Posted on 07/16/2008 3:29:43 PM PDT by Plutarch
On Monday night, at a fund-raiser in New Mexico, John McCain said this about his former mortal enemy, Mitt Romney: “I’m appreciative every time I see Mitt on television on my behalf. He does a better job for me than he did for himself as a matter of fact.” This may not have been a joke.
Yesterday, Romney sat down for an interview with CBS News. It is a striking interview, in part because Romney seems to be making the McCain argument better than McCain, or McCain's campaign. There is a clarity to the soundbites that McCain has mostly lacked, a clear line of attack against Obama's experience and McCain's plans. Add to that whatever fundraising burst Romney could provide as a VP candidate, as well as Romney's strength in key swing states like Michigan and Nevada, and it's not hard to see why McCain may end up with a running mate whose hand he didn't shake in the primaries.
[See video at link]
EXCEPT: Mitt says in the interview that McCain distinguishes himself from Obama on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This is wrong, according to the latest McCain statements. Both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in ANWR.
(Excerpt) Read more at time-blog.com ...
Um, "we" cares. You shill for your sugar daddy that he is such a great leader, the hottest thing that has come down from the mount in 2,000 years and yet what he did in his ONLY elected office doesn't MATTER to you ? Thank you, once again for making my point.
"That doesn’t have diddly squat to do with anything."
Wrong. It's about LEADERSHIP, stupid ! Slick Willard led the GOP and Conservative movement in MA right into the ground. Now he's coming to kill the national party. Sorry, we WILL stop him.
Ohhh good one.
That was cold. Bet his grandparents felt that hahahaha
Ah, the groups name was “La Raza”. It means “the race”. This is a RADICAL GROUP for Hispanics. I could understand him meeting with reasonable Hispanic groups but NOT this one. McPain is nuts! I find him to be a tad scary that he is this STUPID.
It’s just going to happen as more people find out about the forum.
About George Romney ????????
No, I never make stuff up...
George Romney only got 40 votes on the Republican convention floor...
Barry Goldwater got 800 and the Republican nomination..
Goldwater’s good friend Ronald Reagan stood by him ..
but George Romney hated Goldwater and who won fair and square, and Reagan..
They were conservatives and G Romney was a moderate/liberal/moderate/whatever
Instead of getting behind Goldwater as the nominee, G Romney stalked out of the convention hall and never came back,
He not only worked against Goldwater, who should have been a shoo in for the POTUS,
G Romney and his cronies badmouthed Goldwater and said he was a racist and helped Johnson and the Democrats to win..
Jophnson should never have won and would not have if the Republican party had not been split by a spiteful G Romney..
Romney had always leaned left and Democrat and was bugged because after he started his campaign for POTUS, he still haddnt announced which party nomination he was running for..
Others made him bergrudedly annpunce for the republicans because it was theuir time and money and support and endorsements that he was using..
He wanted to win the White House like he had won and played at Gov of Michigan...
With no party affiliation or loyalty...
Romney had got by with playing one party at against the other for years and wanted to continue..
He was peeved at the Republicans for making him pick a side and stay there, and he made them pay..
It didnt matter to george romney which party won the White Houise..he had people who owed him in both groups..
Mitt Romney was a teenager in 1964, and watched his Dad try to pull a fast one over the Republicans and blame the Republicans and make them pay...
George Romney was not a Republican Party man.. and nor is Mitt...
G Romney groomed Mitt all his life for public office..
You can pity the boy, Mitt, for being an object and the result of his father’s blind ambition...
But not the old man, Mitt...
In his 60s, Mitt Romney is responsible for his own foibles and weakness of character...
Even though Mitt’s father helped him get 2 different deferments so him could dodge the draft and not go to Vietnam, Mitt was an adult and made his own choice about that..
Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney both got deferments and left the country about the same time..
And for much the same reasons..
Mitt was in his 20’s when he decided to push legal abortions..
31 years old in 1978, and he had never spoken out against the racism and bigotry of his mormon religion..
Even though he boasted of encouraging gthe “breaking of the glass ceiling” by women in employment, when he was 45 years old, Mitt Romney had never mentioned the sexist attitude and discrimination againt women by his mormon religion...
Mitt Romnbey is not conservative...
He is not honest or consistant..
He will say whatever someone wants to hear..
And he doesnt have the guts to speak up for what is right ..
He can experience all the growing up he wants to after the age of 60, but America needs established men and women in the POTUS and VPOTUS seat..
Someone who grew up in their early years and took responsibility for themselves and their actions..
The White House is not a dolls’ house and the American citizens are not marbles...
We are not playthings for a rich, spoiled little boy to experiment with while he decides who he is this week..
He’ll make something up.
I asked him the same question and he claimed Romney paid them.
I don’t know that I want to waste good conservatives on McCain...
You have a problem with people detesting frauds and con-men ? I'm so sorry you guys just swallow whole this lowering of the bar. Maybe you could actually start demanding it be raised back up. We have no right to complain in this country when we're contributing to its problems by accepting these bottom-of-the-barrel low-class politicians leading us.
"M. Romney is not my favorite candidate for VP and I am not interested in defending him, but at least he is not an adulterer who would make the Other Woman into first lady. He is handsome with great hair, a good speaker, presidential looking, incredibly wealthy, with a happy home life. Brings out extreme jealousy in men."
So style trumps substance, trumps accomplishments, trumps truth ? Is that what you're saying ?
"Whatever, how many will vote for VP? I would not vote for either John or Hussein no matter who is the VP."
This is the last chance Conservatives have to get one of theirs on the ticket. I'm standing up for Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, an accomplished leader and statesman. Oh, and he's "attractive", too, if that's your sole qualification. Y'know, I can appreciate physical attractiveness, that's fine, but I also can distinguish when it's the ONLY quality and when it isn't any deeper than their pores. That's always been *omney's problem. There's nothing behind the smile except for deception, lies, and fraud. I've known him 14 years since his first campaign. I'm only sorry I didn't see the con man for what he was until awhile later.
In 1896, the US Supreme Court rendered the Plessy v. Ferguson opinion in which it held that the concept of “separate but equal” was constitutional. The decision was wrong and ultimately the US Supreme Court overruled Plessy. In 1896, it would have been anarchy and perhaps civil war for the President and governors of various states to refuse to comply with this decision.
I asked for a link if you have one regarding constitutional scholars or professors who have analyzed the Goodridge decision. Since you haven't provided a link, I'm assuming you don't have any authority for your position, correct? Despite your passion, there is simply no constitutional authority for the anarchy you advocate.
Fregards
What the....what a wednesday....
My views are that I know a liberal when I see one. I know a con man when I see one. If the names you cited cannot recognize that, there’s something wrong with them or there are ulterior motives relating to their own bottom lines.
But I don’t need others to tell me what to think, that’s what liberals do. I go right to the source. Either it’s true, or it isn’t. I challenge all to go take a good, close look at ole Slick Willard. Not from what a few questionable talking heads say, go right to the source and see for yourself. If you’re honest with yourself and claim to be a Conservative, you won’t like what you see. I’m only sorry I listened to others 14 years ago rather than going right to the source for the information. Unfortunately, there was no internet at the time to do the kind of in-depth research one can today.
Looks like your rocks have the dogs yelping...
Folks know me, they know where I stand. I don’t have to hide behind shills or multiple accounts to tout my candidate. I’m well respected here, are you ?
His running away from his responsibilities as Governor to whore after the Presidency demonstrates the difference between a statesman and just a cheap, two-bit politician.
Well, Sanford was elected in 2006 and would have to leave office to serve as McCain's VP. Romney's term as governor expired in January, 2007. So your argument isn't looking too good.
Plenty of the FR criticism of Romney hits home, he is not an ideal VP candidate. He is just the best I have seen.
Rocky Anderson loves Slick Willard. You do know ole Rock, doncha ?
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.