www.redstateupdate.com
Posted on 01/30/2008 3:17:10 PM PST by jdm
The United States of America's next president won't be its first president of Italian ancestry (as Rudy Giuliani hopes), because the Republicans won't nominate a person who does not share the Republicans' traditional pro-life, pro-personal morality values; or the first former prisoner-of-war (as John McCain still yearns), because now he's too old for the grueling job and previously he was too inclined to break with most Republicans and join with Democrats (McCain-Feingold, Kennedy-McCain, Gang of Fourteen); or the first Baptist minister (as Mike Huckabee prays), because he's not up to the job, he's not the best choice and one president born in Hope, Arkansas was one too many.
But there WILL be big change.
The next president will be the first female president, or the first half-black president (Barack's mother was white and ignoring that is...not right), or the first Mormon president.
Much of the media really would prefer Obama versus McCain, and have been broadcasting, reporting and editorializing accordingly, but the politically adept Clintons will do whatever it takes to win the Democrat nomination.
Nevertheless, in the end, enough Republicans will refuse to succumb to religious bigotry and reject a monogamous Mormon who shares their basic values for a man who divorced his first wife and married a rich, much younger divorcee whose family could support his political ambitions.
Wikipedia: "In 1979, while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor and wife Marguerite Smith. By now it was clear that McCain's naval career was stalled; he would never be promoted to admiral as his grandfather and father had been. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife Carol in Florida on April 2, 1980; he gave her a generous settlement, including houses in Virginia and Florida and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments, and they would remain on good terms. McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 in Phoenix, Arizona, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart as best man and groomsman. McCain's children were very upset with him and did not attend the wedding, but after several years they reconciled with him and Cindy."
"Living in Phoenix, McCain went to work for his new father-in-law Jim Hensley's large Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship as Vice President of Public Relations, where he gained political support among the local business community, meeting powerful figures such as banker Charles Keating, Jr. ..., all the while looking for an electoral opportunity."
No surprise that the divorced McCain paid tribute to the twice-divorced Giuliani during the Republicans' Florida debate!
It will be Hill v. Mitt, and then Mitt, even though the Clintons will place the Mormon card.
Make no mistake: Team Clinton will not be stopped by a young son of a black man and a white woman who started running for President a year after becoming a rookie Senator and speaks of hope and change without particulars.
Barack Obama's wife Michelle, young and naive herself, admitted that her husband is too inexperienced and naive to be President.
Michelle (in a fundraising appeal to supporters): "We knew getting into this race that Barack would be competing with Senator Clinton and President Clinton at the same time. What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record."
Weren't the Obamas paying attention during the Clinton Administration?
The United States surely needs a competent and realistic president, like Mitt.
The media has generated excitement, but it has not and will not succeed in blocking a Mitt v. Hill final.
In February 2007, in an article titled "In 2008, Hill versus Mitt Should Be It," I wrote:
"The top two questions are (1) who will be the Democrat nominee and (2) who will be the Republican nominee.
The answers (as of now): (1) Hillary and (2) Mitt Romney."
"After the Democrats successfully nominated Franklin Delano Roosevelt for president four times, the United States Constitution was amended to impose a two-term limit.
"The Clintons figured out the best way around that was to team up and each serve two terms. As they declared in 2000, they are a two-for-one package."
"The 2008 Democrat presidential nomination is Hillary's to lose and she's not likely to do so.
"Barack Hussein Obama is the current media darling, but the rookie Senator from Illinois is no Abraham Lincoln and not presidential timber."
"Of the top-tier Republican presidential aspirants--Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney--Mitt Romney is the best viable alternative."
"Senator McCain has been pro-life, but he had his chance in 2000 and he has not matched the political skills of Mitt Romney in enacting a viable universal health-care program in Massachusetts."
"Who better to oppose Hill: Mitt Romney, 59, a Brigham Young valedictorian who earned his B.A. summa cum laude and then graduated from a joint JD/MBA program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, was named a Baker Scholar and graduated cum laude from the law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class, or John McCain, 70, who graduated fifth from the bottom of his United States Naval Academy class and isn't getting younger?"
In May 2007, in "Still Hill v. Mitt, Others Slow to Quit," I noted:
"This year's first Democrat presidential debate helped Hillary Clinton secure her stranglehold on the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination. Her Far Left "primary" competitors--a rookie United States Senator who would do better running for rock star (Barack Obama) and a one-term Senator whose home state went Republican when he was his party's vice presidential candidate in 2004--allow her to position herself for the general election by seeming mature and moderate."
"This year's first Republican presidential debate allowed Mitt Romney to be presidential while his chief rivals--John McCain and Rudy Giuliani--were trying too hard, respectively, to be young and energetic enough for the job and to be content whether Roe v. Wade is overruled or reaffirmed."
"Rudy said during the second debate that 'Rudy McRomney' would be a good candidate."
"But Mitt is the only one of the three without a big flaw."
"What is especially noteworthy is that viewers called the debate for Mitt, while knowledgeable observers tended to put too much emphasize on Rudy's moment (courtesy of Congressman Ron Paul) and too little of Mitt's thoughtful responses and consistent (and reassuring) presidential demeanor."
The Republicans' Florida debate demonstrated that the strong winner, Mitt Romney, has developed Mittmentum and is on course to election in November, despite the Clintons and some religious bigotry.
not the ...
I think he was talking about no personal affairs.
Abscam
lesbian wife
interns staining the carpet
etc...
“Not enough time for Mitt to catch McCain.”
I think there is. Super Tuesday is four days away. More people will realize that the best choice now for conservative principles is Mitt Romney. A vote for anyone else helps McCain become the nominee, who will be beaten by the MSM and Hillary.
Was so glad to hear Rick Santorum has endorsed Mitt. Rick is a real conservative.
www.redstateupdate.com
I’m saving that text to remind people of the utter lack of character of this rake.
“I voted for Mitt in the early voting here in TN.”
_____________________________________________________________
I will vote for Mitt on Tuesday here in TN also.
truth regarding Mitt and gay marriage thanks to elizabetty....
IssueSource.org is a website co-produced by MassINC and The State House News Service and is a project of MassINC’s Civic Renewal Initiative. It is a non-partisan, not-for-profit, free public service.
IssueSource.org has a remarkably detailed chronological journal of the legal actions and legislative events in Massachusetts regarding same-sex marriage following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health on Nov. 18, 2003 (Issue: Gay Marriage: Prior to May 17, 2004).
The journal records in great detail the actions taken by people both for and against the same-sex marriage court ruling up to the date the ruling became law on May 17, 2004 making same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.
The journal is a very long read with several examples where Governor Romney opposed the ruling and attempted to delay the implementation with statements and directives; actions that were openly defied by others at times. However, focus on the events after March 29, 2004 when the constitutional convention in Massachusetts approved an amendment to ban gay marriage. Note the legal action Gov. Romney initiated immediately after March 29, 2004 to prevent the SJC’s Goodridge ruling from becoming law on May 17, 2004. More importantly, note that Gov. Romney’s efforts were thwarted because the Democrat Attorney General Tom Reilly and Senate President Robert Travaglini refused to cooperate and blocked the required legislative action.
Excerpts from the journal of events are presented below:
“On Mar. 29, the Legislature, meeting in constitutional convention, approved the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions. The measure must still be approved a second time, during the 2005-06 session of the Legislature, in order to be placed on the November 2006 ballot for ratification by voters..
-—— snip -—— “Immediately after the vote, Romney called on AG Reilly to go before the SJC to halt the start of gay marriages on May 17, but Reilly quickly responded that he would not seek the delay, arguing that the SJC’s two rulings, in November and February, had made it clear that the court would tolerate nothing less than marriage for same-sex couples. A week earlier, on Mar. 22, Travaglini told the State House News Service that any attempt by Romney to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses on the SJC’s ordered timetable would probably fail. “It is my understanding that no matter what legislative action we take, we cannot affect the issuance of licenses come the 17th of May. If the governor believes that he has the capacity or the authority to stop the issuance of licenses, then that’s a personal political decision that he can make; I don’t necessarily agree.”.
-—— snip -—— Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Files Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Decision Stay,” Press Release, 4/15/2004.
“Romney announced April 15 that he would seek emergency legislation to allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a 2 1/2 year delay of its gay marriage ruling set to take effect May 17. Romney’s plan was to bypass AG Reilly—who refused to name a special counsel in March—and name his own special counsel, retired SJC Justice Joseph Nolan. Romney said the legislation would allow him to “protect the integrity of the Constitutional process” and return the decision on gay marriage to voters. “We believe the people have the right to have their position heard and that as the governor, I should have right to have my position heard. Look, people that don’t have any income are entitled to representation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to representation. But somehow as governor of the Commonwealth, it’s deemed that I can’t represent my view before the courts—I think that’s a mistake,” said Romney..
“State House News Service reported April 22 that Romney’s special counsel bill was “languishing” on Beacon Hill. The main obstacle was the Senate, which failed to admit the bill in its last two sessions. Senate President Robert Travaglini dismissed the legislation when it was announced and said the governor was only trying to push his “political agenda.” If the bill was not admitted, then there would not be a joint committee public hearing on it..
“Romney said April 21 that he would not file a supportive brief or otherwise get involved in a petition brought by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. The League was attempting to persuade the Supreme Judicial Court to delay the start of gay marriages until November 2006, when voters could vote on the issue. Romney said he preferred to make the case for delay himself. On April 23, Romney renewed his call for the Legislature to grant him the authority to appoint a special counsel so he could launch his own effort to persuade the court to delay gay marriages from taking effect May 17. “I call on both branches of the Legislature, particularly the Senate. . .to give me the opportunity to preserve the choice of the definition of marriage to the citizens and make sure that the hard work the Legislature went through to pass this amendment to allow the citizens to have a voice is worth something,” Romney told reporters at a press conference. .
Do you admire those goofballs or something? That’s the second time you’ve posted their dreck.
That's all very interesting about the ruling of the MA Supreme Court. Thanks to the information from other sources, the ACTUAL truth concerning the existing MA law, and what the Supreme Court actually said contradicts what your are posting. It is obvious that the following information is more compelling and relevant than your (and the allegedly "neutral" party's you cite) attempts to make it appear that Romney "tried" to stop the homosexual marriage. He was never compelled to initiate anything by any court, through any court order, or through any law.
...when the Goodridge decision came forth and supposedly legalized gay marriage. The Goodridge decision didn’t even claim to legalize it. It simply declared that it was unconstitutional not to let homosexuals marry.Now there are so many problems in treating this as law. The Massachusetts says the people are not controllable by any laws not ratified by their elected representatives in the Legislature. So bang, that means right there that the Goodridge decision is not law and nobody can treat it as law.
It says also (that) the power of suspending the laws shall be exercised only by the Legislature. Well the statutes, the marriage statutes, even Goodridge, the court opinion that everyone says “legalized gay marriage,” even that opinion says that the statute doesn’t allow gay marriage. And the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs came out of the courtroom after that ruling and said, “The only thing that remains now for gay marriage to happen is for the Legislature to change the law.”
Well that never happened. The law in Massachusetts, the statutes, ratified by the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature, still did not allow gay marriage. Well, what happened was Romney hired constitutional law professors and lawyers, Jay Sekulow and Mary Ann Glendon at Harvard (and some of this has never been reported, what’s happened), and they lined up and said he had no choice.
Now I happen to know some of these people like Mary Ann Glendon, a retired Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice, told him privately, told Romney privately, (that) he should ignore Goodridge, said it was not binding, it had no impact unless the Legislature changed the law.
But Romney had made promises to the Log Cabin Republicans.
Paul is too unstable to be President. As I said early last year, absent Fred and Duncan Hunter, this entire GOP Presidential primary has been a Felliniesque sideshow. We learned nothing from 2006. Forget principles, let’s just put up more liberal RINOs, be they senile or be they pretty. Disgusting. We deserve to lose.
Absolutly. Obama will end up in Marcy Park if need be.
They sound mighty Equal Opportunity to me.
Seems like they blast EVERYONE!
(Besides; these election threads are getting downright tiresome.)
When I watch him, I get the same feeling. When I read him it's very different. Point being, D.C. is so foul and has so lost it's way, who besides Paul could turn the table over, such that the game pieces may be put back on the board the way our founders envisioned?
If Paul had a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood demeanor, the dems would be shaking in their boots clogs. Whether it's the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, they have all (at various times) lost their way. What's needed now more than ever is a sheepdog to get them back on path.
That 40+% of the populace would elect a socialist president tomorrow based on gender or race is alarming, damning, and speaks volumes of our failure to preserve liberty.(and decency)
That Paul isn't electable suggests a win of style over substance (guilty, I wasn't enthralled at first). That the values we once held paramount to life as Americans can't get a fair shake suggests that, though all is not lost yet, it may soon be.
Freedom and liberty have taken a backseat to expediency and security. Rather than securing our borders and keeping tabs on foreigners from terrorist hotbeds, these lapses mean we must now remove our shoes to board a plane. Pathetic. Three thousand died due to bureaucratic blunders, the rest of us must pay for their ineptitude. Sick.
That Americans haven't traded every ounce of freedom for every pound of state security is uplifting. Might be this concept (freedom) can't be quashed so easily- be it by a beltpack-laden broad in Baghdad or a dynamic SWAT entry into the wrong address in Poedunk, Iowa looking for a bag of weed. The message remains the same: f**k terrorism. Got anything else? You feel lucky today? Huh, punk?
There are only two reasons a McCain nomination could ever have silver lining. First, the media tells us he can [cough] beat Hillary. Second, he's a bull in a china shop. If we could turn his horns away from us (conservatives) and point them toward the Greenie/liberal sh*tstupid ideas he has embraced lately (to appeal to the left) he could gore a lot of what ails us.
I don't want to be in the same room the day he realizes his VC captors share the same values as the liberal 'friends' to whom he 'reaches across the aisle'.
Whoa! Wait! Epiphany! What if this guy is playing rope-a-dope with the left, only to be elected such that he'll be in position finally to make pay-back on these leftists/commies/ JaneFonda AA gunners?! Crush them as he would his captors, had he ever been given the chance! Just think what five years in a POW camp with communist/liberal/communitarian chinese co**su*kers must have been like. Folks, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll be looking for clues, if he's any good, I'll bet they'll be hard to find. Hot damn, the left is about to get creamed. Go, Stealth Candidate, Go! This may be a Superbowl political upset like no other.
I finally figuered out what five years of torture might do to someone. I put myself in his shoes (best I could). I can't even imagine his hatred of the left but I can imagine a plan to pay them back the best way possible. Not only is he poised to rid us of Hilly and Big Eared Smiley, he's going after Osama. Did you see him on Jay Leno? If he tipped his hand ever, it was right there. OMG!
Folks, this guy McCain has had a plan since his first day as a captive in Viet Nam to pay the 'bastards' back. Five years of rice and water, five years of pain. Somebody's gonna pay. And that 'somebody' is the left- commrades in arms with the Chicoms. Little else could explain his rise to the top from what seemed obscurity. He may be on a mission from God, and who am I go get in the way?
Dear fieldmarshaldj, sorry for the rant. Spin a record? :^)
Sounds a bit similar...
1 Samuel 16:4-13
4. Samuel did what the LORD said. When he arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the town trembled when they met him. They asked, "Do you come in peace?"
5. Samuel replied, "Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me." Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.
6. When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD's anointed stands here before the LORD."
7. But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
8. Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, "The LORD has not chosen this one either."
9. Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, "Nor has the LORD chosen this one."
10. Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, "The LORD has not chosen these."
11. So he asked Jesse, "Are these all the sons you have?" "There is still the youngest," Jesse answered, "but he is tending the sheep." Samuel said, "Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives."
12. So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the LORD said, "Rise and anoint him; he is the one."
A call to form one.
BUMP, BUMP, BUMPITY, BUMP.
You and I have been in opposition, but I have to stop and say this:
You sir, are a Conservative, and are truly worthy of your VRWC decoder ring.
Your candidate is worth considering.
[x] None of the Above
A for Spirit
A for Optimism
A for Patriotism
F for Prognostication
Alas!
Hey, who knows ? We’re already in the Twilight Zone. ;-)
Thank you. I like Alan Keyes, but the dude needs to get himself to a nice Congressional seat and run for it. We need him to be a big thorn in the butt to the rodents and the RINO squishies there.
That he is, much to the chagrin of those who can only claim to be.
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.