Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney

San Francisco Chronicle / sfgate.com ^ | June 26 2009 at 03:13 PM | Carla Marinucci

[mojitojoe]

LMAO! Way to go.

[ejonesie22]

(doing my best dumbass hick voice and stupid look)

Whaso funny?

[Finny]

Some day I’d like for some of the leading Repubs to make a show of rather ostentatiously publishing their original birth certificates. With a smile. Not pointing any fingers here. Just getting it all out there.

From your keyboard to God's ears! Amen!

[Finny]

THANK you for posting Thomas Sowell's take on Sarah.

How I love Thomas Sowell.

[Finny]

Huck would complicate things since he’d split the evangelical and social conservative vote and leave the economic conservatives all for Romney.

That's sad, because Mitt is economically liberal. In grand platitudinous phraseology he claims otherwise, and others say otherwise, but the proposals Romney offers as solutions to illusionary perceived problems like energy, climate change, business and health care, involve government meddling and regulation; he swears up and down that it's "free market," but that's like Obama swearing up and down that he doesn't want to take over GM. Government meddling and regulation in private enterprise is guaranteed to garner the opposite results of anything near economic conservatism.

Romney is bad news. He is "one of us" to the liberal big government moderate Eastern establishment beltway and Country Club Republicans. He is ONE OF THEM.