Posted on 07/01/2008 4:56:30 PM PDT by Plutarch
Sen. John McCain will choose businessman and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney as Vice President, in his bid for the White House this November, a source closely connected with the McCain campaign, who asked to remain anonymous, told us earlier this afternoon.
Though others were close in the running, the choice ultimately came down to the money–not the man. According to our source, the campaign narrowed their Vice Presidential options to Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, the two most successful opponents of McCain in the bid for the Republican nomination. But despite Huckabee’s sway with far Right conservatives and evangelical voters, Romney packs the deepest fund-raising pockets.
As a successful businessman and prominent member of the staggeringly wealthy Mormon community, Romney brings with him the potential to raise “upwards of $60 million in 30 to 60 days, whereas Huckabee could only raise $10 to $15 million,” says our source.
McCain needs those types of numbers to be competitive with the money-sponge that is the Obama campaign, which has 1.7 million individual donors–as well as the Hollywood machine–and is ringing-out advertising dollars across the country, saturating voters in his ‘50 State Strategy‘ to win the White House.
“How the hell did the publisher of the ‘Top 20 Side-Boobs of All Time‘ get this scoop,” you must be asking yourself, right now. (We were asking ourselves the same question.) And here’s the answer: It’s all part of the McCain campaign’s plan to directly target college-age voters, in an attempt to sway them away from Sen. Obama, says our source.
Additionally, the campaign wants to solidify their ticket far in advance of the Obama campaign making their VP choice, in order to get a “head start” on the surge in fund-raising they expect to receive with the announcement of Romney as the Republican VP pick.
So next time two dudes in suits knock on your door, they might want more than to proselytize about the Book of Mormon…
UPDATE: We understand better than anyone how crazy it seems that we got this story first, so a healthy level of skepticism is expected. But we stand by the accuracy of our reporting on this, and will give you as many new details as possible in the coming days–including the name of our source, if we can.
“He don’t exist.”
As I predicted in post 222, right on cue. I don’t play in the sandbox, it’s all yours.
My name isn’t “Hoss.” My “lecture” is a request that applies to all of us. Again, please stop with the personal attacks.
Can’t say it’s been real, like your friend. Adios, Vegas.
When you ping others that share your same opinions of the subject of this thread and lecture them on their personal conduct, perhaps you will acquire some credibility. I also don’t recall hearing your apologies for personal slander against me. Are you now offering them ?
Im not sure about this. Does Romney really doesnt bring anything to the campaign? I dont have a problem with him and would have voted for him. He is certainly head and shoulders above the con artist Huckster.
Ooooh, dat made me look. I must say fieldmarshal that I am disgusted, dismayed and appalled.
Now excuse me so I can go back and be disgusted, dismayed and appalled some mo'.
I think you just made me shoot something out my nose. Heartiest laugh I had all day. ;-D
No, you are the dumb ass.
The Facts
Romney announced his conversion to "pro-life" views in an editorial in the Boston Globe on July 25, 2005, the day after vetoing a bill expanding access to the so-called "morning after" pill, which required that it be made available to rape victims. See my detailed and updated chronology here. Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood expressed shock at the governor's change of heart, after he had personally signed a pledge to support increased access to the "morning after" pill. "Pro-Life" groups hailed the decision.
That was not the end of the story, however. The controversy over "emergency contraception" continued to haunt Romney. In October 2005, another bill came to his desk, seeking a federal waiver to expand the number of Massachusetts citizens eligible for family planning services, including the "morning after" pill. Romney signed that bill over the objections of his new anti-abortion allies. On this occasion, he was applauded by "pro-choice" advocates.
The issue came up yet again in December 2005. After weeks of agonizing, Romney instructed all hospitals in the state to comply with the terms of the emergency contraception law, and make the morning-after pill available to rape victims. He acted on the advice of his legal counsel, over the objections of half a dozen Catholic hospitals, which had previously refused to provide emergency contraception on the grounds that it conflicted with their religious views.
So this douchebag walks around for 58 years and all of a sudden 3 years ago when he thinks he has a shot at POTUS decides its not OK to kill babies anymore.
Apparently Obama has nothing on this guy in terms of bald faced lying and playing people for suckers.
You obviously are a sucker.
My mistake.
You are the reason the Founding Fathers didn’t give women the vote.
Who ever McCain picks, I hope the VP makes it clear to McCain that they will publicly rip McCain and then resign if McCain starts to go left.
Would you pick a running mate that would threaten to do that ? (Not that you’re wrong about McCain’s “wanderings”).
I would rather Romney take Kennedy’s seat, but this news will be very good indeed.
For months and months you and I had this conversation and you never once denied telling me about your 90 days but now you do. Interesting, the 90 day thing must really hurt for you to now deny it. Excellent.
Can’t say I’m surprised you’re changing your story, though. Lemme guess, it was 91 days? 92? Oh, I know, you’re now a MA native who has lived there your entire life and has known Romney since prior to your birth, right? Close? Figure out what your story is and let us all know when you’ve settled on it. MmmKay?
I just scanned over the thread as the Romney bashing is just so damn old and played it is just pathetic now. Anyone who uses massresistance as a source is chuckle worthy alone.
They aren’t voting for McCain and Romney, we get it already. When they whine in every Obama thread after he is elected we can remind them of who put him there.
You and you alone pulled that figure out of your butt. I never stated the figure at any point. Go back and do some research and remember that pesky little mantra that repeating a falsehood enough times doesn't make it the truth. :-) I'll snip your second paragraph, since it is clear to all you haven't had your morning bowel movement yet. Gotta stop being so crabby. ;-)
You’re right, this is old. But as long as you keep trotting old your tired old pathetic liberal phony, we’re gonna have to keep reminding the folks out there about those pesky facts about his record and his character. Anyway, thanks for playing the feud. :-)
I don’t have to revise anything. I still believe both would destroy the nation. All i was sayind is that Kennedy has a little history and would do it slower. Obama, I do not believe, has one ounce of loyalty of any kind to this nation and the quicker she is gone the happier he will be. I did NOT say that Kennedy would be in any way shape or form a good president. He would be a disaster.
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.