Posted on 02/03/2008 5:59:25 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
Republican McCain Thanks Evangelicals for Support
McCain was happy that he got two nice comments from evangelical leaders in a NY Times article.
According to the NY Times:
Tony Perkins of Family Research Council has "no residual problems" with McCain
Southern Baptist Leader Richard Land says McCain is "strongly pro-life."
#1: Amnesty via McLame/Kennedy
#2: Shredding the 1st Amendment via McLame/Feingold
#3: Force feeding business and consumers to buy into the Global Warming Idiocy via McCain/Lieberman
#4: Nominating this RINO for the Presidency will relegate conservatives to the back benches in the body politic!
Go spam some other thread.
McLame is on drugs.
#3 may be spam, but John McCain is a no-no. Period.
FRed ROCKS!
So is spamming.
At least the idea of voting for Mitt doesn’t make me throw up in my mouth.
I’ll eat your Spam, dear; I love it!
It does me.
The truth hurts, doesn't it>?
Do you know why we call him McCrazy, McQueeg, McInsane, and McNuts?
And that's the man you want us to lay down and endorse as a "conservative" for President Of The United States, the Senator with a known vile antipathy for Conservatives?
Talk about spam.
Also, McCain joins Hillary and Obama in supporting federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Romney opposes federal funding.
I don’t know if McCain supports gay marriage, but Romney opposes gay marriage.
McCain
And may I add ...
Romney
Huckabee
Obama
Clinton
Paul
All other fringers
>>>>>So, Miff ain’t so clean after all.
Use some common sense and compare the record of a 25+ year Senator from an allegedly “conservative” state, versus the record of a self-made Conservative businessman who has challenged Fat Boy Kennedy for his own Senate seat (and nearly took it), and has also survived Massachusetts politics for 20 years.
No, he’s not perfect. But he’s finding his voice as a conservative unencumbered by Massachusetts politics, and is getting better at speaking his own truth every day. Whereas McCrazy is getting more venal and openly mendacious by the hour.
Romney will NEVER stab conservatives in the back as McCrazy has been doing (even today) for the last decade.
Yea. “Thanks suckers!”
Romney: "I am not in favor of returning to the days of Reagan. I was an independent during the Reagan Bush years."
You can pound away all you want to Miff, I ain’t voting for you, or McScream. So, chill. You are not going to change my mind.
I love the Spam and I’d like to see McCain as Toast!
Nothing would be worse than MCain as president. Also, I a insulted that Repubs think hatred of the Clintons will force conservatives to vote for McCain. I will not.
But you WILL vote for the “conservative” who despises conservatives and who can barely distinguish the truth from a lie (and that’s only if he senses he might be caught).
Do you know that in South Caroline McCrazy was back to promoting Amnesty for 30 million illegal alien peasants AGAIN!
He won’t speak of it in big public forums like the debates, but it was briefly reported that he was doing exactly that in his smaller South Carolina events. He has no shame whatsoever about “comprehensive immgration reform” and Z Visas. He thinks WE are the problem.
CNN Transcript of his attack on evangelicals
Quote John McCain: "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right".
>>>>>chill. You are not going to change my mind.
Fair enough. Personally, Romney is my last and final hope. It’s either him, or sign on with the Ann Coulter brigade and vote for Hitlery. I will NEVER assent by my vote to allow McCrazy to steal the Conservative mantle that he’s been peeing on for the last decade.
I think these people have their blinders on and many are one issue types.
Amazing, he remembers he needs the religious right to win.
I would rather Hillary or Obama be president than McCain.
This is from someone who voted for no one other than Republicans since first voting for Richard Nixon.
There will be NO DIFFERENCE between a Democrat presidency and McCain presidency, other than the fact it will be blamed on the Democrats rather than “conservatives”.
I’m sick to the pit of my stomach.
I will go to the polls on that Tuesday and vote straight Republican, but will leave my presidential vote uncast.
I swear on all that is sacred to me - I will not vote for a democrat, but I will not vote for McCain.
McCain is for embryonic stem cell research even though he has back-pedaled on that lately. If it’s legalized then abortion-on-demand will never be over-turned. Seems the evangelical’s for Huck & McCain don’t understand that.
No, he does not support gay marriage.
It was McCain who voted against the marriage amendment.
Romney supports MARRIAGE ...McCain does not.
I will not vote for any of that bunch of pukes. I am through holding my nose. Tired of holding my nose and turning my head. I’m done with it. Finished. If they are not conservative, they do not get my vote, period.
1994 Race for U.S. Senate, Massachusetts
* Edward Kennedy (D) (incumbent), 58%
* Mitt Romney (R), 41%
Near is relative, I guess. Romney's only political experience is one four-year term as Governor.
McCain doesn’t need to thank evangelicals...oh wait, maybe he does...the voted for his stalking horse Huck
Whoops. See, you went out to find a “gotcha”, and you came up looking foolish.
Your numbers are from the final vote, not from the six preceding months.
Before the debates, Romney and Kennedy were running neck and neck for months.
It was only after the debates that Kennedy pulled ahead.
PS - I was there, I voted for Romney in 1994, I saw the debates, I read the Globe and Herald every day, and I know the numbers.
oh, stop whinning. McMush is one of the biggest liberals in the Senate. I appreciate the truth.
McCain is an operational security risk for the military...
Spam shmam...
—snip—
Romney: “I am not in favor of returning to the days of Reagan. I was an independent during the Reagan Bush years.”
—snip—
McMush ran away from Reagan and the conservative movement. Pick a piece of legislation. And you should love that quote. He is talking about spending. The worst you can say about Romney is that he flip to the conservative movement with a record to prove. Not McMush, the sleazy, slimy, sellout. He flip to get his NYTimes endorsement.
Of course. You don't get to say that Carter nearly whupped Reagan because he led him in the polls for a spot during the campaign.
>>>>You don’t get to say that Carter nearly whupped Reagan because he led him in the polls for a spot during the campaign.
Your cheap and false introduction of “for a spot” won’t save you.
They ran neck and neck *continuously* prior to the debate. Not for “a spot”. Polls often showed Romney to be *ahead* of Kennedy by several points. And Democrats were concerned for months that Kennedy was going to lose to Romney. This was all duly reported in the Globe, the Herald, and on TV.
That you introduced a false modifier (”for a spot”) as if it were part of your original argument shows that you are intellectually dishonest, preferring that to admitting that you were and are wrong.
You are wrong.
Mitt led the fight against the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling codifying gay marriage.
? Spam? Show me where I’m wrong.
That is the DUMBEST statement I have ever read. Romney stabbed Massachusetts Republicans in the back repeatedly. The man lies like Bill Clinton and has flip-flopped on every major issue in the past five years.
Dumb, dumb, dumb...
That is exactly my point. We have two realistic choices right now. McCain or Romney? McCain has been sticking it to us conservatives openly and frequently and has never cared that he has done this. As a matter of fact he is proud of his record. I cannot stand him.
I've been as nice about it as I could, but you either lied or were ignorant when you said that Romney "survived" 20 years in Massachusetts politics, and this malarkey about Romney nearly beating Ted Kennedy is another bit of mendacity. He didn't. Ted Kennedy cleaned his clock, carved his initials, then sold it for scrap. The summer polls just show that people were ready to get rid of Kennedy, but as soon as they got to see his opponent firsthand in the debates they recoiled in horror and came running back to Muddy Teddy. That's not a near-win for Mitt.
I have not revised my "original argument" -- stating the facts is not an "argument". The two cases are actually quite analogous; Carter was leading in the polls until the debates.
You can join the Myth love fest if you desire. I will not vote for the liberal ass.
I don’t think anyone here believes that McCain is strongly pro-life.
But he probably has the best pro-life voting record of any of the candidates still standing.
Near is relative because no one has ever come that close to beating Ted Kennedy. It made Teddy get off his fat butt and work for the victory for the first time in decades.
As far as Romney's lack of experience, you are partially correct. I would count his unsuccessful run against Kennedy as experience and I would count growing up under George Romney's roof as experience. I would also count managing huge corporations as a situation where a person would gather great experience dealing with the Federal government. Couple that with a brilliant IQ. He knows a thing or two about Washington.
Ok. I will. Suit yourself with a McLame, Hussein or Hitlery. All are more liberal than Mitt.
>>>>>The summer polls just show that people were ready to get rid of Kennedy, but as soon as they got to see his opponent firsthand in the debates they recoiled in horror and came running back to Muddy Teddy.
Were you there? I was. And your argument reeks of a sophomoric theory cobbled together from Values Voter propaganda and news clips, not actual experience and observation.
First, “the summer polls” (here you go again). These were not transitory, one-week oddball samples. These were polls throughout the summer and right into October, basically for two MONTHS preceding the Republican primary and for 2 more months after Romney was selected to run. That’s pretty much the entire campaign.
And for most of that entire stretch (I have to say it multiple times I guess) he WAS BEATING - B-E-A-T-I-N-G - Kennedy in the polls.
I’m afraid you are also hysterically wrong about the reason(s) Romney lost. Since I was there and vividly recall the days during and after that debate, I can say with utter certainly that Romney was perceived to be WEAK, not that voters “recoiled in horror”. He didn’t sufficiently stand up to the vile attacks from Fat Boy, he stammered and hesitated at the podium rather than attack back, and that is ultimately why he lost.
You’re simply making up tales from thin air, and I am telling you what actually happened based on the facts and on reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.