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 ...
Okay, using your flawed(lack of)rationale, Reagan is responsible for abortion being legal and the blood of abortions performed are on his hands because Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Conner to the Supreme Court and in the Casey and Webster decisions she affirmed a woman’s right to choose to kill the fetus.
Fregards
Sorry, bud. It’s the truth. 100%. Don’t blame me if you don’t like it. :-)
Proof ? You’re not interested in anything other than posting pro-Slick propaganda. I could post video of your idol handing off a briefcase of cash and you’d still be in denial about it.
If you’re supporting the liberal Slick Willard, then all you’ve managed to do is invalidate everything else positive you’ve done up to that point. That is what is so sad.
You have.
Nope. Follow the money.
Nice try. More revisionist baloney. You had GOP officeholders in the ‘80s and ‘90s, even federal ones. Where are they now, Hoss ? Weld didn’t harm the party, either, huh ?
Yeah.
(Back before NR jumped the shark)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_49/ai_59451074
Who is the Governor of Massachusetts right now ?
MA voted for Reagan twice (without *omney’s vote, since he was not for “Reagan-Bush”, his words). Your revisionist history just keeps on a-comin’.
Thanks. Just did. My conscience is clear. I wouldn’t make the same claim of you. :-)
I’ve made no false claims. You however, are another story.
It’s okay with me, FRiend. Just as long as we’ve established your on record blaming Reagan for all the abortions performed after the appointment by Reagan of the liberal Sandra Day O’Conner who affirmed a woman’s right to kill the fetus.
You got caught.
Reagan won in 1980 and 1984. And while they did vote for Al Smith in 1928, MA remained a HEAVILY GOP state from before the Civil War up until about 1960. It was liberals that shriveled the party, with Weld crippling the rebounding party in the ‘90s and *omney delivering the death blow in 2006. Ah, but why would you be interested in facts ? They get in the way of shilling for your idol.
Mustn’t criticize his divinity.
Now you see how Bubba Clinton and Obama got started.
He’s not the only one. We know full well that lunch at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse (check his calendar, that’s where he ate) was more important to *omney than keeping a liberal activist off the bench. So what if two people died for a lunch, huh ? Governing can be sooooo boooooriinng, dude.
Yep, governing can be so boring. So what if millions of fetuses were killed because Reagan appointed a liberal activist like O’Conner to the court, right?
Are you criticizing Reagan like *omney did ?
OK....Since I assume you have done so, why not present your proof here that everyone who supported Romney was bought and paid for? Since you make such sweeping accusations against large groups of highly respected, high profile people, surely you have direct, hard evidence to point to. Sources would be nice too. Or are you using the same standard of evidence the libs use against Conservatives, the "its the seriousness of the charge" BS?
Again, you're making the accusations here, the burden of proof is on you and thus far all you can muster is a mysterious and deliberately vague "follow the money" followed by personal insults and pathetic claims of "Jim Robinson agrees with me."
Time to put up or shut up, little man. I'm calling you out. Present: Clear, Direct, Evidential Proof. Now.
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.