There you go again, claiming victory after you lost the argument.
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 ...
You like Judases like Tancredo and weasels like David Keene, huh ?
“Show me da MONNNNNNNNNNNAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!”
Drag $100 bill through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find. Serpenthead sure nailed these guys.
Will you be needing a taxi, too, Mr. “Reagan won MA only once ?”
We’re laughing at you liberal trolls, not with you.
Given that you #1, have no idea of MA political party history and #2, didn't even know Reagan won the state both times he ran, you're scarcely in any position to claim moral superiority or expert knowledge in any of your arguments. You haven't had any legs (or arms) to stand on for a long time. Oh, and how do I know a Republican won't succeed Patrick ? Because there's no party apparatus left in the state that could mount a credible statewide race, and virtually zero candidates. Patrick is at greatest risk in the Dem primary, which is where all races are going to be determined for the forseeable future. Any GOP candidate that ran would have to be self-financing and would have to provide his own GOTV, because thanks to those wonderful ex-RINO Governors you cited, there's no longer any "grassroots." And you're touting the very guy for one of the two highest offices that made THAT the reality... and that's a FACT.
There you go again, claiming victory after you lost the argument.
“You like Judases like Tancredo and weasels like David Keene, huh ?”
You really are insane. You will slime these fine men just because they have a higher opinion on Romney than you do?
Victim of MDS for sure - Mitt Derangement Syndrome.
Exactly!
And how are we to believe that he has this close personal relationship with Mitt anyways
I don’t need to see your photo every time you post. We all know you don’t have a leg to stand on.
And in 1994, there were still GOP elected officials in MA and we were competitive for offices at both the statewide and federal level. We’re not anymore. Why do you refuse to accept responsibility for who caused that ?
They’re not fine men. They are sellouts to the Conservative cause. I urged all dues-paying members of the ACU to cancel their subscriptions in protest. The ACU did NOT endorse Keene’s apostasy.
You refuse to believe anything that casts doubt on the divinity of your idol. I trust they’re paying you well.
The only payment I receive is the knowledge that our country will be under the guidance of a proven leader.
Mitt Romney.
Cow chips ain’t all that’s being tossed in Oklahoma.
My state is one of the reddest in the union.
And everyone here supports Mitt.
Oklahoma is Communist ? Well, after *omney’s reign, it soon will be.
The voices in your head don't count.
Wolf asked Sanford to name one difference between the economic policies propounded by the Bush administration vs. McCain going forward. Sanford starts with NAFTA after losing his concentration, straining to find something as if he had no idea that he was going to be asked that question, underscoring how unprepared he was. He tries to link it to credibility and only he and God would know where he was going with that because it wasn’t obvious to Wolf or me or any no. of millions who watched it. Then, having judged himself to have been insufficiently foolish, he goes to earmarks. Again, earmarks-NAFTA, the connection is not readily obvious, not even to him anymore. He says that the President has not vetoed earmarks, McCain has been consistent on them. Wolf points out that they’re both for NAFTA, free trade. Sanford again bravely saunters out of the sphere of his ignorance to chart a brave, new world of a different ignorance and says he was trying to make a point about consistency. When he can’t do it, he decides to just pull 0bama into the mix. Wolf then does exactly what I would’ve done and reminds Sanford that the question was about Bush and McCain and their stances on economics.
Maybe you’re right, though. Perhaps if he had been interviewed by Neil Cavuto or Glen Beck, he would’ve been cogent. That must be it.
What’s your beef with Mitt anyways?
He has a proven Conservative record.
He wants to close the border.
He’s always been against the McCain-Feingold bill.
He is pro-life, pro gun, anti-illegal, supports marriage between a man and a woman.
And he speaks very eloquently about his views.
He does a better job of defending John McCain than McCain does.
LOL
There’s a video of Mitt being asked the exact same question.
And he answers with ease.
Like I said, I don’t trust CNN to portray Conservatives in a positive light. For all those waving around some soundbytes from the Clintoon News Network to discredit the best Governor in the country to tout liberal Slick Willard because he lies better on tv is shameful.
I don’t doubt that.
I agree with you. What I’m disagreeing with you about is the verb tenses. You say that Romney abdicated his responsibilities as Gov. to whore after the Presidency. I and the record say that he didn’t abdicate those responsibilities. One project ended and then, he embarked on another. When Jindal earns his bona fides, I’ll support him. I won’t hold him to a 2nd term.
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.