Posted on 02/15/2008 8:13:24 PM PST by 2findtheway
I have read alot at various sites over the past few days. I cannot believe those who still are on their "Romney honeymoon"??? Endorsing McCain to them means that he is really a great guy with character, a real team player, a real conservative who is taking one for the team. Isn't it obvious that the man has his own interest at heart and not yours? Romney and McCain fought bitterly during the primaries, Romney accuses McCain of taking away freedom of speech (does it get worse than that!), and promises to repeal McCain-Feingold when elected. See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbi4l_OaZo
Wow! Can you Romney supporters please see the endorsement for what it really is - Romney getting in on the action for himself. If you want real change, please consider another candidate instead of the same old establishment hacks manipulating your vote.
Thank you for reading.
“At the time, Reagan’s support of Ford was not a major political historical event.”
That huge political drama was taking place and making history.
A third place candidate endorsing the front runner in February during this primary should not involve bringing up Ronald Reagan’s history making struggle in 1976.
You read the threads, you know how for some reason anything that Romney does, seems to require a connecting of his name with Reagan’s in a way that always tries to shrink Reagan.
That is what is happening now about the endorsement, why you keep pushing it is beyond me, but it is the way that the Romney campaign has willed it and how his supporters play it.
“It is true at this time that we don’t have the mechanism to ability to deport 12million...”
So Romney’s “plan” is back to de facto amnesty. Again.
***
In light of these comments, border security advocates have questioned whether there is a difference between the application for permanent residency Romney suggests and the “pathway-to-citizenship,” which he has staunchly opposed.
“It sounds like he wasn’t really sure,” John Vinson, president of Americans for Immigration Control (AIC), told Cybercast News Service. “It’s just as clear as mud what he believes about illegal immigration.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200712/POL20071221a.html
I simply made an observation earlier in the thread. It is an accurate observation and conforms to the reasoning I already gave you...which has nothing to do with comparing Romney to Reagan as men or on the issues per sey, rather simply points to the concept which both Reagain and Romney (and many others) have engaged in...and it is a valid concept, and is a valid statement.
I expect Huckabee will engage in it too. That does not mean any of them adopt McCain's bad positions or that they agree with him on them...I am sure they will fight those positions if he wins. It does mean that they recognize and support whatever good positions he has in an effort to keep from losing those positions as well in the event of an Obama or Hillary victory.
That's all...and I know many people will not agree to voting for McCain on that basis...and I undertsand very well the reasoning. Given whaat he has done, voting forMcCain will be disgusting. But seeing Hillary or Obama in the White House will be beyond disgusting.
“It is an accurate observation and conforms to the reasoning I already gave you...which has nothing to do with comparing Romney to Reagan as men or on the issues per sey, rather simply points to the concept which both Reagan and Romney (and many others) have engaged in...and it is a valid concept, and is a valid statement.”
You compared Reagan’s endorsement of Ford 32 years ago inside of the bloody convention pit as the same as Mitt’s endorsement, that misleads the vast number of people that don’t know the fascinating facts of Reagan’s 1976 battle and you will not leave it alone.
You seem very determined to push the Romney endorsement, Reagan endorsement are the same, theme.
If the remaining challenger endorses McCain in time, it probably won’t be similar to Reagan’s either, but then his supporters probably won’t try and claim that is was.
Thanks for failing to address Huckabees soft on illegal immigration policies. As Huckster says, we tough on illegal immigrant crowds are “unchristian” and “racists”.
Your weak position of attacking Romney, who has a tougher policy than Huckabee, and ignoring Huckabees “let’em all in” stance is proof of your inability to be objective.
“IT’S THE WAR STUPID!”
Rameumptom -
Your first paragraph is basically a statement that Mitt Romney reached out to Evangelicals, simply by promising not to push religion down their throats - is it that easy? Maybe despite his reaching out, they weren’t as dumb as he thought? Or maybe his reaching out was another of countless deceits to win the nomination - every candidate needs evangelical support to some degree or they will not win. Kind of like doing something you hate to do but is necessary for survival. It wasn’t genuine. And Huckabee could easily make the same promise of not running religion down anyone’s throat.
Secondly, you accuse Huckabee of tribalism because in your perception, he didn’t reach out to Mormons? Huckabee doesn’t just reach out to Christians ... he has a huge Conservative following because he is the clear remaining Conservative choice. I know the media would have you believe otherwise.
Look at Utah results - 90% for Mitt, and 5% for McCain, 1% for Huckabee??? Gee, I wonder why that happened - I guess Mitt was truly the best choice??? Do you think that seems a little tribal? I don’t think a candidate has even scored that high in their own home state...
Thirdly, and I really hate to depart from the core discussion, but Mormonism is a cult. I recently had 2 Mormon missionaries over my house 2 weeks ago for about an hour and a half.
The reason I believe Mormon’s become so outraged emotionally is because they have some real distorted practices that the average Mormon can’t defend. Such as:
1. They basically believe in a prophetic era in North America that cannot be substantiated by any historical facts, no findings, no nothing, etc...
2. Polygamy was practiced by Joseph Smith when it was clearly forbidden by God in Old and New Testament. When I asked them why Joseph Smith defied God in this manner, they told me: There was a war in Mexico, and when all of the men had to go and fight, God told Joseph Smith to “take care of their women”. Gee - what a noble calling! I guess you just can’t argue that against him why he stole their wives, commited adultery, defied God with more than one wife, lied, and just about anything else that goes along with that.
3. Joseph Smith brought a message to the people that the Mormons are God’s preserved priesthood that he is restoring for our day - a time like no other.
So let’s see:
Made up story with no historical fact, taking up women by God’s authority and controlling people for your own pleasure, and self-establishing yourself as ultimate authority as intercessor between man and God ... Doesn’t that make you just want to question the whole Mormon thing?
I just can’t figure out why Mormon’s get so angry when people bring to light their own beliefs, spoken and written by their own people? If discussion of your own beliefs creates such anger - you may want to look deep down inside and reflect why you really believe in it - without thinking that any opposition comes from an apostate.
Cast a vote the American Way - according to your values and not Ann’s or Rush’s! This primary is not about electability (which steals your individual vote), it’s who you want!
Thanks for your response!
So be it. We've both had our say. At least for me at this point...'nuff said.
I’m cool as long as Reagan doesn’t have to take an unjustified hit.
This I gotta see.....
Huckabee and Romney are both soft on illegal immigration. Mitt just flips and obfuscates more frequently.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200712/POL20071221a.html
You’re welcome.
And here’s some more:
Over a year ago, Romney said it would be impractical to deport 11 million undocumented workers and suggested giving some the path to citizenship he criticizes today. ``The 11 million or so that are here are not going to be rounded up and box-carted out of America,’’ Romney said in a March 29, 2006, interview with Bloomberg News.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=home&sid=avl_sHZybiCU
Thanks, but where is the flip? His immigration policy was always thus. He has always advocated an unspecified time frame that is different for different situations, using a compassionate but strict approach. Where is the flip?
“Over a year ago, Romney said it would be impractical to deport 11 million undocumented workers and suggested giving some the path to citizenship he criticizes today.”
Somersault.
NOTA
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.