Romney cannot be trusted. Any Republican who wins election in a state that has not had one single county vote Republican in a Presidential election since 1988 is no Republican.
Romney is nothing more than a prevaricating actor (the reason he looked so polished during the debate was because he rehearsed his fake answers through the whole thing) that wouldn’t even be a realistic choice if it wasn’t for the media deliberately hyping him up. Romney’s candidacy is a ploy by the media to plant their own candidate as the Republican nominee so that if it comes to between Clinton or Obama and the Republican, they win either way. Romney is no more deserving of hype than any other governor like Huckabee or Gilmore, but he gets top billing while the latter two get has-been status.
And they say there’s no liberal agenda in the press.
"Any Republican who wins election in a state that has not had one single county vote Republican in a Presidential election since 1988 is no Republican."Mitt Romney's record of fiscal and social conservatism in Massachusetts working with an 85% Dem Legislature (see my tagline) is more impressive by far than the record of Republican Gov. Rick Perry in my home state of Texas with a Republican Legislature. That's why Romney is such a remarkable figure in U.S. politics.
"...(the reason he looked so polished during the debate was because he rehearsed his fake answers through the whole thing)..."Romney has a history of excelling in debates where the format is unscripted and adversarial. The format of last week's MSNBC/Politico GOP debate, with so many candidates on stage and little time to respond, is actually a setting where Romney is least likely to stand out. This is a man who can hold his own very well with 40 Senior Fellows at the Hoover Institution in a 90-minute exchange on Middle East foreign policy.
Talk radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewed professor of military history and noted author Victor Davis Hanson who observed Mitt Romney's ability to discuss Middle East foreign policy at length with experts at the Hoover Institution:For another example, FReeper Obilisk18 provided this research regarding Romney in debates:Hugh Hewitt: What I like is that he’s a voracious reader, not only your books, but things like The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, Mark Steyn’s America Alone. I think this is pretty rare these days, to find curiosity at that level, and at that sort of voracious appetite for information. What do you talk about with him?Victor Davis Hanson: Well, we talk about history just like you and I talk about. We talk about foreign policy, he talked about the plan or the effort to democratize the Middle East, the shortfalls, the problems, the liabilities, and you know what? He came to the Hoover Institution and got in front of 40 senior fellows. And in that room there were Nobel Prize winners, a lot of egos, too. And he held court with them, and there were a lot of hostile questions, and he went for an hour and a half, head to head, with these people. When he walked out of that room, I think everybody was impressed with him. He didn’t pull any punches, and he could argue and was as logical as any Hoover fellow, and I was more impressed with him than I was with my colleagues.
(The Hugh Hewitt Show, March 13, 2007)
"Indeed. I've been searching Lexis Nexus a bit recently, and I ran into some information that supports this wholeheartedly. Some key quotes from a Herald article on the final 2002 debate between Romney and Shannon O'Brien (a fine debater): “Nearly 44 percent of likely voters said they watched the debate. Among that group, Romney holds a 7-point lead over O’Brien, while voters who didn’t see the televised clash back O’Brien by a 5-point margin.” And then most illuminating this: “Among independent voters who viewed the debate, Romney holds a whopping 63-19 percent lead. Romney’s lead among independent voters who said they didn’t watch the debate is at 10 points, the same level as five days ago.” That’s a 34 point swing. 34 points. In one night. There are barely words to describe the depth of that shift. Get Romney before the American people, against a Democratic opponent, and you’ll be weeping with joy."
“Any Republican who wins election in a state that has not had one single county vote Republican in a Presidential election since 1988 is no Republican.”
That only covers the clinton and bush years. Hardly enough time to draw such stark conclusions. Plus, Romney also lost an election during this period so you gotta give him credit for that.
What the hell does how massachusetts voted have to do with anything? Bob Dole was from Kansas, which, like ND, SD, NE, OK, ID, WY, UT, and AK has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964.
That didn’t mean a damn thing when the votes were cast.