(fraudulently, I believe), in the Republican primary, according to state law, they are allowed to do that. There is no way, unfortunately, to really know how many of these "temporary" Republicans voted in the primary, in an attempt to influence the outcome.
Dem or Rep primary...I've never heard of undeclared being allowed to vote here in a primary in a partisan race....only ballot initiatives and non-partisan races like judgeships (yes...we vote for judges here, idiotic!).
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
do your homework vr, it was open to independents, sure they had to plan for it...by registering a month early, but since the Democrats weren't really having theirs, it only made sense to cross over.
All they had to do was re-register as Republicans 29 days before the primary, which as they stated in the exit polls they had done in droves. Unfortunately there were also a lot of Repubs that were duped by the MSM into believing that only he could win in the GE against Shrillary and Obambi.
McCain is winning due to the road kill voters who like the middle of the road, but hate Conservatives, Christians and non patrician establishment.
McCain wins as the Rockefellers love him as he promised to sign on to the Bush unification of CanAmMex, the Amero, their taking Iraqi oil again and slave labor for border busters.
The other factors are indeed listed in bigotry and unlisted in Mitt just does not know how to run a campaign nationally.
The sole factor which matters though is the God factor. Ronald Reagan had God give him one in "I PAID FOR THIS MIC" which showed him strong, fiesty and a leader.
George HW Bush manufactured his when Dan Rather walked into pole axe punch in that interview.
George W. Bush never got his until 9 11, but McCain was incapable of beating him as America needed George Bush.
Not giving McCain the win, but it may be that America knows in it's Spiritual heart that for what is coming we are going to need a rather insane ex Dr. Strangelove with revenge yet unleashed on the commie bastards who tortured him.
Putin, the Chicoms and the Islamocommunists will no doubt think twice if America has a literally half insane person with his hands on nuclear bombs.
Hillary would bomb the wrong person with a nuke. Obama would bomb American friends........McCain will bomb everyone with nukes and let God sort it out.
Dr. Strangelove for President.......apparently the current Drudge published polls indidcate that Americans want a cut throat, meaner than a sob, rootin, tootin fatherless child in the White House.
Who knows maybe McCain will have us invade northern Mexico, annex it as they aren't using it and we can Americanize it.
Stopping Hillary from becoming president matters more to me than anything else in this election.That being said, and now that Rudy's out, McCain is clearly the best candidate. He can beat Hillary. Beating Obama will be a little dicier proposition. Romney would lose to Hillary and get buried by Obama. McCain also will not surrender to the Islamofascists(in fairness, Romney wouldn't either) It's just McCain has the most credibilty as Commander-in-Chief.
If the election were held today, Romney would not beat Hillary. However, there is plenty of time for the eventual nominee to put forth his case against her and for him. Just because someone was in a POW camp does not make him best suited for CiC. McCain has already said he would give up at least one chip in the Islamofascist game - close Guantanamo. He would also reluctantly close the border - if he absolutely had to. One of the best qualifications to be President, IMO, is that the candidate must be able to have vision and put together a team that can make that vision a reality. McCain can put other politicians in place to help him with his agenda. The problem is that his agenda sucks.
I
may be 5 years recovering from the developments of Jan 2008… all
because Bush could never see fit to step forward as a 24-7
conservative… we have no conservative leader, some wanna bees though.
When the vicious libmedia speaks well of McCain and the nutty far left
NY Times endorses him… what can you say?
You can say they the democrats (secular socialists) smell blood… they
can’t wait for Nov 08. If you think the Klintons shamed all we held
dear before, look out, they are back! This time they will double their
damage. Taxes up for u, welfare up to buy votes for years, apologies up
to foreign thugs, guilt up, business down, morals down, ethics below
zero… and the kicker, we will have another terror attack in 2009. The
terrorists know which party they want to win, which one will give them
rights and excuses.
Only a clever aggressive Republican congress (is there such a thing?)
can derail the liberal train once it gets on track in 2009. Did I
mention everything will be free in the new socialist America? In less
than a week the course will be set.
That is the day I go buy 6 black outfits appropriate for mourning.
Good points all, except I simply don't see Romney winning. Stopping Hillary is everything to me. I'd love to see Obama do it, even though he'd be more difficult to beat. The harm she'd to the country notwithstanding, a Hillary presidency would also mean that by virtue of her sex she will be assured a place on the National Mall!...yikes..If McCain is the nominee, and it appears he will be, then the choice is a no brainer.
BS. Romney hsa better chances of winning the general over McCain against Hillary or Obama. All those independents that voted for McCain will not vote for him in the general AND many many many conservatives will not vote for him either. Including me.
I don't fear a Hillary. I do fear a McCain. He will destroy the party.
Romney is a suit, and would be decimated by Clinton, and probably also by Obama. And, if you really don't fear Hillary, you are not a real Conservative, "conservative voice".
I am very conservative, all you have to do is read all my posts, and you will have a clear understanding that I am very conservative. But I am conservative before I am Republican, and there is absolutely no difference between McCain and Hillary. They are both liars dangerous power mongers who will stick a knife in your back with a smile, for challenging their majesty. They campaign the same way, they believe the samething, they politic the same way.
In my mind Hillary is less scary than McCain, because at least with Hillary we have a chance of winning back Congress, with McCain, forget it...Congress will lean even more left. He will destroy the party for conservatives.
Please by all means tell me how McCain is better than Hillary, I'm all ears. The only difference between them is the D and the R. And when the crap hits the fan, and it will, I would rather have Hillary take the heat than Republicans.
He will never, ever have my vote.
I could of easily voted for any of our candidates, but Huck and McCain. Since Romney is the only one left, if he doesn't make it, than I will look third party.
Do you really believe that McCain would promote the entitlement programs, run up the debt on liberal give-aways and take apart the military like Clinton or Obama would?? I have said it before...McCain is not my first choice, by any stretch of the imagination. But he is infinitely better a choice than Clinton, Obama, a third party candidate (if there will be one), or not voting at all.
run up debt on liberal give-aways, yes...Can you say Global Warming?
McCain doesn't understand tax cuts nor does he understand the Economy.
take apart the Military...you mean the same who is against water boarding, is OK with terrorists to be judged by our courts, and wants to close gitmo? Sure he will give more money to the military, but he'll tie their hands to make them useless.
open the border as much, no, he will open it faster.
Clinton = McCain, only Hillary is more emotionally stable.
The next president will either be Clinton, Obama, or McCain. Of the three I prefer McCain. Even Obama, but not that woman. Emotional stability, please, the woman has absolutely no character. None, never, ever has shown it. Not once.
I think its fair to say there was a time in McCain's life where he exhibited exemplary character. Can't say that for Hillary. Politicians shamelessly lying ....that's what they all do nowadays. It's part of the job description.
I honestly don't know how else to respond to you concerning McCain. Your mind is made up. I am not a McCainiac, and am not going to spend time defending everything that he has or hasn't done right or wrong(quite a few of which I didn't agree with). He was not my first choice, but in my mind, he has the best chance to defeat either Clinton or Obama, both of whom, I believe, are nightmares waiting to happen.
Romney laid a pretty good smackdown on McCain ("R") tonight. I think he can handle Clinton. She has too many "issues" that can be brought up to cmpletely discredit her and her only response will be to try to cry her way out of it. Romney showed he is not afraid to take the gloves off when he has to, and tonight he had to. His toughest battle will not be Clinton, but rather the Republican establishment.
will not choose McCain. McCain will look like an ignorant bully against Obama and who knows what would happen against Hillary and him. They are too similar.
Romney will be able to make Obama and Hillary both look inexperienced in leadership and like Washington insiders. If Obama stays nice, Romney can play nice if he goes against Hillary he can smack her down like he did McCain.
Romney is the best chance of beating either of them. I'll vote for whoever our nominee is but I sure hope it's Romney.
I love it when my boy kicks butt. I certainly hope the Republican voters realize he is the best chance for the presidency. I am actually having a crisis on whether or not I would vote for McCain in the general. Fortunately I have lots of time to ultimately make my decision and may not even have to do so it Romney is able to pull it out. He made great strides tonight - hopefully it pays off.
I thought I had a chance, here in Florida, with Romney (after Fred bailed...alas).
But, I think the fix is in, just as it was in 76 with Ford over Reagan....the (R) establishment has thrown their weight to McCain....and that's alot to overcome. No matter what everyone says, each vote counts, yada yada....it's a political machine, and we should never forget it. It's McCain's "turn"....and what we think be damned.
We can hope....but I'm turning into a Lame Cherry skeptic. How sad is that?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
you and me both Blonde, I became more of an anti-republican establishment guy yesterday. Threee strikes you are out. We told them twice we didn't want amnesty, and then they pull their weight behind McCain at the last minute.
But after last night's (not so) close call with a samarai sword, I have calmed down. Romney's performance tonight and McCain's "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution" as every other phrase gives me reason to believe Romney will be successful on Tuesday. You may be right about the fix, though. I wonder if this type of thing is the reason the RNC is strapped for cash.
as a possibility at this point. Romney is going to win. California didn't like McCain, we don't like him and hopefully most of the Super Tues states won't like him.
Yesterday I learned that not only has the democrat party has gone socailist, but that the Republican party has gone liberal, leaving me without a place to go. Individual self-reliance is only needed to foot the bill for those programs they use to buy votes with.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Democrat crossover votes.
January 30, 2008 - 15:13 ET by mattmDemocrat crossover votes.
BTW: New GOP logo.
LOL at the logo
January 30, 2008 - 16:14 ET by masslibertarianReckon they can work that into the printed materials for the convention? Looks like that's where we're headed.
Thanks matt....I was going
January 30, 2008 - 16:20 ET by motherbeltThanks matt....I was going to say, can I pick "other"? I think it was independents getting ballots and voting for him.
i need the "who really
January 31, 2008 - 11:38 ET by TruthMongeri need the "who really cares?" option too please matt
1 and 2
January 30, 2008 - 15:10 ET by MassConservI'd take both of the top two choices if possible, but I'll pick media promotion as my top reason.
MC... I too voted that
January 30, 2008 - 15:13 ET by bigtimerMC...
I too voted that way I felt exactly the same between one and two...Huck has been working with McCain for the divide and conquer and get a job somewhere in his cabinet...plus I very much agree with mattm...I posted his same sentiments elsewhere this morning.
Yes, BT
January 30, 2008 - 15:18 ET by MassConservI'd take that third option as well.
Have I been cloned??
January 30, 2008 - 17:08 ET by MassConservativeNamed like me, sounds like me, also stuck in the land of Obama's mini-me (Deval Patrick), but not me. SPOOKY !!!
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
Hello, my fellow namesake.
January 31, 2008 - 15:17 ET by MassConservCloned? Dunno, have you signed up for any healthplans though the Massachusetts Connector lately? ;-)
I do want to apologize for the similarity of our names. Call it a lapse of memory and lack of imagination on my part.
I only hope I do not sully your good name, sir. :-)
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out what that whole, "Together we can" was all supposed to mean. You?
bt,
January 30, 2008 - 15:50 ET by R D HelmI voted that it was due to the MSM promoting him, as that probably was the biggest reason.
I had also mentioned last night that crossover may have had a lot to do with it as well, though I made the crossover voters out to be somewhat malicious in there intent.
I am beginning to back away from the malicious aspect of it somewhat as I am now thinking there may be a considerable number of "moderate" dems who do not like Broom Hilda and are not exactly thrilled with Obama's promise to surrender to Osama as soon as he gets elected.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Hi RD... I couldn't bear
January 30, 2008 - 16:06 ET by bigtimerHi RD...
I couldn't bear to post here last night, I was tempted but too danged pissed off with the Florida primary...lol.
Not a good time to post if you know what I mean.
bt,
January 30, 2008 - 16:13 ET by R D HelmYeah, it was pretty depressing here last night. It got a little better once I put down a couple of stout Jack & Cokes, lol.
I am so hoping that conservatives will rise up on Super Tuesday and send McCain back to Arizona with his tail between his legs.
If they do not, I will be going after another bottle. :-)
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD... That is funny with
January 30, 2008 - 16:20 ET by bigtimerRD...
That is funny with the JD bit...I told my other half last night I wished I had a couple shots of JD on the rocks...been ages and ages, but I sure would of liked a few...
Maybe we can meet half way on super Tuesday and commiserate if the leftist McCain wins....lol!
I hope to goodness not, but it is looking dim, plus he has the msm like he always has, then he too will be attacked...that has been their plan all along.
Sad.
bt,
January 30, 2008 - 16:42 ET by R D HelmWhat I find so frustrating with McCain's stupid supporters is that they, like their senile candidate, do not realize the the liberal MSM is just toying with McCain right now. Like a cat toys with its prey just before eating it.
If McCain should manage to win the republican nomination, the MSM will turn on him so fast that McCain's diminished capacity will not allow him to realize it for at least a week. Perhaps even a month. I have watched him carefully in the debates, and he appears to be easily confused. He will get soundly trounced in the GE, whether it is against Obama or Broom Hilda.
If there is a silver lining in all this, and I am seriously trying to maintain an optimistic outlook here, just maybe the republicans will use the next year or so and clean house from top to bottom, then mount a huge effort in the 2110 mid-terms, and be really ready in 2012. Just because Broom Hilda is in the White House does not make her a dictator. She still has to get her plans (schemes) through the congress.
Remember, many of the democrats elected to congress last mid-term were not all flaming loony libs, as they came from fairly moderate, if not somewhat conservative, areas. They, like their constituents, are not all that impressed with Hillary.
It will not be easy for her, and if the republicans can get their opposition tactics in gear once again and find their lost spine, it will be even more difficult for her.
Well, it makes me feel better, anyway. Okay, maybe just a little better.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD.... Well, it isn't
January 30, 2008 - 16:50 ET by bigtimerRD....
Well, it isn't over yet...we have one week to go...and I will be gone on Wed. I think, so if it is bad I won't be posting the next day...which will be a good thing...lol!
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think it would come down to McCain being the candidate...never.
Go Romney go...
Btw...if I hear one more time the glee from the leftist talking heads on the networks hoping Romney goes broke by staying in the race I am going to scream...I find it deplorable, disgusting.
bt, I am with you.
January 30, 2008 - 17:19 ET by R D HelmI hope McCain is not the nominee, either. Believe me.
But even if he is, it isn't going to mean the end of the republic. The executive branch is only one of three branches of the federal government.
Thank God our founders had the foresight to put that system in place, as it was designed so that no one branch, on its own, could beach the whole country.
You know, I think I am coming out of the depression I have been feeling for the last 24 hrs.
Now I am getting angry.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD, for some reason I am
January 30, 2008 - 23:56 ET by SchnikeysRD, for some reason I am still highly suspicious of the intent of those "crossover" votes. Very. Highly. Suspicious.
Schnikeys,
January 31, 2008 - 00:02 ET by R D HelmAs I told bt, I have only partially retreated from my opinion that there was some ill intent on the part of the x-overs.
I agree that the majority of them were up to no good.
Obama should not have finished so far behind Broom Hilda.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Why do you think the DNC
January 31, 2008 - 00:25 ET by SchnikeysWhy do you think the DNC moved all their delegates to convention time?
IMO, something really needs to be done on our part to defend from all this. Like, e-mailing the RNC chairman or something.
The Dem party, in the long run, is just one big mass of the same thing. All the same feelings and intent are associated with all its members, no matter who their nominee will end up being. They have very little moral grounding in anything, and they are such a huge party that they can cheat like this and get away with it with considerable ease. They know our weakness and it is likely that they are trying to use it against us. Now that we know theirs, it's about time we did something to defend ourselves against it (not, of course, by fruitlessly trying to play their game against them). The reason the Rep Party is voting for McCain is because WE'RE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE VOTING HIM IN. Plenty of room for malicious intent, if you ask me. Taking a few steps to lessen the negative effect wouldn't hurt at all, if you ask me again.
Schnikeys,
January 31, 2008 - 00:32 ET by R D HelmI totally agree.
The current nominating process is stacked against conservatives. Just look at the number of conservatives that have already dropped out, and we haven't even made it to Super Tuesday, the first real opportunity for actual conservatives to vote en masse.
The current process is hideously flawed and needs to be fixed.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Allow me to clarify what I
January 31, 2008 - 00:41 ET by SchnikeysAllow me to clarify what I am saying:
Democrats. Their Fla. primary votes don't count toward anything, UNLESS instead of voting in support of a Dem, they temporarily change their party registration to Rep, vote in the Rep primary (in a way that is destructive to the Republican Party), switch back to the Dem party no later than 29 days before the general election (according to Fla. law), and vote Dem. They are essentially choosing the Republican candidate who they think would be the easiest to defeat in the general election. Having their cake and eating it, too. Some might call it cheating. I call it an abomination that needs to be addressed by some higher-ups.
bigtimer...why McCain won in Fla.
January 31, 2008 - 00:03 ET by Jerbigtimer...are you concluding that the media is rooting for a Republican victory in November? I believe the pre-Fla. primary national polls were showing McCain as the only Republican beating Hillary one-on-one.
I think Fla. went for McCain because of military support in panhandle, Cuban-American support in Miami, endorsements from Gov. and Martinez, support by independents, and Guiliani's freefall, which benefited McCain more than Romney.
Jer
McCain in front because of msm puleez
January 31, 2008 - 00:12 ET by shawn228Jer, I cannot believe the overwhelming majority of the vote saying McCain is front because of promotion from the msm.
It is republicans that are voting for McCain not the msm.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Shawn...I think the MSM is
January 31, 2008 - 00:17 ET by JerShawn...I think the MSM is cited out of force of habit...and loyalty to the mission statement of NewsBusters.
Jer
Many people rely completely
January 31, 2008 - 00:28 ET by alamojbMany people rely completely on the MSM for news. Name recognition will play a big role for many people. With that in mind consider the 100 US Senators.
Which of those 100 US Senators have been getting free national media coverage for years, way before the "election cycle"?
Lets See:
Hillary Clinton (D)
Ted Kennedy (D)
John McCain (R)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R)
Maybe you can come up with a few more, but out of 100 Senators some are clearly given disproportionate free coverage. Of all Republicans, McCain has had the most of this for years.
alamojb
January 31, 2008 - 00:34 ET by shawn228McCain was pretty much out of money a few months back, if the msm was promoting any republican it would have been Huckabee.
You cannot deny he has made a miraculus comeback, even the msm said it was all over for him at one point.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Oh it is miraculous
January 31, 2008 - 00:40 ET by alamojbOh it is miraculous alright. Miraculous that he calls himself a Republican.
But you cannot deny McCain has for years gotten the most free coverage of any Republican- unless you have not been watching the news the last few years.
That is not saying the media has not recently given coverage to Huckabee also. I suspect for much different reasons.
alamojb
January 31, 2008 - 01:07 ET by shawn228People have told me over and over again, how great the movie "The Lord of the Rings" is. When I finally watched it, I was like wtf, this show blows.
No matter how much I see HRC on tv, it does not make me like her more. My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes. The results of this poll remind me of how the Liberals cried over spilt milk in the 2000 and all conspiricy theorys.
If McCain wins the nomination, just suck it up and either vote for him or not. He is gaining momentum because he is popular and he will get the votes that would have gone to Guiliani.
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Shawn228
January 31, 2008 - 01:17 ET by alamojb"My point is I can make my own informed decision when the time comes."
You can, but you are not the average voter. The fact that you spend so much time posting on a political site says you are NOT the AVERAGE voter. Not even an average Primary voter.
Name Recognition counts a great deal for those who rely on TV and maybe newspaper news only. They get only a fraction of the history or stands of a particular canidate that you get by hanging around political site.
alamojb
January 31, 2008 - 01:22 ET by shawn228I am not as politically savvy as most on this site, but yes I probably know more than the average joe. I will again refer the 2000 election, since so many say the msm is so tilted toward the liberals, why did Bush beat McCain the primarys, why did Bush win the general election. The answer is, if the liberel bias is as bad as you say, the McCain would have got the nomination and Gore would be President.
Anyway off to bed, good night alamojb
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
Alamo, if at least 8 of 10 reporters....
January 31, 2008 - 03:12 ET by Parker1227...voted Republican every election, decade after decade, then wouldn't liberals have good reason to fear the influence of conservative bias coming from the MSM?
This is the reality which survey after survey shows that conservatives have faced in the 80-90percent liberal voting MSM for decades.
Ever consider the possibility that conservative base was motivated after 8 years of Clinton, that Bush had good name recognition, that conservatives found a way around MSM bias with radio, that Gore is a very off-putting pompous a$$ (with a capital "P"), and that without the backing of the MSM Gore might have only gotten 40% instead of 50% of the vote?
alamojb...
January 31, 2008 - 01:02 ET by JerThere are a variety of factors in play.
The reason for Hillary's coverage, positive and negative, should be self-explanatory.
Kennedy likewise. His name is Kennedy. He's been there forever. All three brothers met violent deaths. He's controversial...both hated and revered.
McCain has had high profile for some time. Former POW, repeat candidate for President
Hutchinson: Female senator from second largest state in union.
I don't think it really breaks along party lines. Bob Dole was widely covered before long before he was presidential candidate. Jesse Helms was controversial but well covered. There may be some validity to your argument, but I don't think it's the controlling factor.
Note: rereading your post, alamojb, I may have misunderstood your point. I initially thought you were contending that overall the media were covering Democrats more because they like Democrats better. But, it may be that you are just illustrating the value of name recognition regardless of party.
Jer
shawn,
January 31, 2008 - 00:18 ET by R D HelmIt is republicans that are voting for McCain
You are right about that.
But it is not conservatives voting for him.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
rdh
January 31, 2008 - 01:28 ET by shawn228Yes the conservative party sure has changed. Just like JFK would roll over in his grave if he saw what the Democratic party has become. Although If Clinton was JFK, Monica would be floating in river right now
"Suck it"
Pop Tech
shawn,
January 31, 2008 - 01:36 ET by R D HelmRight along side Broom Hilda, as I think she is making his life a living h*ll right about now.
LOL-Imagine my distress!
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Delete - duplicate
January 30, 2008 - 17:05 ET by MassConservativeDelete - duplicate
How about A, B, and the fear
January 30, 2008 - 15:23 ET by midnight cowboyHow about A, B, and the fear of Hillary being the nominee.
How about fear of Hillary
January 30, 2008 - 15:56 ET by lotrHow about fear of Hillary Rodham Clinton being sworn in as the 44th President of U.S. after handily defeating Romney in the general election?
McCain can't win; Romney Can
January 30, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Daniel BakerClinton is Washington Insider who will be seen as more competent than McCain,who is a bigger insider.
Romney is a competent outsider.
I dont' think Hellary would beat Romney
January 30, 2008 - 16:09 ET by SouthJersey1953Voting for a RINO just because you think he is the only one that can beat Hellary makes no sense to me. If McCain gets elected, we aren't much better off than if the witch herself won....
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
Again, I would love to be
January 30, 2008 - 16:20 ET by lotrAgain, I would love to be wrong on this one. I would be quite happy with Romney as President, and I will vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. But I would also be far happier to have McCain over Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the two are worlds apart on many issues. It seems that we all optimistically think "well, that could never happen -- this country won't really elect Hill-Bill" -- well, I'm more pessimistic, and tremble at the prospect. Even the Democratic strategist on O'Reilly admits that she'd rather have Romney the nominee because he doesn't stand a chance in the general election.
Publicly Democrats are afraid of McCain; Privately its different
January 30, 2008 - 16:42 ET by Daniel BakerPrivately they are afraid of running a Senator while the economy slows down. An outsider economic star like Romney running against someone on the Hill is their worst nighmare.
This has been reported by peole who have had private conversations with Democrat Strategists.
Any illegal sympathizer, moderate, or media member will get more of what they want from Hillary or Obama they will not vote for McCain.
Good point Daniel
January 30, 2008 - 16:55 ET by acumenAnd then there's that troubling endorsement of McCain by the NY Slimes....although I think that was sincere.
IMO - I think the dems and demedia are scared to death of Romney.
acumen,
January 31, 2008 - 00:08 ET by R D HelmWhich is precisely why it is so maddening that so many "conservatives," even around here, seem so willing to vote for John McClinton as a last resort.
They are playing right into the hands of the lefties.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Mormon thing, all the way.
January 30, 2008 - 15:26 ET by balboaMormon thing, all the way.
A First
January 30, 2008 - 15:53 ET by acumenHa. You and I agree on this one bal.
I would add one other unlisted factor considering Florida - senility. I think McCain spoke their language.
Ouch! McCain isn't that
January 30, 2008 - 16:07 ET by balboaOuch! McCain isn't that bonkers is he?
The MSM will love to prove McCain is bonkers
January 30, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Daniel BakerHow can he fight that perception
Bal
January 30, 2008 - 16:52 ET by acumenIt really troubled me that McCain lied about Romney supposedly agreeing to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. IMO that was so sleazy. Now that lie was either intentional or the dudes......bonkers. :)
Bal, I'd say the Mormon
January 30, 2008 - 16:55 ET by LeonBal,
I'd say the Mormon thing in tandem with Mitt's utter lack of integrity.
How can you trust a guy that has fundamentally changed his stance on every single major social issue for the sole purpose of being able to run for president? He's manufactured and as such has no principles.
If I'm a Republican, I'd be scared of what a guy with no principles could do if elected.
Well you're not a republican
January 30, 2008 - 16:58 ET by bigtimerWell you're not a republican little one... so don't worry your pretty little head about it.
bt
January 30, 2008 - 17:08 ET by acumenAnother Hillary plant? LOL
Mitt's utter lack of integrity???
January 30, 2008 - 17:01 ET by R D HelmAs compared to who? Monica Lewinsky's former boyfriend, aka Broom Hilda's husband?
LMAO!
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD, I fail to see how
January 30, 2008 - 17:12 ET by LeonRD,
I fail to see how Bill Clinton's integrity has anything to do with Mitt.
Ya' Yeller?
January 30, 2008 - 17:19 ET by acumenYou dems are really scared of Mitt getting the R nod aren't you Leon? C'mon fess up....not many other libs here to hassle you about coming clean.
Acumen, No way. I'm way
January 30, 2008 - 17:25 ET by LeonAcumen,
No way. I'm way more scared of McCain. He could actually win.
Romney doesn't have a chance to win so why would I be scared of him?
You somehow assume that my criticism stems from fear. It stems my disgust surrounding a human being that could sacrifice every single one of his principles like Mitt for the sole purpose of advancing a career. That sickens me.
Well, that and his creepy religion of racism and child abuse.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain, if nominated, CAN win the general election. Romney canNOT. As such, I'm more scared of McCain.
Leon... Be careful what
January 30, 2008 - 17:32 ET by bigtimerLeon...
Be careful what you wish for.
Meanwhile back in bizzaro world
January 30, 2008 - 17:50 ET by acumenThen explain why a lib such as yourself would be pulling for the supposedly stronger republican candidate. Nevermind, I'm burnt out on leftist bs.
But let's talk about something where you can actually provide an honest answer. Which empty-suit socialist you pulling for, Hillary or Barack?
I am afraid of you
January 30, 2008 - 18:55 ET by bbbossI will support whomever gets in the WH that will continue to fight and win the war on Islamofacism....whether it be McCain or Romney...none of the Dems have the guts to even say the word; win. However, I am afraid of you, leon...because I am always afraid of igorant, and "creepy', lying bigots who make themselves out as intellectuals. They and you are dangerous to the country I, my father and my son fought for in WWII, Vietnam and Iraq. I have seen bigots throughtout my life and have hated them deeply...especially since my aunt (a Mormon) married a black man in the '50s. Watching what happened to my aunt and uncle and and their family over the years has convinced me that the racial and religious "creepy" bigots in America are on the political left and the Democrat party. And "that sickens me".....your hatred has no place in America.
bbbosss, I'll bet your
January 31, 2008 - 10:49 ET by Leonbbbosss,
I'll bet your aunt experienced bigotry.
The Mormon church was openly racist until 1978.
Her own people were the ones hating her. You know that whole Black people are evil aspect of Mormonism.
Sorry. I dislike Mormonism b/c it's a religion built on CHILD ABUSE and RACISM.
This is fact. My apologies for not accepting this type of behavior. If that makes me a bigot, than stamp it on my head. I'm proud of fighting against such a disturbing religion.
You act as if I have no reason to distrust Mormons while there are 10s of thousands living all over central america having sex with Children, forcing girls into incestuous relationships, maintaining their communities through fear and threat of physical violence, preaching that black people are inherently evil, and spreading an overall disturbing message.
I feel that my opinion is warranted and as such is not bigotry at all. Fighting against abuse and racism is what I'm all about. If you think that makes me a bigot so be it, but I'll be damned if I'll respect a religion that has dabbled so heavily in disgusting behavior.
Actually, Leon, opponents
January 31, 2008 - 11:28 ET by HermanoActually, Leon, opponents of LDS use the fact that before 1978 they did not allow blacks in leadership positions proves racism. Of course, it was not that long before that that the governement finally allowed blacks to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. Of course, you like to used the argument that "they said that" or "they think that" as proof of something. "Fact" requires proof, not "they said..." Also, you will not be able to prove CHILD ABUSE allegations. (Just because they allowed 13 year-olds to marry back in the days before the US defined an age of consent does not mean abuse. In order for me to believe that this is the CURRENT POLICY OF THE CHURCH, I would need to see some proof that this is currently occuring. You can go back a few years if you must, but you should also be able to document several cases. )
BTW, the reason the Mormons eventually settled in Utah is because bigots ran them out of Missouri.
Hermano, 1) I charge
January 31, 2008 - 11:34 ET by LeonHermano,
1) I charge Mormonism as racist b/c of the preacher thing AND b/c of their scripture. The descendants of Cain? Ever heard of it?
Furthermore, you are correct it wasn't THAT long, but it was a FULL DECADE later. That's a pretty long time.
This is a FACT. Everything I've stated above is FACT.
2) Child abuse occurred in the past and it occurs to this day. Forcing a 12 year old girl to marry and have sex is abuse. This happens daily in the Mormon community. Perhaps not in America, b/c Americans are smart enough to figure out right and wrong, but in Central America, these sick people continue to enforce this sick lifestyle on innocent children. This, again, is a fact.
3) Bigots ran them out of Missouri? Yeah, b/c they were child-abusing polygamists. Sorry speaking out against abhorrent behavior does not make one a bigot.
1. Descendents of Cain?
January 31, 2008 - 11:54 ET by Hermano1. Descendents of Cain? Musical group out of the UK? Oh, and how long after we gave blacks voting rights did it take for us to allow them to the front of the bus? I guess 15 years looks pretty good now, eh? Of course, they are still racists even though they ended racist practices before you were born.
2. What is the median marraige age of non-Mormons in Central America? What is the median marraige age of Mormons in Central America? (Oh, in case you missed it, Romney is not from Central America.)
3. Of course, the Church renounced polygamy in the 1890s.
hermano -- Of course,
January 31, 2008 - 12:05 ET by Jack Bauerhermano --
Of course, there is a religion that still practises polygamy TODAY.. and one of the current Presidential hopefuls has half his relatives who still profess it.
In fact, his grandfather had three wives.
And the practitioners of that religion also begins with the letter "M."
CLUE -- it not MORMON.
Hey JB, I think Leon has
January 31, 2008 - 12:32 ET by HermanoHey JB,
I think Leon has been taking (or teaching) classes at the John McCain School of Slander. Lesson #1 Let's throw up a bunch of BS we know to be false and see how much sticks. Lesson #2 Let's through up a bunch of BS we don't want to check because we don't want it to turn out to be false.
He might need a refresher course.
Yeah Jack, And that's
January 31, 2008 - 12:59 ET by LeonYeah Jack,
And that's diseased to.
Difference.
Barrack doesn't practice the religion of his grandfather.
Romney does.
Hermano, 1) So you
January 31, 2008 - 12:57 ET by LeonHermano,
1) So you don't know the book of Mormon. Strange that would you comment on something you don't know. Check out what the Mormons believe about Black people (which is why they were so long in accepting blacks). Hint: The descendants of Cain. Look it up and get back to me.
2) Romney's family is from Central America. Mexico to be specific. Again, you shouldn't comment on things you don't know.
3) Yes the Church in America banned Polygamy. The Church everywhere else in the world continues to practice polygamy with no end in sight.
But Leon, you commented a
January 31, 2008 - 14:19 ET by HermanoBut Leon, you commented a couple of weeks ago that Romney's family left the US and then came back. So technically, you are right - they are from Mexico. But they are also from the US. (So are you being disingenuous solely for the purpose of this discussion?) And Romney is currently (and always has been) a subject of the US Church. That is kind of like saying that I like beer because my ancestors are German. So the Mormons say it's OK to be a descendent of Cain. That sounds to me to be very unbigoted.
I thought you were trying to impart some knowledge by your "comments" but it seems you are only trying to "comment" on your own disdain for Mormons because in the past they practiced bigotry and polygomy.
Wrong Hermano, Romney's
January 31, 2008 - 14:34 ET by LeonWrong Hermano,
Romney's family is from Mexico.
His father was born there. His father wasn't from the US at all. You are misinformed.
Seriously, read about Cain before making asinine comments, but since I've already implored you twice to have a clue what you're talking about before commenting and you've failed to do so, I'll give you a quick break down.
Mormon theology teaches that Cain and his descendants were placed under a curse by God. What was that curse? Black skin. This was the basis of the Mormons exclusion of blacks from the priesthood.
Don't believe me? Let's take a look at the actual scripture from the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses which are both held sacred by Mormons then (these are just a few examples of many):
1) "And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Nephi 12:23)
2) "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)
3) "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 6:8)
And let's close with this gem from the almight Brigham Young:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110)
So there really is no dispute over the racism of Mormonism.
It's right there in their scripture. Racism is an inherent part of their religion.
Did I say I didn't believe
January 31, 2008 - 14:47 ET by HermanoDid I say I didn't believe you? I am pleased you have given me some of the actual scripture by which the Mormon Church bases their belief system. (I have seen this kind of verse in my Bible.) And your point that the Mormon Church still practices this racism is where? This is my point, Mormons of this country in this century do not practice racism and do not practice polygomy. I could make a similar case (i.e distrust or hatred towards some people) against every religion and every government that has existed based on your kind of arguments.
How about George's father and mother? Didn't they leave the US for Mexico? (Oh, you mean family, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
BTW, Mexico is not
January 31, 2008 - 14:34 ET by Roger the ShrubberBTW, Mexico is not considered Central America, unless I am mistaken.
Don't let this little tidbit interrupt the Mormon Church-bashing. Please continue dazzling us with your vast knowledge of the religion, Alan.
Rog, Sure it is. The
January 31, 2008 - 14:39 ET by LeonRog,
Sure it is.
The Northern most border of what is considered Central America is located on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec IN MEXICO.
Don't worry. I won't allow your lack of knowledge to interfere with my dissemination of truth.
Sorry Leon...
January 31, 2008 - 14:44 ET by vrwc13http://www.worldatla...
v
but keep up the good work on "shining the light", you ol Bible-thumper you.
Sorry V, Should have stayed
January 31, 2008 - 14:46 ET by LeonSorry V,
Should have stayed out of this one. Physiographically speaking I am 100% correct.
V, See p. 5
January 31, 2008 - 14:50 ET by LeonV,
See p. 5
Shrubbo.. I just did a
January 31, 2008 - 14:57 ET by Jack BauerShrubbo..
I just did a little checking and depending on which source, Central America comprises either 6 or 7 countries. I don't see Mexico in the list.
Boy Jack, You really love
January 31, 2008 - 15:03 ET by LeonBoy Jack,
You really love me.
Central America is not necessarily defined by country borders.
Physiographically, I am correct, as I stated above.
Should have stayed out of this one tiger. But I must say it is cute to see you rush to Rog's rescue. How special.
See p. 5
OK, everyone - so is
January 31, 2008 - 15:19 ET by HermanoOK, everyone - so is Iceland Europe or North America?
I would think that
January 31, 2008 - 16:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberI would think that Encyclopedia Britannica would be a more of an authority.
...southernmost region of North America, lying between Mexico and South America and comprising Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize. (Geologists and physical geographers sometimes extend the northern boundary to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico.)
According to that statement, we could both be considered correct, if we were talking about tectonics. But we aren't, and ALWAYS always trumps SOMETIMES.
Rog, The simple fact of
February 1, 2008 - 09:20 ET by LeonRog,
The simple fact of the matter is that you went out of your way to try to go after me and you weren't even right.
Sorry tiger. Don't know what you want me to say. Geopolitically, Mexico is not commonly considered part of Central America, but physiographically it is. Both are legitimate measures.
Pumpkin, you give me too
February 1, 2008 - 09:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberPumpkin, you give me too much credit, thinking I devote a large amount of time to point out your errors. I hardly "go out of my way" to do that. It is rather easy, but may appear hard to you, but, hopefully, someday, when you grow up, it will become easier for you.
Rog, Calling another man
February 1, 2008 - 09:54 ET by LeonRog,
Calling another man Pumpkin is gay.
Fact.
I didn't know you did the gay thing out there in the middle of nowhere PA. Interesting.
Did it say that in your
February 1, 2008 - 10:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberDid it say that in your Handbook for Homophobes?
Displaying homophobia AND 2 feeble personal attacks in one post? Man, my dental work must be drilling deeper than usual today. I think you need another shot of novocaine, Alan.
Rog, Nah it's just common
February 1, 2008 - 11:06 ET by LeonRog,
Nah it's just common knowledge among men.
The pumpkin rule comes right after the 'it's gay for two guys to share an umbrella rule.'
Snice my Leon Filter is
February 1, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberSnice my Leon Filter is working well today, you are actually saying "all homophobes like me know that only gays say 'pumpkin'"". Okay. Got it. Anything else? Fashion Tips for Homophobes, perhaps?
Hermano
January 31, 2008 - 14:27 ET by MassConservYou have to keep in mind that 10 years is a long time to Leon. He's a young'un and that constitutes practically half his life.
MC, are you sure its only half?
January 31, 2008 - 14:42 ET by R D HelmLol-Somehow I was thinking 80%.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
:-)
January 31, 2008 - 15:09 ET by MassConservI could be wrong. :-)
Leon,
January 30, 2008 - 17:27 ET by R D HelmI have Mormon friends and business associates. When it comes to integrity, they are far and away better than any other group of people I have dealt with. Ever.
And that includes some so-called "Christians" I know.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
R D, Contemporary
January 31, 2008 - 10:52 ET by LeonR D,
Contemporary Mormons remind me of contemporary Germans.
Trying extra hard to overcompensate for their past, disgraceful histories.
The Mormon religion is diseased and I'll stand by that accusation.
Any religion that preaches child abuse and racism is not ok in my book.
No Leon - the fact that you & Bal don't like him proves he's
January 30, 2008 - 17:10 ET by Dee Bunkconservative. You guys don't trash McCain like this. If you really thought he was just pandering you guys wouldn't care. You didn't care with Clinton I and you don't care with Clinton II and you didn't care with Kerry or Gore. Liberals didn't care when Clinton faked being religious they only care when people actually are religious. Mormon, Christian, Jewish it doesn't matter; real faith scares liberals.
Dee, That is the worst
January 30, 2008 - 17:16 ET by LeonDee,
That is the worst logic I've ever seen.
Our dislike of him makes him a conservative? Huh? Wonder how Barry Goldwater got that title when I wasn't even born. Interesting.
While McCain has made some liberal moves, he's remained true to his principles.
Romney's a life long liberal that switched to conservative at the behest of the Republicans to try to save a floundering field of candidates.
McCain's made some mistakes, but he hasn't gone 180 on all of his fundamental beliefs.
Mitt's a manufactured conservative. Nothing more. Unless of course I'm wrong that his family donated money to abortion clinics, he openly stated that he was pro-choice, said he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, and supported universal healthcare in Mass.
Did he not do those things?
Don't pick on Dee
January 30, 2008 - 17:18 ET by Free StinkerDee: 1
Leon: 0
She has a point about you guys not dissing McCain . . .
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
I love Dee, but that was
January 30, 2008 - 17:22 ET by LeonI love Dee,
but that was terrible logic.
Why do I have to diss McCain b/c I diss Mitt?
I like McCain as a human being. For all his political mistakes, the guy actually has integrity. He's stood up for what he's believed him. This is painfully clear in all of your whining about him being a RINO. He didn't tow the party line. He did what he thought was best.
That's not the same with Mitt. Somebody told him what to do and how to do it, and he did. He created an image for himself that isn't rooted in the reality of his life. He's a manufactured conservative. Nothing more than a PR stunt.
Furthermore, Mitt is the topic at hand. We're talking about the number one factor in McCain's win. That would be Mitt. As I stated, the number one factor is Mitt's major weaknesses.
What progress! Leon didn't even get mad at Free for sticking up
January 30, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Dee Bunkfor me. How cool! You guys are going to be friends before you know it.
Leon - you only think McCain has integrity because when he lies it's to conservatives - not to liberals.
Mitt Romney
January 30, 2008 - 17:40 ET by Free StinkerHe's a manufactured conservative. Nothing more than a PR stunt.
Leon - Mitt may not be a Conservative, but he will finish the work in Iraq, appoint judges like Alito, and control the border.
I doubt it's a PR stunt because Mitt will want to get re-elected to a 2nd term in office. He will have to follow through on his promises.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Free- there is a reason why all the libs here and the media hate
January 30, 2008 - 17:47 ET by Dee BunkFree- there is a reason why all the libs here and the media hate Romney. It sure isn't because their worried he'll go back on his conservative stances. They know Romney has charisma and is the one who can beat Clinton or Obama. They want a dulldrum like McCain so they can have a free ride.
Dee... Yeah I just heard
January 30, 2008 - 17:55 ET by bigtimerDee...
Yeah I just heard Lott and an ex dem Senator, say you have to be like-able to win...
they were referring of course to Mitt...not McCain.
Now that is hilarious.
McCain is despised by a lot of people he works with...and some of us that don't.
Yeah BT - McCain is hardly the likable candidate
January 30, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Dee BunkYeah BT - McCain is hardly the likable candidate
Who said I don't like
January 30, 2008 - 19:13 ET by balboaWho said I don't like Romney? I was just voting for the Mormon thing.
You like Romney. Riiiiiight.
January 30, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Chris NormanYou like Romney. Riiiiiight.
He's not my fave
January 30, 2008 - 19:26 ET by balboaHe's not my fave conservative, but I'm not frothing at the mouth against him. I like him more than Huckabee, that's for sure.
You never actuall froth,
January 30, 2008 - 19:30 ET by Chris NormanYou never actually froth, Bal. You're a froth free lib.
Haha. I guess I'm very
January 30, 2008 - 19:44 ET by balboaHaha. I guess I'm very frugal with the froth. Just special occasions.
Special occasions do deserve
January 30, 2008 - 20:06 ET by Chris NormanSpecial occasions do deserve bubbly... :)
Sorry balboa - I didn't mean to put words in your mouth
January 30, 2008 - 23:00 ET by Dee BunkI guess I can't think of you actually dissing Romney. I know Shawn and Jason have. Admit it though, McCain is your favorite Republican candidate right?
Im wondering if there is
January 30, 2008 - 15:27 ET by Dan The Man 2Im wondering if there is another factor, the illegal vote. The illegal population might have voted for McCain. And then we get crossovers from the Dims who know or at least think their votes are void. So if your vote doesnt count vote for the canditate teh Dims can beat.
I choose, bugging the spelling policia, Media because they have the most influence.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I can't vote on this poll
January 30, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Clear thinkerI can't vote on this poll because it does not have the real reason why McCain won.
He won because the party has been taken over by moderates.
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
It ain't over yet, Ronmey still is on it.. DROP OUT HUCKER
January 30, 2008 - 15:47 ET by upcountrywaterThere is still super tusday..
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
Oh joy to the world, 19 more atomic power plants!
Dittos upcountrywater
January 30, 2008 - 16:48 ET by acumenFat lady ain't singing yet.
Got to keep working - get the truth out about McCain:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population. While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
Thanks to the great (conservative) one, Mark Levin for compiling the above.
Excellent acumen and a big
January 30, 2008 - 16:53 ET by bigtimerExcellent acumen and a big Boy Howdy for Levin!
acumen, Juan mc Rino and Mitt will debate at eight
January 30, 2008 - 17:21 ET by upcountrywaterof course it will be a CNN event,
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
Oh joy to the world, 19 more atomic power plants!
Thanks for the heads-up upcountrywater
January 30, 2008 - 17:26 ET by acumenIf an NB chat opens up on the debate maybe I will catch you there.
“I can’t stand that I live in a culture, especially in Hollywood, where measure of man is self-indulgence.” Pat Dollard
Hope I can too... If
January 30, 2008 - 17:28 ET by bigtimerHope I can too...
If not...maybe later on the thread...I'm quite sure they will have one.
acumen, Live chat is fun, I hope they have an internet video.
January 30, 2008 - 17:41 ET by upcountrywaterIf no link I'm there vicariously getting the blow by blow by like minded NBers.
If I have TV I'd throw things at it.
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
Oh joy to the world, 19 more atomic power plants!
Acumen
January 30, 2008 - 18:48 ET by OldSailor88Don't forget.....
JUAN FREAKING HERNANDEZ!!
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
I can't vote either
January 30, 2008 - 15:56 ET by soosanbut I'm having flashbacks to a 76' Ford candidacy that excluded a better candidate to reward an inside/washington guy. what we'll get with McCain is the chance to honor him for his war service (thanks!) and in so doing lose the White House (again).
am I imagining things?
Nope...I think you have it right
January 30, 2008 - 16:11 ET by SouthJersey1953Well said.
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
soosan, In a word NO
January 30, 2008 - 16:14 ET by upcountrywaterHellery in the White House.
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
Oh joy to the world, 19 more atomic power plants!
McCain's Florida victory
January 30, 2008 - 15:54 ET by PrairieSkyAttention all those who are doing all the handwringing and hair pulling concerning John McCain and his win in Florida- Deal with it!!! Am I thrilled with the choice of candidates this election? No-I am a lifelong Republican, and would be happier with a more conservative field, but it is not going to happen this time. Like it or not, Republicans, and this especially includes conservative Republicans, have to get a handle on the reality of the fact that we all have two very clear, stark realities come November-either grit your teeth and support the Republican nominee (likely at this time to be McCain), or get used to the idea of a second President Clinton or a President Obama. It is that simple. Republicans of all stripes, conservatives and moderates, need to come together, and fast, and make up their minds to support the nominee, whoever that is. He was not my first choice, but it appears now that the strongest candidate to go up against either Clinton or Obama, would be McCain. Like it or not. If we don't want the looming disaster of a Democrat in office this time next year folks, then we ALL as Republicans need to get a grip and come together as a party behind our candidate, or we face a very long four years (or more) ahead.
My sentiments exactly.
January 30, 2008 - 15:55 ET by lotrMy sentiments exactly.
Compromising principles is
January 30, 2008 - 16:27 ET by JasonPCompromising principles is not an option. This is not a dictatorship (yet) and in four years we can vote again. There is no need to support a RINO like McCain at this time, or ever. His record is so glaringly anit-conservative it's not possible for many to concede a vote for him. If he wins, then he wins, but he won't have my vote.
→ JasonP
January 30, 2008 - 16:30 ET by Cool ArrowWas Fred an option?
Is Mitt an option?
Is Huck an option?
♣ a seal
Plainly speaking they are or
January 30, 2008 - 16:36 ET by JasonPPlainly speaking they are or were all options for some voters. McCain seems to be a great option at this time for Indy's. I wouldn't expect or advise anyone to sacrifice their principles to vote for any candidate if they didn't want to. All one can do is educate on your own preference and hope to win them over--and hope it carries over to the polling booth. McCain can't win me over, but he may win some others.
Compromising principles
January 30, 2008 - 16:38 ET by JudithNever been told that life itself is a compromise? Any Repub is better the broomhilda or jughead. They could hand the country over to the terrorists at worst or ruin it economically or philosophically at best. We all have our favorites but you need to see the results of no compromise. There may not be another four years.
Didn't have to be told...
January 30, 2008 - 16:44 ET by JasonPDidn't have to be told... but I'm not convinced there's any major differences b/w H, O or McCain. He's a corrupt Washington DC insider IMO who judges his positions by sticking his finger in the wind. Based on his prior record, how can we be so sure he would stick to his guns on the WOT? Which, when his position on immigration is taken into account, turns out to not be so strong in the first place. I am confident that even with a D in the WH, Republicans who continue to stand for conservative principles both nationally and locally, will provide a strong contention to any democrat proposals.
Compromising
January 30, 2008 - 16:39 ET by PrairieSkyHave you listened to either Clinton or Obama, and what they want to do as president? Do you have any idea how much damage they can do in four years???
I think McCain will do the
January 30, 2008 - 16:44 ET by Free StinkerI think McCain will do the same sort of damage.
He doesn't like Alito, he is open borders, he wants to close the terror holding tank at Gitmo . . .
Sounds a lot like Hillary to me.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Damage...
January 30, 2008 - 16:54 ET by PrairieSkyDo you really believe that McCain will be as harmful a president as Clinton or Obama? It is amazing to me to see how blind people are to either of the dem candidates, and how much disdain they have for McCain. It almost borders on McCain Derangement Syndrome. If this is how many Republicans think, then we are in big trouble in November.
It is and we are. I don't
January 30, 2008 - 17:00 ET by Chris NormanIt is and we are. I don't get it either. I thought we were rational.
Quite likely. The main
January 30, 2008 - 17:00 ET by JasonPQuite likely. The main problem I have with McCain is that he is not the candidate that registered Republicans and conservatives prefer, but that of the moderates and Indy's. It's insulting when those who may vote D at the end of the day are playing an active part in selecting your nominee. McCain is their man
JasnP... You are so
January 30, 2008 - 17:07 ET by bigtimerJasnP...
You are so right....McCain has been the msm main man, along with the leftist party...they may finally accomplish their agenda in this regard.
Lord I hope Mitt fights like hell tonight.
Yes. I really belive McCain will be as damaging as Hillary.
January 30, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Free StinkerYes. I really belive McCain will be as damaging as Hillary.
You forget, even with a Democrat controlled Congress, Bill Clinton wasn't able to damage the country as badly as he could have without seperation of powers.
Meanwhile, judge appointments are key. Key. Hillary will appoint activist judges. McCain will appoint activist judges.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Free,
January 30, 2008 - 17:23 ET by R D HelmYes. I really belive McCain will be as damaging as Hillary.
And McCain will go beyond even Hillary not only in his damage to the republic, but in his (perhaps fatal?) damage to the republican party.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Damaging...
January 30, 2008 - 17:36 ET by PrairieSkyNo, you forget..."Bill Clinton wasn't able to damage the country ..." Have you forgotten how he sat back for eight years and did nothing of any real substance to deal with the increasing threat from radical Islam, which directly led to 9-11? That didn't damage the country? What are you thinking?? Hillary will be far worse than her gutter wallowing husband.
PS, perhaps you should think in terms of his damage to
January 30, 2008 - 17:49 ET by R D HelmPS,
Perhaps you should think in terms of his damage to the Republican Party.
What we all saw happen to the party under GWB will be far worse under McCain, as he is more liberal than Bush is, and is openly hostile to conservatives in general. If he becomes president, the party most likely will split, and it will take a couple of decades for that to play itself out. That is when you will see irreparable damage done to the republic by the left.
Most congressional republicans will stand up to Broom Hilda. They most likely would not against McCain. At least not as staunchly, anyway.
Hillary, by herself, cannot destroy this country. The destruction of the Republican Party just might.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
I don't know, R.D.
January 30, 2008 - 17:59 ET by BlondeMcCain knows we conservatives hate his a** and don't trust him as far as we can throw him.
Not that I'm expecting the cat to change his stripes, but I think he's going to have to veer hard right to satisfy us. Whether he stays there if, big if, he's elected is another story.
I've not read this whole thread, yet, but I personally suspect Crist & Martinez's (particularly Mel Martinez...ratfink chair of the Republican party, in case anyone has forgotten THAT little factoid) endorsements had alot to do with tipping the "undecideds". Of course, they're all mostly moderates, anyway, and not conservatives.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde,
January 30, 2008 - 18:10 ET by R D HelmWell, I am still holding out hope that we will not have to find out what McCain will do if elected.
I do not think he could prevail against either Obama or Broom Hilda, as his MSM pals will turn on him rather nastily should he get the nomination.
Ugly, that will be.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Damage to the Republican Party...
January 30, 2008 - 18:14 ET by PrairieSkyI am more worried about the damage to the country, than I am the damage(if any), to the party. As far as the damage that you allude to that happened under GWB, that was more a result of the onslaught from the radical left, than from anything inside the party. Has Bush been a perfect president? No. but he has managed to keep us from being attacked again for the last 6 1/2 years, and I believe that McCain would continue to hold the hard line against our terrorist enemies as Bush has. Do you really believe that Clinton or Obama would be as steadfast in that regard? "Billary" would probably pull out the 'ol Kleenex and have a good cry the first time she got roughed up by some thug from another country that she had to deal with, and Lord only knows what Obama would do. I don't like to think about it. As far as the party splitting, it has begun that already. And damage (I hope not irreparable), has already been done to the republic by the left. Unfortunately, this election appears to not be about who's the best, but maybe, who's not the worst. Believe me, I am not happy to say that, but I feel it is true.
PS, Forget it. I tried the
January 30, 2008 - 18:25 ET by Chris NormanPS,
Forget it. I tried the same tact over the course of a few hours last night. I was crushed under the stampede of opposition - save for one or two. I just hope that this split won't harm the relationships between the friends and (usually) political allies I have made here over the past couple of years, almost.
chris... Cooler heads
January 30, 2008 - 18:31 ET by bigtimerchris...
Cooler heads prevail...but it takes time in some cases for heads to cool...and this is one of them me thinks.
I think you are right BT
January 30, 2008 - 18:33 ET by Dee BunkI think you are right BT. We just have to wait it out
BT
January 30, 2008 - 18:35 ET by PrairieSkyI hope you're right...I just hope those heads cool off FAST!!!
Hey PS.... Well mine
January 30, 2008 - 18:41 ET by bigtimerHey PS....
Well mine isn't even cooled off yet...LOL!
Catch ya all here and there, got to get some chicken frying for the debate.
Lord I hope I hope Romney scores points against McCain, he has a lot of material to use.
I'll be thinking of you all if I don't make it back during the debate, hopefully I won't be screaming at the TV.
CN
January 30, 2008 - 18:33 ET by PrairieSkyThanks for the words of support...but I'm not going to give up and neither should you. There have to be others out there who are more clear thinking about the situation surrounding this election, and who understand the staggering seriousness of why it is so important who wins (or who doesn't win).
PS,I think my mistake was
January 30, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Chris NormanPS,
I think my mistake was trying to reluctantly look ahead to the posssibility of McCain as the GOP nomineee, while the shock, anger, disppointment, and bitterness over his win in Florida was still very fresh (and those were just my feelings). I have committed to reluctantly vote for the GOP nominee - whoever he is - not because I necessarily support him - but from my fear and loathing of Hillary and my sheer terror of Obama. My distaste for McCain isn't enough to overcome my sickness at the thought of seeing one of Dems taking the oath of office. It will be far easier to undo four to eight years of McCain than even one term of Hillary or Obama. We can't even undo much of the damage inflicted by Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton. Can you imagine the entitlement programs, debt, and judges Hillary or Obama will install? Can you imagine the dismantling of the military that will be done by either of these two? Can you imagine the craven crawling to the UN? McCain may be a liberal Republican, but despite some of the hyperbole here, he can't be as radical a leftist as either Obama or Hillary. Please people who read this, don't interpret this as a defense of McCain.
CN
January 30, 2008 - 20:28 ET by PrairieSkyI couldn't agree more...I just wish others would see the situation as clearly. McCain may not be perfect (who is?), and the level of hysteria surrounding him is a bit baffling to me, but he is infinitely a better choice for president than either Clinton or Obama, for all the reasons that you laid out, and more.
why?
January 30, 2008 - 20:32 ET by Conservative Voicewhy?
CV
January 30, 2008 - 21:27 ET by PrairieSkyWhy what?
why is McCain better?
January 30, 2008 - 21:35 ET by Conservative Voicewhy is McCain better? Seriously I do not see it.
Why is McCain better...
January 30, 2008 - 21:54 ET by PrairieSkyClinton or Obama will do their best to dismantle the military, and run up the debt on liberal give-aways and entitlement programs. I do not believe that McCain will do any of these things. I also believe that McCain will continue the hard line against the radical Islamists as President Bush has done. National security is everything to me in this election...and matched up against Clinton or Obama, it is simply no contest. I know you don't see it, but those are my reasons why.
PrairieSky,
January 30, 2008 - 22:13 ET by R D HelmI sympathize with your dilemma, but after reading most of your comments, I fear that you are confusing "republican" with "conservative."
McCain has done much to seriously undermine our efforts in the GWOT. While Obama would most likely surrender to Osama in short order, Broom Hilda will not. While she may not be the smartest woman in the world, she is far from the stupidest.
No way she will want to attach defeat (or surrender) in Iraq to the democrats.
John McCain is a L*I*B*E*R*A*L.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
R D Helm
January 30, 2008 - 22:50 ET by PrairieSkySorry, but I don't believe I am confusing "republican" and "conservative". I consider myself a "conservative", and a "republican". But I am also a pragmatist. As I have said before, and will say again, McCain was not my first choice, this year, or in 2000. I supported GWB against him in 2000. However, given the situation we are facing this election year, I believe he is the best option for defeating Clinton or Obama, both of which to me, are disasters waiting to happen. Do I agree with everything and every position that McCain has done and and has taken? No. But I cannot believe that he would be more dangerous an option concerning national security, than Clinton would be. Do you really think that McCain would want to, as you said of Clinton and the Democrats, "attach defeat(or surrender) in Iraq..." to the Republicans? He is, and has always been considered to be a hawk when it comes to national security and defense issues. Absolutely nothing in Clinton's or Obama's history give me any reason to believe that they would be more competent to handle the national security issues that the next president will have to confront. The only reason that Clinton voted to go into Iraq was because it was the popular political consensus at the time. As soon as things got difficult there, and her radical left support system began to make noise and threats about her initial vote of support, she changed her tune. She is just like her useless husband. She has no convictions or moral compass which guide her. She goes with whatever is the path of least resistance and is politically expedient at the time. Obama, as we know, never supported the mission in Iraq...then or now. Clinton and Obama are both totally unacceptable in any circumstance that I can think of. McCain is not perfect, but given the other options, I believe he is the only acceptable choice.
My issue is still that if we
January 30, 2008 - 16:24 ET by BruzillaMy issue is still that if we do vote for McCain (assuming he gets the nod) and he wins, we are going to have someone who's largely the same on critical issues as the Dem nominees. Maybe not exactly the same, but in most of our key areas close to the same. Okay, so we have McCain in the White House, but what happens in 2012? The Republican Party is now honor bound to support McCain, so we're automatically going to get eight years of a lackluster, toss 'em all under the bus, RINO president. Suppose by 2012 we could get Candoleeza Rice to run? How about George Allen? Matt Blunt? Do we really want to tell these folks "no thanks... we'll keep McRINO" in 2012?
As you said, it would be great to have a strong Conservative field to choose from, but we don't. So instead of choosing the lesser of a trio of evils, I would rather write off 2008, endure four years of a Dem in the White House, and hope that the Republican Party gets it right in 2012.
Issue...
January 30, 2008 - 16:26 ET by PrairieSkyWould you rather have four or eight years of Clinton or Obama? Are you truly familiar with how far left their positions are???
PS
January 30, 2008 - 16:53 ET by R D HelmIf McCain gets elected, there will be no republican party in 2012 to speak of. Better the republicans be in opposition for the next four years than partners in the crime itself.
Otherwise, what will they have to run against in the 2010 mids and 2012 GE?
-See my response to bt above.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Your issue
January 30, 2008 - 16:39 ET by JudithMY GOD, WHAT THINKING!!
Judith,I'm not sure what's
January 30, 2008 - 17:04 ET by Chris NormanJudith,
I'm not sure what's happening here. I think someone's been passing out kool-aid. I will vote for Romney and then support the GOP nominee whoever he is. My conservative principles are strong enough that I can't let Hillary or Obama win without a fight.
Judith, you know what's
January 30, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Clear thinkerJudith, you know what's happening. Real conservatives are tired of the GOP fighting for moderates. This is what's called a Reagan revolution.
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
I won't be fighting for
January 30, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Chris NormanI won't be fighting for McCain. I'll be fighting against Hillary or Obama. It's kind of like the US and the Soviets against the Nazis.
George Allen would kick as$
January 31, 2008 - 00:48 ET by SchnikeysGeorge Allen would kick as$ all over the place. Screw the "but he said 'macaca'" crybabies.
If I were a political cartoonist, I would draw a picture of McCain with a horn sticking out of his head and a horn sticking off of his nose.
McCain's Lies is not an option?
January 30, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Daniel BakerRobo Calls saying Romney supports abortion and gay marriage. Then public statements that he supported withdrawal.
No!
January 30, 2008 - 16:06 ET by okiehawk44No! I'm not going to vote in the general election for just any Republican because we belong to the same party. I will vote for the person whose positions on issues best correspond to mine -- doesn't have to be a clean sweep -- but I'm absolutely not giving up my principles just to stay "true" to the Republican party. I may not be able to vote this time out!
I agree -all that "loyalty" has gotten us
January 30, 2008 - 16:15 ET by SouthJersey1953is candidates further and further away from the conservative base. Now they want us to 'accept it.' No thank you. If we don't stand our ground here, we will have to stand our ground later (but much further to the left than we have already traveled).
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
McCain
January 30, 2008 - 16:23 ET by PrairieSkyThis is not a matter of staying "true" to the Republican party. I am assuming that you are in fact a Republican, and if that is so, being a Republican and believing in Republican principles, you could not vote for either Clinton or Obama. You say you won't give up your principles just to stay true to the party-fine-I admire that. But look at the alternative. Would you really rather sit this election out and not vote for the Republican nominee, even though he may not be your perfect choice, and end up with Clinton or Obama as president? What would you rather do? Go down the narrow ideological path and refuse to see the reality of the situation? As I said, I also am not thrilled with our choices this year...but I am appalled at the idea of Clinton or Obama as president. No candidate is a perfect match for everyone. But this country is at a point in its history where it absolutely can not survive a Clinton or Obama as our leader.
What would be the benefit
January 30, 2008 - 16:47 ET by motherbeltWhat would be the benefit of having someone in the White House with an "R" after his name, if he would govern the same way a "D" would? Is it just a matter of the letter? Big, fat, deal!
Maybe Republican ideas really are dead. Maybe the country just wants whoever will give away the store to them, and promise them a FREE chicken in every pot.
Maybe people really aren't interested in conservatism and limited government any more, and the only way for a "Republican" to get elected is to promise the same things as the Democrats.
And BTW, it might be time that we start using quotes around the word Republican in reference to McCain.
Abe Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg:
Listener: 5
Lincoln: Wrong. 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
mb... A.B.Stoddard (I
January 30, 2008 - 18:12 ET by bigtimermb...
A.B.Stoddard (I hope I have the spelling right) just said a mouthful about why the conservatives do not like McCain...she made the list of the main opposition to him, she was on with Dick Army.
She was dead on.
I disagree profoundly with
January 30, 2008 - 16:50 ET by JasonPI disagree profoundly with that statement. I don't beleive any democrat harnesses the kind of power it would take to completely destroy this country. There are those eleceted representatives and the electorate that would not allow it. I understand what your sentiment is, and I don't like democrats' socialist ideas, but this country is stonger than any candidate and will survive 4 yrs of a D admin, if it comes to that.
Disagree..
January 30, 2008 - 17:06 ET by PrairieSkyIt is becoming depressingly clear to me as I read many of these postings, that many of you out there have already decided that we will have a President Clinton or Obama in November. We will have that either as a result of not supporting our nominee, or by not voting at all. How sad...
Just keep your fingers
January 30, 2008 - 17:09 ET by JasonPJust keep your fingers crossed that all of the I's continue to support McCain as promised and no worries needed.
PS, Hillary will not be a dictator.
January 30, 2008 - 16:58 ET by R D HelmEven though in her mind she will be. She still has to get her kooky ideas theough the congress. Not as easy a task as some might think.
Look at the problems Pelosi and Reid are having trying to affect their legislative stupidity.
Have a little faith in your country and the built-in safegaurds that were put into place by our founders.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD...
January 30, 2008 - 18:23 ET by PrairieSkyI do have enormous faith in my country. But I also remember the eight years of Bill Clinton that my fellow countrymen voted into office twice, so I don't take anything for granted now.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is
January 30, 2008 - 16:26 ET by lotrLadies and gentlemen, it is my honor to present to you the President of the United States of America, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
lotr
January 30, 2008 - 16:33 ET by candanceI hate to sound cynical, but the sting of that threat started wearing off a few weeks ago. A lot of people know full well how evil Hillary is but cannot muster enough imagination to believe McCain would be able to stop her legislation.
Put a Democrat Congress in McCain's hands and watch Hillary barrel her way into getting what she wants.
It hasn't worn off me, and I
January 30, 2008 - 21:20 ET by lotrIt hasn't worn off me, and I continue to pray that it doesn't happen.
candance,
January 30, 2008 - 21:28 ET by R D Helm...but cannot muster enough imagination to believe McCain would be able to stop her legislation.
Are you kidding? McCain would not only fail to stop Broom Hilda's legislation, he would most likely willingly sign every bill she sends him, no matter how loony it was.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
"Ladies..."
January 30, 2008 - 16:34 ET by PrairieSkyAbsolutely....I just wish all those others out there who have McCain issues would get it... I am afraid, however, that they will get it... just too late...right around January 20, 2009, when she (or Obama) is sworn in.
What do you think will be
January 30, 2008 - 16:48 ET by motherbeltWhat do you think will be different with a President McCain, from a President Clinton? Other than not pulling out of Iraq immediately.
Old news, I know, but for what it's worth...
January 30, 2008 - 21:19 ET by lotrSam Brownback Endorses John McCain http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308960,00.html
Brownback was the candidate favored by many social conservatives (at least those in my circles) way back in the beginning. Unfortunately, he, like most of the others, just simply aren't electable on the national stage. Even less electable than any of them was Alan Keyes, even though he blows them ALL out of the water in terms of intellegence, orator ability, vision, backbone and conservative principles. Hillary and Obama are far more socially liberal than McCain. McCain is a moderate; Hillary is a liberal.
lotr-Brownback
January 30, 2008 - 21:34 ET by PrairieSkyExactly...Brownback is very conservative, and if he is able to endorse McCain, that tells me that he understands what is really important in this election. We need someone who is going to able to defeat Clinton or Obama and their liberal, leftist agendas.
With Romney still running,
January 30, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Conservative VoiceWith Romney still running, that makes Brownback a person who puts party politics over doing the right thing.
Or Brownback isn't really conservative
delete double
January 30, 2008 - 16:49 ET by motherbeltdelete double
For those saying 'just hold your nose'
January 30, 2008 - 16:06 ET by Mark_for_SenateI firmly believe that McCain is the least likely candidate to beat the Dem nominee (whomever it may be). He is dishonest. He can't be trusted (clearly proven through his Senate career and most recently campaigning). A large number of conservatives, given a choice between 'dishonest' and 'more dishonest' will choose neither. I'm not condoning that action (or non-action), but it is what it is. We had better hope super Tuesday yields different results.
To know and not do, is to not yet know
John McCain is the next Bob
January 30, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Mark_for_SenateJohn McCain is the next Bob Dole (or worse) as far as general election results. Trust me on this.
To know and not do, is to not yet know
"hold your nose..."
January 30, 2008 - 16:30 ET by PrairieSkyOkay-who do you think can beat the dems in November???
I have been suffering
January 30, 2008 - 16:10 ET by BruzillaI have been suffering through the intense McCain McMediaMania down here in Florida for now going on three weeks. I have heard every tale of him being a hero at least 50 times, how he's really a conservative, how he was the lone wolf in supporting operations in Iraq.
I have heard every favorable thing you can possibly say about the guy, but there's two words that have never been mentioned, by anyone on any media outlet, and those words are Keating Five. Now why is it, in an era when political scandal trumps all other subjects, is this scandal never mentioned? Anyone else think it's because the Dems are holding it back for the general election?
i'm guessing...
January 30, 2008 - 16:56 ET by mvfreemanthe whole Keating Five episode has already fallen down the collective memory hole. It happened almost 20 years ago and I don't recall it ever being made into an issue when McCain has run in the past.
He's never won the
January 30, 2008 - 16:58 ET by JasonPHe's never won the nomination
True..
January 30, 2008 - 17:06 ET by mvfreemanbut it hasn't kept him from being reelected as a senator.
My guess is that it did not
January 30, 2008 - 17:59 ET by HermanoMy guess is that it did not get much publicity 'round Arizona. That plus they had about four years to forget about it before his third term.
cross posting...
January 30, 2008 - 16:13 ET by mvfreemanhttp://www.observer....
Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
January 30, 2008 - 16:20 ET by pearlIt's the VLWC, stupid.
No McCain - Never!
January 30, 2008 - 16:26 ET by Free StinkerMcCain will give us:
How will this be different from Hillary?
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
And reign in control of our
January 30, 2008 - 16:44 ET by Sick-n-TiredAnd reign in control of our lives via the bogeyman known as AGW---the vehicle to push socialism. McCain is one of theirs---why do we let him put an "R" behind his name???!!! This is so infuriating!!!
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
I think you are about to see
January 30, 2008 - 16:47 ET by BDI think you are about to see a definate case of "Buyers Remorse" from the McCainiacs....
McCain won due to positive
January 30, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Conservative VoiceMcCain won due to positive free media, he has the backing of the party elites, McCain's push-polling shameful lies, and once again independents were able to vote in a Republican Party.
Add me as one of those who
January 30, 2008 - 17:39 ET by Conservative VoiceAdd me as one of those who will not vote for McCain, ever. I fear McCain more than I do Hillary, and at least with Hillary we might win back Congress in two years, as the people tend to like Congress to be a different party.
CV... Yep the powers that
January 30, 2008 - 17:40 ET by bigtimerCV...
Yep the powers that be in the party like Trent Lott right now on Hardball supporting McCain make me ill.
Wonder what he is aiming for.... Race relations dept.?
I am so sick of the Party
January 30, 2008 - 19:29 ET by Conservative VoiceI am so sick of the Party elites, its the same party elites that kept ignoring us during the illegal immigration mess.
Throw them all out. I am so done with this party. Romney is the only one I trust as a candidate as of yet.
McCain won...
January 30, 2008 - 17:41 ET by PrairieSkyNews flash!!! Independents were NOT allowed to vote in Florida's primary. It was a closed primary-Republicans ONLY. Check your facts.
PS.... I heard undeclared's
January 30, 2008 - 17:43 ET by bigtimerPS....
I heard undeclared's could go in and vote.
PS...
January 30, 2008 - 17:51 ET by PrairieSkyNo...you had to be a registered Republican...I have family down there, and used to live in the state, and you have to be a registered Republican to vote. When you go to your polling precinct, they check your name in book or file to see if you are registered as a Republican. I know this for a fact.
Dear PrairieSky
January 30, 2008 - 20:28 ET by paulnashtnPlease check the exit polls -- not sure if I am exact, but think it was aprox 20% of independents and 3% of democrats that admitted that they voted in the republican primary again not sure if I remember exact but believe that amounted to 5 or 6% of republican vote total. wonder who got THEIR votes
paulnashtn
January 30, 2008 - 21:08 ET by PrairieSkyDeclared Independents were not allowed to vote in the Florida primary. I said that it was a closed Republican only primary, which means that you must be a registered Republican to vote. If an Independent (or a Democrat), chooses to change their affiliation in order to vote(fraudulently, I believe), in the Republican primary, according to state law, they are allowed to do that. There is no way, unfortunately, to really know how many of these "temporary" Republicans voted in the primary, in an attempt to influence the outcome.
Florida is straight up
January 30, 2008 - 17:52 ET by BlondeDem or Rep primary...I've never heard of undeclared being allowed to vote here in a primary in a partisan race....only ballot initiatives and non-partisan races like judgeships (yes...we vote for judges here, idiotic!).
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Florida's primary. It was a closed primary-Republicans ONLY
January 30, 2008 - 17:45 ET by vrwc13...maybe he meant those "independent" Republicans!
v
vr... I wasn't trying to
January 30, 2008 - 17:50 ET by bigtimervr...
I wasn't trying to disagree, just find out the truth here...after-all I am curious.
I heard some people were helping Mccain this way that want Romney out.
do your homework vr, it was
January 30, 2008 - 19:31 ET by Conservative Voicedo your homework vr, it was open to independents, sure they had to plan for it...by registering a month early, but since the Democrats weren't really having theirs, it only made sense to cross over.
CV...
January 31, 2008 - 13:06 ET by vrwc13http://newsbusters.o...
v
All they had to do was
January 30, 2008 - 18:26 ET by wwsmithAll they had to do was re-register as Republicans 29 days before the primary, which as they stated in the exit polls they had done in droves. Unfortunately there were also a lot of Repubs that were duped by the MSM into believing that only he could win in the GE against Shrillary and Obambi.
Well look who's back!
January 30, 2008 - 18:40 ET by BlondeNice to see you here, my fellow Floridian.
Did you see the by-county results?
Looks like Tampa is the new east coast....a den of liberals (scum and villany as our fellow poster would say).
Upper Space Coast, Orlando, and a twidge in the Panhandle went for Romney....the rest of our neighbors were duped.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
wwsmith... Thanks for the
January 30, 2008 - 18:47 ET by bigtimerwwsmith...
Thanks for the great info.
Amor Loco for President.......Dr. McCain or Dr. Strangelove.
January 30, 2008 - 17:54 ET by Lame CherryMcCain is winning due to the road kill voters who like the middle of the road, but hate Conservatives, Christians and non patrician establishment.
McCain wins as the Rockefellers love him as he promised to sign on to the Bush unification of CanAmMex, the Amero, their taking Iraqi oil again and slave labor for border busters.
The other factors are indeed listed in bigotry and unlisted in Mitt just does not know how to run a campaign nationally.
The sole factor which matters though is the God factor. Ronald Reagan had God give him one in "I PAID FOR THIS MIC" which showed him strong, fiesty and a leader.
George HW Bush manufactured his when Dan Rather walked into pole axe punch in that interview.
George W. Bush never got his until 9 11, but McCain was incapable of beating him as America needed George Bush.
Not giving McCain the win, but it may be that America knows in it's Spiritual heart that for what is coming we are going to need a rather insane ex Dr. Strangelove with revenge yet unleashed on the commie bastards who tortured him.
Putin, the Chicoms and the Islamocommunists will no doubt think twice if America has a literally half insane person with his hands on nuclear bombs.
Hillary would bomb the wrong person with a nuke. Obama would bomb American friends........McCain will bomb everyone with nukes and let God sort it out.
Dr. Strangelove for President.......apparently the current Drudge published polls indidcate that Americans want a cut throat, meaner than a sob, rootin, tootin fatherless child in the White House.
Who knows maybe McCain will have us invade northern Mexico, annex it as they aren't using it and we can Americanize it.
Viva la Strangelove or amor extraño or amor loco.
I like Amor Loco for President.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Stop Hillary
January 30, 2008 - 18:48 ET by easygoerStopping Hillary from becoming president matters more to me than anything else in this election.That being said, and now that Rudy's out, McCain is clearly the best candidate. He can beat Hillary. Beating Obama will be a little dicier proposition. Romney would lose to Hillary and get buried by Obama. McCain also will not surrender to the Islamofascists(in fairness, Romney wouldn't either) It's just McCain has the most credibilty as Commander-in-Chief.
If the election were held
January 30, 2008 - 19:11 ET by HermanoIf the election were held today, Romney would not beat Hillary. However, there is plenty of time for the eventual nominee to put forth his case against her and for him. Just because someone was in a POW camp does not make him best suited for CiC. McCain has already said he would give up at least one chip in the Islamofascist game - close Guantanamo. He would also reluctantly close the border - if he absolutely had to. One of the best qualifications to be President, IMO, is that the candidate must be able to have vision and put together a team that can make that vision a reality. McCain can put other politicians in place to help him with his agenda. The problem is that his agenda sucks.
DESTINY IS LESS THAN A WEEK AWAY
January 30, 2008 - 19:33 ET by reelman46DESTINY IS LESS THAN A WEEK AWAY
I
may be 5 years recovering from the developments of Jan 2008… all
because Bush could never see fit to step forward as a 24-7
conservative… we have no conservative leader, some wanna bees though.
When the vicious libmedia speaks well of McCain and the nutty far left
NY Times endorses him… what can you say?
You can say they the democrats (secular socialists) smell blood… they
can’t wait for Nov 08. If you think the Klintons shamed all we held
dear before, look out, they are back! This time they will double their
damage. Taxes up for u, welfare up to buy votes for years, apologies up
to foreign thugs, guilt up, business down, morals down, ethics below
zero… and the kicker, we will have another terror attack in 2009. The
terrorists know which party they want to win, which one will give them
rights and excuses.
Only a clever aggressive Republican congress (is there such a thing?)
can derail the liberal train once it gets on track in 2009. Did I
mention everything will be free in the new socialist America? In less
than a week the course will be set.
That is the day I go buy 6 black outfits appropriate for mourning.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Hermano
January 30, 2008 - 20:38 ET by easygoerGood points all, except I simply don't see Romney winning. Stopping Hillary is everything to me. I'd love to see Obama do it, even though he'd be more difficult to beat. The harm she'd to the country notwithstanding, a Hillary presidency would also mean that by virtue of her sex she will be assured a place on the National Mall!...yikes..If McCain is the nominee, and it appears he will be, then the choice is a no brainer.
BS. Romney hsa better
January 30, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Conservative VoiceBS. Romney hsa better chances of winning the general over McCain against Hillary or Obama. All those independents that voted for McCain will not vote for him in the general AND many many many conservatives will not vote for him either. Including me.
I don't fear a Hillary. I do fear a McCain. He will destroy the party.
CV
January 30, 2008 - 20:14 ET by PrairieSkyRomney is a suit, and would be decimated by Clinton, and probably also by Obama. And, if you really don't fear Hillary, you are not a real Conservative, "conservative voice".
What do you mean by Romney
January 30, 2008 - 20:25 ET by Conservative VoiceWhat do you mean by Romney is a suit?
I am very conservative, all you have to do is read all my posts, and you will have a clear understanding that I am very conservative. But I am conservative before I am Republican, and there is absolutely no difference between McCain and Hillary. They are both liars dangerous power mongers who will stick a knife in your back with a smile, for challenging their majesty. They campaign the same way, they believe the samething, they politic the same way.
In my mind Hillary is less scary than McCain, because at least with Hillary we have a chance of winning back Congress, with McCain, forget it...Congress will lean even more left. He will destroy the party for conservatives.
Please by all means tell me how McCain is better than Hillary, I'm all ears. The only difference between them is the D and the R. And when the crap hits the fan, and it will, I would rather have Hillary take the heat than Republicans.
He will never, ever have my vote.
I could of easily voted for any of our candidates, but Huck and McCain. Since Romney is the only one left, if he doesn't make it, than I will look third party.
CV
January 30, 2008 - 20:39 ET by PrairieSkyDo you really believe that McCain would promote the entitlement programs, run up the debt on liberal give-aways and take apart the military like Clinton or Obama would?? I have said it before...McCain is not my first choice, by any stretch of the imagination. But he is infinitely better a choice than Clinton, Obama, a third party candidate (if there will be one), or not voting at all.
PrairieSky
January 30, 2008 - 20:48 ET by easygoerExactly, I seriously doubt he'd dismantle the military. It's not even close. Hillary is way worse.
Nope, he'll just red tape it
January 30, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Conservative VoiceNope, he'll just red tape it to death. Different methods, same results.
promote entitlement
January 30, 2008 - 20:48 ET by Conservative Voicepromote entitlement programs, yes
run up debt on liberal give-aways, yes...Can you say Global Warming?
McCain doesn't understand tax cuts nor does he understand the Economy.
take apart the Military...you mean the same who is against water boarding, is OK with terrorists to be judged by our courts, and wants to close gitmo? Sure he will give more money to the military, but he'll tie their hands to make them useless.
open the border as much, no, he will open it faster.
Clinton = McCain, only Hillary is more emotionally stable.
next president
January 30, 2008 - 21:14 ET by easygoerThe next president will either be Clinton, Obama, or McCain. Of the three I prefer McCain. Even Obama, but not that woman. Emotional stability, please, the woman has absolutely no character. None, never, ever has shown it. Not once.
And McCain has character?
January 30, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Conservative VoiceAnd McCain has character? LOL. He has been shamelessly lying this whole campaign season.
/wiping tears from eyes from laughing too hard.
mendacity
January 30, 2008 - 21:25 ET by easygoerI think its fair to say there was a time in McCain's life where he exhibited exemplary character. Can't say that for Hillary. Politicians shamelessly lying ....that's what they all do nowadays. It's part of the job description.
CV
January 30, 2008 - 21:19 ET by PrairieSkyI honestly don't know how else to respond to you concerning McCain. Your mind is made up. I am not a McCainiac, and am not going to spend time defending everything that he has or hasn't done right or wrong(quite a few of which I didn't agree with). He was not my first choice, but in my mind, he has the best chance to defeat either Clinton or Obama, both of whom, I believe, are nightmares waiting to happen.
CONSERVATIVE VOICE
January 30, 2008 - 21:55 ET by oorampCHECKMATE
Romney laid a pretty good
January 30, 2008 - 23:16 ET by HermanoRomney laid a pretty good smackdown on McCain ("R") tonight. I think he can handle Clinton. She has too many "issues" that can be brought up to cmpletely discredit her and her only response will be to try to cry her way out of it. Romney showed he is not afraid to take the gloves off when he has to, and tonight he had to. His toughest battle will not be Clinton, but rather the Republican establishment.
Hermano I agree!
January 30, 2008 - 23:22 ET by upcountrywaterman Oh man He better win the super tusday thing!
go Mitt Go!!!
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
Oh joy to the world, 19 more atomic power plants!
Romney was great and I hope he keeps it up. Informed people
January 30, 2008 - 23:23 ET by Dee Bunkwill not choose McCain. McCain will look like an ignorant bully against Obama and who knows what would happen against Hillary and him. They are too similar.
Romney will be able to make Obama and Hillary both look inexperienced in leadership and like Washington insiders. If Obama stays nice, Romney can play nice if he goes against Hillary he can smack her down like he did McCain.
Romney is the best chance of beating either of them. I'll vote for whoever our nominee is but I sure hope it's Romney.
Amen.
January 30, 2008 - 23:28 ET by HermanoI love it when my boy kicks butt. I certainly hope the Republican voters realize he is the best chance for the presidency. I am actually having a crisis on whether or not I would vote for McCain in the general. Fortunately I have lots of time to ultimately make my decision and may not even have to do so it Romney is able to pull it out. He made great strides tonight - hopefully it pays off.
Hermano
January 30, 2008 - 23:34 ET by BlondeI fervently hope you are correct.
I thought I had a chance, here in Florida, with Romney (after Fred bailed...alas).
But, I think the fix is in, just as it was in 76 with Ford over Reagan....the (R) establishment has thrown their weight to McCain....and that's alot to overcome. No matter what everyone says, each vote counts, yada yada....it's a political machine, and we should never forget it. It's McCain's "turn"....and what we think be damned.
We can hope....but I'm turning into a Lame Cherry skeptic. How sad is that?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
you and me both Blonde, I
January 30, 2008 - 23:41 ET by Conservative Voiceyou and me both Blonde, I became more of an anti-republican establishment guy yesterday. Threee strikes you are out. We told them twice we didn't want amnesty, and then they pull their weight behind McCain at the last minute.
It ain't good, Blonde. (the LC thing, that is.)
January 30, 2008 - 23:42 ET by HermanoBut after last night's (not so) close call with a samarai sword, I have calmed down. Romney's performance tonight and McCain's "footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution" as every other phrase gives me reason to believe Romney will be successful on Tuesday. You may be right about the fix, though. I wonder if this type of thing is the reason the RNC is strapped for cash.
Hermano - I like your attitude - don't even consider McCain
January 30, 2008 - 23:37 ET by Dee Bunkas a possibility at this point. Romney is going to win. California didn't like McCain, we don't like him and hopefully most of the Super Tues states won't like him.
I will echo your sentiment,
January 30, 2008 - 23:43 ET by HermanoI will echo your sentiment, Dee. Go Mitt!
The REAL reasons McCain won in Florida at the last minute
January 30, 2008 - 22:10 ET by RJFirst, having Martinez join his campaign won the Cuban vote, which may have been THE difference.
Second, McCain's changing the subject from the economy at the last minute with his lie about Romney "calling for a pullout."
Third, the late endorsement of the Governor of Florida.
Romney didn't have enough time to overcome those late chess moves.
yesterday
January 30, 2008 - 22:12 ET by oorampYesterday I learned that not only has the democrat party has gone socailist, but that the Republican party has gone liberal, leaving me without a place to go. Individual self-reliance is only needed to foot the bill for those programs they use to buy votes with.
McCain is old
January 31, 2008 - 09:39 ET by BritcomMcCain is old, slow, and has white hair, that describes half of the people in Florida. That is why he won, they were voting for one of their own.
Oh, and the other half are illegal aliens who all use the same social security number but still get to vote. They like McCain's amnesty bill.