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.
Neither have the media mentioned the fact that his present wife was not only addicted to prescription drugs, she stole the scripts from the doctors of the foundation where she worked, and forged the prescriptions. So, she was a drug addicted, thieving, forger.
Prediction>>>> John 'Rodham' McCain will win enough delegates over the next few months to claim the nomination.....
But he will suffer some type of medical emergency of physical ailment over the summer which will put his viability in serious doubt.
When the Convention occurs, the RNC powers-that-be will 'release' all the delegates who voted for McCain... and allow them to switch to another candidate.
Thus, Mitt Romney will end up the winner .... and the Republican Party will indeed be united heading into the Fall general election.
Remember, you heard it here first.
It’s more than that, they want someone to vote for. FRed is not running. Reality sets in at some point.
Gary Hart was in John McCain’s wedding? Good grief!
I think I better sign off after reading this so I can get a good night’s sleep. Go, Mitt!
Apparently not for some people. ;)
No matter who it is, if you are a member of the party, you should support the candidate.
Or, leave the party.
Get over your reasons for “hating” and get with the program. If you are interested to be reading these forums, then you should either go out and work for your candidate and hope they win—or get out.
This actually applies to both sides of the aisle.
McCain is going to win and we need to get our collective crap together in order to prevent the government going socialist (or more socialist) and that means working even harder to get Congress back.
Once the inevitable happens, start working for your local candidates. And stop complaining about how the person that won does not fit your ideal. Life isn't fair. Get over it.
Can we at least have a convention or would you prefer the media declare now?
I'm a Conservative, not a liberal lemming like you. Just because I refuse to vote for either giant douche or turd sandwich doesn't mean I am any less concerned for this country. I choose "None of the above" because NONE of those candidates are Conservatives qualified to lead this nation. Of course, as a Romneybot, you wouldn't know a principled stand if it dropped a piano on your head.
Problem is, there’s no one to vote for.
It’s a crappy time. Think Carter/Ford. Take a pick or not.
They don't.
Mitt doesn't.
He admitted his 1994 mistake in verbally supporting abortion.
He apologized several years ago, and has since sided with the ProLife side every time an issue came before him.
As for your other falsehoods, Romney has always supported the man-woman Marriage Protection amendment....
He didn't fight the homo's quest to have 'private' unions, or whatever the beard scratchers call it, but Romney never supported GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED and RECOGNIZED marriage.... which after all is the only kind that matters.
And since you obviously didn't comprehend the other 9,999 times you heard, it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court which ordered the government to include a $50 abortion subsidy to health benefits -- NOT Romney.
You can't do a write-in? And no, writing in "None of the Above" doesn't count. It has to be a real person. Sounds like to me you just want to b**ch about something. Get help.
Um. That's not true.
Best not to even respond to what’s his name.
It just jumbles up this thread with his childish hate-mongering retorts, and makes it that much harder to get to the meaningful postings.
Um. That's not true, either.
Concerning RINO Romney, being a conservative does NOT mean one takes it upon themself to violate the state and federal constitutions, nor voluntarily force clerks to issue wedding licenses to same-sex couples. There was no law the compelled RINO Romney to require any such thing.
Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage 'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority'"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Romney Violated Massachusetts Constitution by Ordering ‘Same-Sex Marriage’
44 U.S. pro-family leaders signed letter asking him to recant illegal orders
Meg Jalsevac | HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007
A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’.I listened to the following tapes (as well as all the others; there are 8 audio links altogether) in their entirety and found them quite enlightening and educational concerning RINO Romney.The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office. Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.
The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.
Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”...
The Romney Same-Sex Marriage Deception Boiled Down
On November 7, Sandy Rios of WYLL-AM1160 in Chicago interviewed John Haskins, a former journalist and editor who is now a political analyst with the Parents’ Rights Coalition. in Massachusetts.The page with the audio link to the full interview is here; the link is at the third paragraph. The last quarter of the audio is on another topic.
In advance of Mitt Romney’s “I am (insert name of his religion here), hear me roar” speech on Thursday, I am providing selected audio excerpts from the Rios-Haskins interview, along with full transcripts of those excerpts after the jump (if you’re on the home page).
There really is no substitute for reading the whole transcript or listening to all audio segments. But, as with the “Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” series, as a service to those in a time crunch, I am boiling it down, this time providing key quotes for each segment.
A HT and intense thanks to Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion for creating the separate segments. If this is to make a difference, it could not have been made without you.
Part 1 (audio link)
Key Quotes:
John Haskins — “…it was something strategically very significant when he promised the Log Cabin homosexual Republican group, when he was running against Ted Kennedy bank in 1994, running for the US Senate, that he could be more effective than Ted Kennedy in advancing the gay agenda. …. that is a profoundly significant statement and an insight that Romney had — that as a Mormon, as a Republican, he had far more leverage to implement a radical gay agenda than a Democrat could have had.”
Part 2 (audio link)
Key Quote:
Haskins — “….. while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney secretly promised to the Log Cabin homosexual Republicans that when the anticipated ruling came forth from the court, that he would abdicate his constitutional duty to defend the Constitution.”.........................
I was too young to vote in ‘76, but if I could’ve, I probably would’ve voted AIP for a protest. After all, if Ford had won in ‘76, there would’ve been no Reagan and no GOP gains in 1980.
Help is on the way.
None of the above.
You never go wrong voting your conscience (unless you don’t have one). :-)
Aw, you talkin’ ‘bout me, sweetness ? I know you Mittbots have hated me from day #1 for exposing your boy, especially since I’ve known him for 14 years going back to his first race, so it gives me a lot more added insight on his fraud and deceit. In any event, I wear your hate like a badge of honor. It only strengthens me. :-)
I am soooo sick of this. It was only 16 years ago(the 1992 election) when that same attitude got Bill elected. Do people forget how truely aweful the Klintoons were/are?
One thing to keep in mind; the 1st time around it took the Kintoons a few years to figure out how to pull off their illigal, immoral, and unconstitutional behavior. This time Hillary! will hit the ground running, by her 2nd month she will have sold our new nuclear secrets to Russia right before they slam the iron curtain back down.
The conservative and patriotic American and founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, has put-together a list of questions that all candidates should be asked. Of course, this requires that conservatives actually acknowledge that the following questions are important minimum standards and values for those who aspire to become president of the United States.
Romney would fail the test if he were graded by the following questions based upon what is already known about him; Romney's johnny-come-lately flip-flops are questionable positions for any conservative to believe. I believe in Reagan's motto: trust but verify. Taking someone's "word" for it is nothing short of being willfully stupid, especially if their current "word" goes against their past deeds and actions.
Questions To Ask Presidential Candidates
The 2008 presidential campaign has begun. Candidates are already making appearances around the country, especially in early-primary and early-caucus states. Voters should evaluate policies and promises in order to determine who are the real conservatives. Here are questions that grassroots citizens should require candidates to answer — along with follow-up questions (marked below with •) so you can pin them down and prevent them from responding with generalities and hot air....Supremacist Judges Legislating from the Bench
6 questions + follow-up questionsBorder Security and Immigration
18 questions + follow-up questionsNorth American Integration
4 questions + follow-up questionsJobs and the Economy
6 questions + follow-up questionsRespect for Life
5 questions
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.