I think I am in love with this Mark Levin guy.
Your lower brain is in good form. Mark is the smartest guy in talk radio, and he does have the most beautiful voice -- he really does!
Posted on 01/31/2008 10:37:41 AM PST by Delacon
I am very grateful for the opportunity. I have been meeting politicians my entire life because my parents were GOP activists and I have never met any more sincere and accessible than Romney.
You’re right. VP’s typically don’t matter, but McCain is 71 and will be 72 when he takes office and has a history of skin cancer. It wouldn’t surprise me too much to see him bow out early second term, or see his VP take on considerably more responsibility.
If he were to pick someone like Thompson, or even Jeb Bush, (long shot, I realize) I do think it would excite some conservatives on the right.
I’ll be surprises to see the media destroy him as easily as you are making it out to be....maybe, but I’d still be surprised.
Mitt’s father was the head of the war auto production effort, improving our capacity to supply the necessary equipment to win World War 2.
I don’t know how many males there have been in the Romney family in their less-than-200-year history of being Americans, nor do I know how you can be certain that none of those males ever joined up for the military.
I don’t know how common it is for a particular family tree to not include people who served. I don’t know whether there were ANY boys of military age during the 1st or 2nd world war.
I do know that the point has nothing to do with whether a particular man is qualified to be President.
Actually, it is unlikely, based on the evidence — the evidence being the projections of three different sources of what is likely.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Romney would make a bad president, but I he is a flip-flopper anyway you cut it. He has all the right positions now, just didn’t have any of them 4 years ago.
I don’t know how we can effectively defend Romney when we all tore Kerry apart for flip-flopping.
Honestly, I would be surprised if he got much of the black vote at all. The GOP typically gets between 7%-10% of the black vote? I don’t think he will much appeal to African Americans and would be shocked if he could break the 10% mark going against Hillary or Barack.
The article doesn’t mention NAMBLA. However, his record on sexual orientation issues is decidedly slimy.
Haha. Maybe you’re right, but the poll reflects the fact that McCain has a proven track record of scoring well with “independents” and moderates.
The real problem with polls showing a candidate losing to Hillary Clinton is that she is such a defined, well known candidate. People have had over a decade to learn not to like to her and her negatives remain alarmingly high to the general public.
For Romney (or any candidate for that matter) to being running as far behind her as he is means something in even in Feb.
Hear, hear.
Gosh could it be he is not a politician, he has been very successful in a field that they couldn’t begin to compete in, he is better looking, and smarter. The are all politicians, they have made their living off the tax payers all their lives and are jealous of someone who has forgotten more about the real world than they will ever know.
A couple of more things. I have had the honor of knowing many WWII and Vietnam veterans in my life and two things that are true across the board with all of them is they don’t spend their life talking about their service or consider themselves heroes. They to a man will tell you that the ones who never came home are the heroes. I respect McCain’s service to his country, but he is starting to sound a lot like John Kerry with the look at me I am a war hero stuff. And lastly he continually tells all us that he is a leader, it has been my experience that real leaders don’t need to keep telling us about it.
In Massachusetts, the Attorney General is the only one with standing to represent the government before the courts.
Romney could scream about wanting to do so, but he could not actually do so. If the AG wouldn’t go fight it, Romney could do nothing about it.
As to what people were “surprised” at, there was a hard fight waged to get the religious exception INTO the new law. It was only when that FAILED that the Romney administration came up with the novel legal argument that the old law had not actually been superceded. If that were the case, nobody would have been fighting to get it into the existing law.
Eventually, reality caught up, and Romney was required by law to issue regulations based on the new law.
BTW, unlike the gay marriage case, there are actual real legal scholars who disagree with Romney on this, so my discussion is based on the preponderance of the legal views, not all of them. In fact, there was a lawsuit filed to overturn this ruling. So far, the ruling stands, and so far as I can tell the lawsuit will fail — which would indicate that the legal position taken by the AG was sadly correct.
BTW, I don’t support a blanket religious exception for religions which run public facilities as part of a care system where people don’t have a choice of what facility they are taken to.
To use an extreme example, I’d be rather upset if I needed an emergency blood transfusion but was transported to a hospital run by a religious organization that wouldn’t give me blood because of their “religious beliefs”. Of course, we would all agree about that, because we all think a religious objection to blood transfusions sound silly.
The constitution’s protection allowing you to freely exercise your religion does not give you blanket ability to force those views on others. The legislature could have kpet the exemption, but I don’t believe the constitution required it, and so I don’t believe a suit on that aspect would be successful either.
Given that a significant part of the pro-life community isn’t in agreement about plan b to begin with, I find this particular incident rather minor in the grand scheme of things.
I do wish he had been able to, or would have, fought that more than he did, but it just doesn’t get me worked up like it gets some people.
Plan B at worst only sometimes prevents the implantation of an already fertilized egg. It also prevents pregnancy. Of course, the Catholic church is opposed to birth control, but many pro-lifers are not. For them, if you could prevent a woman from getting pregnant as a result of rape, they would support that, especially if the alternative is the woman has an abortion 4 weeks later.
BTW, many of our “pro-life” candidates support abortion for rape, so for them the plan-b action would likely stir no opposition — if you are for aborting a baby in the case of rape, you certainly won’t oppose giving a pill that might prevent a rape pregnancy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=63#63
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=67#67
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=78#78
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=81#81
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=91#91
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=101#101
Decidely slimy? Hardly.
I’m not saying you support a particular candidate, and I apologize for my post’s inference that you did.
But the topic of the thread is Romney vs McCain, and in that context I felt it important to point out that, rather than your suggestion that Romney fit your description, it was in fact McCain that fit that description.
Before that, he didn’t have a web site with a platform on it, so he couldn’t “support” that platform. Frankly, I haven’t seen any indication that ANYTHING he’s said or done while running for President has shown any degree of wavering on his support for conservative principles.
I hardly see how that is risable. Huckabee in contrast makes statements every week where a few days later he has to correct, amend, or contradict them. McCain is more consistant, but his consistancy is about opposing conservative values.
I already replied before I got to this post.
I know people will oppose Romney, and don’t expect to change their minds, but for those who are still looking to make a rational decision, I feel it is helpful to note the comparative worth of the opinions being offered.
Perhaps the opinion offered has as much WORTH as others....I didn't know we had a "worthiness" standard on FR, nor just WHO was to judge it, nor a standard as to what should be allowed in a post outside of the usual FR posting rules.
In fact, I simply wanted to explain to the poster that so long as he simply voiced an opinion with no factual basis, I would be trusting Mark Levin’s opinion rather than his opinion.
Then why not simply say so instead of I trust Mark’s opinion much more than yours, “Antoninus”. Mark Levin is a real person who puts his real reputation on the line and has concluded that Romney is to be trusted enough to see him as better than McCain.
John McCain went to bat against the Fairness Doctrine, but I haven't heard any of these radio hosts give him credit for that. Has Mark?
McCain introduces talk radio legislation
"Arizona Sen. John McCain has introduced federal legislation to protect talk radio shows from the reinstatement of past rules that required dissenting voices be given equal time on their shows."
One has to wonder what influences Clear Channel/Premier Radio Networks exercise since the purchase by Bain Capital. And regardless that Mitt is no longer an OWNER of Bain, the "good old boy network" is a factor in business.
Whereas it makes me sad when I see conservatives taking the “to h*ll with the law, be a dictator” line of reasoning.
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.