Posted on 06/07/2007 9:37:37 AM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Great to hear from you CGG! It’s been a while.
I’m glad you’re glad that Mitt’s got Rudy and John “on the ropes”. Despite what people say about the advanced primary, Iowa continues to be the most important state in shaping the field and course of the election.
Great analysis.
Rudy doesn’t have a shot at winning anything in Iowa . . . not the Ames Straw Poll, not the GOP caucus, and not the general election.
He has many strikes against him, namely his stances on social issues and his “big city guy” persona. Doens’t play well in the heartland.
Fred would be interesting. I think he stands out as a “should come in a strong second” candidate for the Ames Straw Poll. Nobody would expect him to beat Romney . . . and he won’t (barring some major gaffes by Romney or some major home-runs by Thompson.)
Tommy T. will make a solid showing.
Sam Brownback and Huckabee could make a good showing . . . but if Fred gets in then their support may get diluted. It will be interesting to see.
While I don't think this process is necessarily the best or fairest, if someone has to go first, I'd just as soon it be Iowans.
You forgot Tancredo and I wouldn’t dismiss him.
wow, you are telling me that Reagan was not for legalized abortion? And I am the one who is playing word games? O brother...he signed the legalization of some abortions! Which happened to turn out to do alot of killing. He was tricked by the darkside that works in all of our minds and realized he was wrong. A pro abort is for all out legalization with little or no shame, proclaiming it as a womans right to control her body. That was not what I said Reagan was. And I didn’t even know about the limits, although very negligable, of the Ca. abortion law. It was not a purposefull omission, although I abmitt I should have known. It’s your right to cast doubt about Romneys sincerity, I just think it’s coming from your negative side and not your commonsense. And your low brow comments of me don’t speak well for your argument at all. I’d wonder how you treat liberals who disagree with you? Why can’t you make your points without being so heavy handed? My points are valid although they weren’t 100% accurate. Again, I was comparing Reagan and Romney changing their minds on the same issue; the government protecting the unborn. My comparison is obviously valid although you wish to deny it. You said they were eqivalent; I said they are similar. Please don’t twist what I was saying.
How quickly you from from "legalized abortion" to "some abortions." Like I said - you tried to omit "limited" or "some" in your attempts to draw moral equivalence between Mitt and Reagan.
And I didn’t even know about the limits, although very negligable, of the Ca. abortion law.
Very negligable? There is a VAST difference between what Reagan signed (very limited abortion in prescribed circumstances) and what Mitt supported in 1994 (abortion on demand).
Please don’t twist what I was saying.
I'm not twisting anything. You're twisting yourself like a pretzel trying to worm your way out of this one. It was not a purposefull omission, although I abmitt I should have known.
I’m not trying to worm my way out of anything...I admitted a I wasn’t as accurate as needed; not on purpose by the way. So it is degrees of wrong when comparing what Reagan and Romney went along with. I think you are splitting hairs in order to not admitt you were wrong in dismissing my valid point and judging them as dodo. You need a little humility in your debates...that will make you a lot better.
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.