Posted on 02/15/2008 8:13:24 PM PST by 2findtheway
I have read alot at various sites over the past few days. I cannot believe those who still are on their "Romney honeymoon"??? Endorsing McCain to them means that he is really a great guy with character, a real team player, a real conservative who is taking one for the team. Isn't it obvious that the man has his own interest at heart and not yours? Romney and McCain fought bitterly during the primaries, Romney accuses McCain of taking away freedom of speech (does it get worse than that!), and promises to repeal McCain-Feingold when elected. See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbi4l_OaZo
Wow! Can you Romney supporters please see the endorsement for what it really is - Romney getting in on the action for himself. If you want real change, please consider another candidate instead of the same old establishment hacks manipulating your vote.
Thank you for reading.
FreeReign:LOL! Hillary has a lifetime ACU rating of 9%. Obama has a lifetime ACU rating of 8%.
Anything to the right of Obama was your standard for support.
Liar.
Mitt and his Mittbot followers live to lie.
No. Only liberals are left in the race.
Let's see:
Tancredo: Romney
Hunter: Huckabee
T. Thompson: Giuliani, then McCain
Giuliani: McCain
Brownback: McCain
F. Thompson: McCain
Romney: McCain
They all play this game. It's not pretty, but it's how things are done in the GOP.
It’s been Rudy McRomney all the way.
McCain wants our troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Do you think we have the money and manpower for this?
Do you have children that are of draft age? Because that's exactly what's going to happen.
McCain's war stand is going to defeat him badly in the election.
They both support allowing illegals to stay and giving them citizenship as a reward. They both want open borders while pretending otherwise.
So much for national security.
February 8th - link below
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22fred+thompson%22+endorses+mccain&btnG=Google+Search
“I understand full well that Romney is not Reagan.”
Yet you drag Reagan into some small time guys campaign, 1976 has nothing to do with one of three candidates dropping out fairly early in a primary in 2008.
Dragging Reagan and his historical battle even into the convention into Romney’s little flip flop, is to mix nothing of note with a major political event of thirty two years ago.
It is a disgrace this constant attempt to link Romney and Reagan into every Romney defense.
Romney and his father were anti Reagan, that just makes it more disgusting to constantly be trying to drag Reagan down to this small time politician’s level.
I would just like to start off with a few points, because there are so many diversified responses:
1. I am new to these forums, so please be patient. I just posted this at 8:15pm last night. I have a 2 year old in the house that is sick so I am sorry I didn’t respond fast enough for some of you. Also, I still don’t know the relevance of being a newbie is for a political discussion.
2. I don’t understand why allowing others to see Romney in his own words on video makes me a Romney “hater”. I guess some people cannot reconcile between what they want to believe and how some things really are. I also believe that there is no substance behind their position so they call you a hater, a bigot, or whatever. How disappointing.
3. I am slow to speak and quick to listen. I wanted to allow everyone to express their view without engaging in a tit for tat. I wanted to hear what the different views were.
4. Interestingly, in all of the discussion, it amazes me that Fred Thompson seemed to be the only true conservative alternative. I am not sure why, but I respect your reasons.
5. Which brings me to my last concern, which I did not withhold on purpose, I simply wanted to hear everyone out.
Why is Mike Huckabee not a viable alternative?
Now I am asking in your responses if you can give me true substantiative concerns or points, within a true context. I don’t mean things like, he is an idiot, or he raised taxes 40%, or some other talking points. Be specific. Isolate the fact that he is a man of faith, try to put your emotions aside (like so many were asked to do for Mitt), and think. My mind is open - give it your best shot!
They have two modes of operation:
1) Falsely equate Romney with Reagan
2) When that fails, they attack Reagan
Contrasting Romney vs. Huckabee in the primaries shows some obvious points. Romney went out of his way to court the Evangelical vote. In some states he got close to half their vote. (more than half in Michigan) He met many times with the likes of the Late Falwell who even said "I could vote for a Mormon for President." He got many like Bopp Jr. to sign on to his campaign. IOW, he sought to include the entire GOP base. He didn't win in Iowa which is half evangelical but he came in a close 2nd. IOW, he cut into Huckabee's base. His Faith in America speech was a clear signal to Evangelicals and all religions that he will not push his religion onto others. (but he said a lot more eloquently than I could have)
Now on to Huckabee. He didn't even try to campaign in Romney's strong areas like Wyoming or Utah. He went out of his way on National TV when asked if Mormonism was a cult to follow up with theological statements that clearly said he thought they were. Rush limbaugh called his statements canards. IOW, he went out of his way to isolate the strong Republican Mormon base. In the votes he didn't cut into Romney's strong states in the west at all. (In 1992 Bill Clinton came in third in Utah, The only state he did so.) Huckabee demonstrated time and again during the primaries that he cared more about tribalism over conservatism.
Ann Coulter summed up Huckabee in this way. "I like the people who like Huckabee, but I don't like Huckabee."
To your list, I would add that Huckabee’s tribalism cost Fred Thompson any chance to get real traction in the race. That played to McCain. If conservatives would have had their way, this race would have come down to the old conservative Thompson and the new conservative Romney. And Fred would have won.
Romney said there were many things on which he and McCain disagreed. But national security wasn’t one of them.
“They both support allowing illegals to stay and giving them citizenship as a reward. They both want open borders while pretending otherwise”
That’s a lie. Romney was the strongest outside of Tancredo when it came to illegal immigration. It was Huckabee that supported illegals...read and learn:
Soft-on-illegals, giving in-state tuition for illegals was his “Jesus juice” ... HIS RECORD ON IMMIGRATION STINKS ...
Mike Huckabee disses Americans, Mexicans, promotes illegal immigration: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005609.html
While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this “racists”... http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html
Huckabee has personally attacks advocates for a bill he disagreed with as “unAmerican” and “unChristian”.
Huckabee fought hard to kill an Arkansas bill which would have cut off social services for illegal aliens. Huckabee called the bill, “anti-Christian” and “un-American”... http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html
“Even if benefits to people who are in the U.S illegally could be stopped, “I don’t understand how a practicing Christian can turn his back on a child from this or any other state,” Huckabee said.”
Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens... http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/03/11/News/318458.html
Huckabee’s ‘drank different Jesus juice’ in opposition to the illegal aliens bill: http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000718.html
“Huckabee, also a Republican and a Baptist minister, said Arkansans should be welcoming hard-working immigrants of all races. He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice.”
Wallace interview on Fox, Huckster flipflops back to pro-amnesty:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html
Nope. Your lying flip flopper took both sides of the issue, depending on who he was talking to and when.
You can listen to audio recordings of the lies dripping from Mitt’s lips in the following link, as he DEFENDED McCain’s plan and asserted that it wasn’t amnesty.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/16/romneys_words_grow_hard_on_immigration/
1. You accuse Romney of flip flopping which he did not.
...he clear states that those in this country would have to apply to get in. That is not amnesty.
2. Your guy is not a flip flopper on this issue he is proud of his stance that supports illegals and even says it is the “christian thing to do”. He also accused hard liners like us on illegal immigration as racists.
So, how can you critique a flip flop (although he didn’t) whereas Huckabee gets a pass as he embraces his stance on illegals.
My point does not try to equate Reagan the man with Romney the man in any case. It is only to show that the concept of a loser in a primary ending up supporting the winner, despite their disagreements, is not uncommon or necessarily bad.
My bet is, that despite their differences, and despite their current status, within six weeks or more, Huckabee will do the same thing to try and avert a more serious disaster of a Obama or a Clinton being elected.
He "clear" stated the opposite:
Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally.
Your interpreting that incorrectly. It is true at this time that we don’t have the mechanism to ability to deport 12million, though I would gladly pay my fair share.
Despite your misinterpretation you STILL fail to address why your illegal lover Huckabie gets a pass where, he hasnt changed his mind...he calls us hardliners “unchristian” and “racists” please address this as he embraces he soft line on illegal immigration.
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.