Posted on 08/15/2008 4:04:09 PM PDT by Plutarch
Kerry Murphy Healey. She is responsible for losing to Patrick. No one else. The buck stops there. Afterall we are conservatives. No excuses.
And if you said he never intended then why did he campaign for her, why did she endorse him for POTUS when she could have been “bitter” about him “throwing” her campaign, why are they still friends?
It’s not a lightswitch. There are degrees of conservatism.
Norm, he did nothing but sign off on that Socialist onslaught. What do you think that picture is of him signing ? A ban on abortions ? The man you’re talking about is not the Slick Willard we know.
Mitt is a nice addition to the ticket.
Holding folks accountable for being a part of a cult makes one a bigot?
Who knew.
She is responsible ? She was completely and absolutely hapless. There was no way on earth she was EVER going to win. She was chosen because she NEVER was able to win an election on her own. A total non-entity and non-threat to Slick Willard. That would be the equivalent of leaving a mentally retarded janitor to oversee our nuclear development program.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but what does Sanford bring to the ticket? He is certainly a young, conservative, good looking governor with some experience, but he offers no play in any state of consequence (unless you consider NC a “swing state”). How articulate is he? He did not do well on his interview and that was the last I’ve heard of him. I think he has stated clearly he wants to return to family life. He has not been vetted (at least not to the scrutiny of a VP pick), he has never run a national campaign, he has no ready-made base of “Mark Sanford donors and grassroots supporters” outside the Carolinas. What else is there?
To be fair I would be perfectly content with Sanford as the pick. But he doens’t bring as much to the table. Romney is used to the pace of a national campaign. Sanford would need time.
Could someone please tell Huckleberry to stuff a sock in it. He was much more likable as a rock star.
I guess he lied massively to the people of Massachusetts, then, didn't he.
Of course, you could prove that he didn't lie by trotting out the $50 taxpayer-subsidized abortions that are part of RomneyCare.
If you do that, though, you'll call your own veracity into question...since you claim that he (lol) "fought for life."
Oh the contortions that are necessary to defend the "cover-the-road" politician!
I oppose abortion and I object to anyone who runs around this conservative forum promoting a candidate who has supported Roe v Wade and abortion rights.
Jim has posted his opposition to the abortionist Romney before. From my perspective, you’re stinking up his house.
Obviously, I struck a nerve. Good. Your whining is noted.
Hey you two -
I hear that your sheets are ready at the cleaners!
Yes, but you have to actually BE one. If Howard Dean tells you he’s a Conservative, will you take him at his word ? Sorry, Norm. Actions mean something.
I toyed with the “con man” thing when the primaries were getting heavy. But that was out of spite. So there, I’m imperfect. However I don’t buy it. My head has cooled off.
Indeed. A perfect running mate for Obama. Two left-wing frauds.
What is the picture of? I don’t know. It’s a man laughing with his peers.
What does Sanford bring ? Integrity, experience, and accomplishment. He’s a real Conservative in deed and in word.
Eric Cantor or Fred Thompson for VP.
I could understand one taking the line that he doesn’t care to succeed him, but to take the line that he specifically wants an opponent to succeed him doens’t make sense, because then your successor will be defining himself as right and you as wrong. Partisans would agree.
Norman Bates: “BTW, I still want to know who brings more to the table than Romney - traction in several states, a ready-made base of grassroots support and donors, private and gov’t executive experience, previously vetted, youngish, articulate, strong debater.”
You appear to be suggesting it doesn’t matter what the man believes so long as he can get elected. Getting elected is certainly important, but it shouldn’t be the only concern.
Mitt simply hasn’t proven he’s a “bona fide” conservative. No way. Yet, you support him.
If you are conservative, when do you start getting what you say you believe in if you elect people who act in opposition to it? Mitt might be an acceptable candidate to some, but some of us DO see him as no better than McCain (in regards to conservatism).
Track records speak much louder than anything else, and Mitt’s record just doesn’t give me any indication he’s a small government guy. He’s moderate at best, someone who would have fit very nicely into the Democrat Party of 20 years ago.
Granted. He’s acting pretty conservative these days. I’ll give you that. Also, he certainly has ardent supporters. Nevertheless, he still has the same flaws he had when he was running and six months isn’t going to change that.
Norm, in all the years I’ve been in politics, I’ve never seen a man as phony, as dangerous, and as deceitful as this guy. He even makes most Democrats look like rank amateurs. This guy is the ultimate Trojan Horse for their cause. And the sad part is that it’s not something hidden, it’s ALL out there for one to see. Don’t ask me, listen to other FReepers who know.
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.