jdawg on September 4, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!! Mitts! grasp of the realities in Iraq is way beyond yours! There’s this pesky little rule that guarantees the troops 12 months at home after each 15 month tour with NO extensions. Guess what you poor misguided soul? April begins the end of the 15 month tours. We do not have fresh troops to continue the surge at the levels we are now. Part of the 82nd is relieved by the 101st at the end of September. Another part comes home in March.

Wake up, dig your head outta yer a$$, clean the $hit outta yer ears, and PAY ATTENTION or leave the thinking to others.

Voidseeker on September 4, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Right on! These fools refuse to accept ANY realities that show Mitt! has the deepest grasp on the issues facing the surge.

The bottom line is that in April, the 15 month tours of the surge troops will begin. PERIOD! The troops are guaranteed 15 month tours with no extension, followed by 1 year at home. Mitt! knows this and is planning for that inevitability. These jagoffs don’t care about the troops. They want to extend and re-extend them so as to give them fodder to criticize Mitts! plan.

Stupid son-of-a-bitchen single issue groupies! I’m sure they sit around watching re-runs of freds? TV show.

Well Mitt, perhaps if you sent one of your dedicated, patriotic sons over there they could straighten up the “mess”. Now, get behind our military or shut up and back off.
rplat on September 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM

What a ignorant person you are. How does ANY person SEND anyone to join an all volunteer military?

Try saying something smart that is critical of Mitt! instead of misguided claptrap.

How sad is that?
mjk on September 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Unlike the liberals, we want to hold onto power so we can have success in Iraq. The libs want to fail in Iraq in order to get into power. THEY are the ones playing politics with our troops. The reps are making concessions in order to give the troops the opportunity to protect our country for future generations.

Soon csdeven will arrive and we will have come full circle.

Zetterson on September 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Sorry to disappoint! I used my sound system for my daughters wedding on Saturday and haven’t hooked it back up yet. So, I can’t hear Mitts! comments to be able to speak to them.

But I can respond to yours. Mentioning those two does nothing for the debate. The Rudy and Mitt! detractors are basically single issue voters who are angry at fred? for jerking them around for 5 months and are desperate to justify to us their hair renting support for him. I don’t blame them for being fooled by fred?. I blame fred? for preying on the weakest minds in the conservative base. He is extending his character from his TV shows into a non-campaign for POTUS. It worked in Tennessee, but the rest of the country is not Tennessee. We aren’t fooled by bluejeans, flannel shirts, and fake red pickup trucks.

freds? avoidance of tonights debate, while clearly an act of cowardice that we, the wisest of the base, can see through, his groupies see it as a virtue. Since when have conservatives wanted to be faked out by their candidate? fred? is nothing and the wisest of us are waiting for him to grow a pair and answer the tough questions in unfriendly confines. Conversely, the groupies throw out the strong conservative values that help us hold our candidates to higher standards than the libs do of their candidates.

One held office in a liberal state…

Hollowpoint,

So what?? Wasn’t Reagan (to name one conservative California Governor) the Governor of the liberal state of California? Do you just want to hand over the Blue States to Blue governance? What’s your point?

Meanwhile, I can’t find a thing that supports your claim that he wants to expand Medicare. Quite the contrary, he supports free market solutions and wants to reform it accordingly.

Could you be misrepresenting his positions? Say it ain’t so!

Goodnight.

Surely you are not going to argue that anyone who takes such a route if forever tainted with liberalism and just can’t compare to FRED, who has spent how many years in Hollywood?

Buy Danish on September 4, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Guess the candidate:

One held office in a liberal state and espoused “moderate” views such as being pro-Roe v Wade, pro-big government health care and education, and pro-gun control. Reversed abortion position for his campaign.

One held office for a conservative state but spent decades working in liberal cities, yet consistantly maintained conservative views- anti-Roe v Wade, anti-big government, and anti-gun control. Maintained conservative views for his campaign.

Continuing this discussion…

There’s nothing Big Government about losing to Ted Kennedy…?

Huh? Losing to Ted Kennedy is an example of “Big Government”? Lame, very lame.

Wanting to spend more on federal health care and education?

Specifics please? His compulsory insurance plan for Massachusetts was a State plan that may have possibilities as a guide for the rest of the country but is not a “federal” plan.

The Heritage Foundation endorsed his mandatory, increasingly costly health care plan after a $25,000 donation from Romney. Funny, that.

You think the Heritage Foundation would sacrifice their core principles for a measly $25,000? They are a fine organization and did a stellar job of trashing (Fred’s friend) McCain’s shamnesty Bill, so, thanks for the donation Mitt!.

And since you’re a Second Amendment guy, didn’t John Lott just give a speech to the Heritage Foundation about his new book, Freedomnomics? Gosh, I hope he hasn’t been corrupted by being in their presence.

Let’s see if I can follow your “logic”.

After his formative years in the Midwest, a year at Stanford, missionary work in France, and graduating from BYU he went to Harvard Grad School (EGADS!), and then went to work for Bain and Company, both of which happen to be in Massachusetts.

Surely you are not going to argue that anyone who takes such a route if forever tainted with liberalism and just can’t compare to FRED, who has spent how many years in Hollywood?

Hollowpoint on September 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Damn. A lot of hate here for Mitt. What’s up?

Allahpundit on September 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Directly above you mate.

Damn, I’m in the middle of making dinner for my family, so I missed the most important point about Hollowpoint’s hollow point about Hillary and New York.

Mitt got his MBA/Law degree from Harvard and immediately went on to work for Bain and Company (and later started Bain Capital) which are in… Massachusetts.
Buy Danish on September 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM

So… you’re saying that my characterization of Mitt as an East Coaster was correct? Um… sorry? My bad?

Mitt got his MBA/Law degree from Harvard and immediately went on to work for Bain and Company (and later started Bain Capital) which are in… Massachusetts.

Hillary had NO connections to New York when she chose that State to launch her political career. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

If the polls are to believed, Nichole Ritchie would have a better chance standing between an NFL running rack and the goal line than Romney would have to defeat Hillary.

Hollowpoint on September 4, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Are you paying attention to national polls? This early on? Ever? National polls are meaningless. Go state by state and you will have a better idea of what the outcome of the election would look like. In fact, that is the only way you will get an idea about what the end result of the election will look like.

Now, that being said. You may still be right. I don’t know. I havn’t taken the time to look at polls in each state seperately. Have you? My biggest concern about Romney, to tell you the truth, is that he might not be the most electable candidate on the Republican side come time for the general election. I’m pretty sure the electability qualification is held by Rudy. There is a long way to go though, so we shall see…

All’s I know at this point is that you and me, Hollowpoint, will most likely be voting for the same candidate come the general election in ’08.

Have a good night HP. I’ve got to head home now.

I don’t have time right now to address all your “points” but I’ll start with this.

Mitt was raised in Michigan. There, with the help of his MIDWESTERN parents, one of whom just happened to be the Governor of that State, is where his values were formed.

Moreover, using your argument, Arkansas is not Hillary’s “home State”. Illinois is.

If so, you might want to be kinder to them. They are the only people standing between you and another Clinton presidency. Lovely eh?

Zetterson on September 4, 2007 at 6:57 PM

If the polls are to believed, Nichole Ritchie would have a better chance standing between an NFL running rack and the goal line than Romney would have to defeat Hillary.

His position on abortion changed from the 1990s, not in a single campaign or even a single week, like Kerry and Clinton. That is not “flip-flopping” but “maturing”, like Ronald Reagan.

Wrong. He claims his position changed in 2004, but there’s no evidence that he changed his position before he started considering a run for President in 2005. When one goes from being staunchly pro-choice, and opposed to Roe v Wade being overturned one election to doing a complete 180 shortly before a campaign for another- it’s a flip-flop.

Next, what is “Big Government” about running against Ted Kennedy, and fighting the Massachusetts legislature and the State’s tyrannical judiciary as Governor- not to mention taking on the “elites” at Harvard who see nothing wrong with farming embryos in the name of research?

There’s nothing Big Government about losing to Ted Kennedy; raising fees and the gax taxes? Yeah. Wanting to spend more on federal health care and education? Yep. Also note that he was for embryonic research before he was against it. When did he change his mind? Again, 2005.

I can only guess that you are referring to his health insurance plan for Massachusetts which is revolutionary, is supported by the Heritage Foundation, and is certainly worth a try. Any better ideas? It beats HillaryCare that’s for damned sure.

The Heritage Foundation endorsed his mandatory, increasingly costly health care plan after a $25,000 donation from Romney. Funny, that. While most conservatives were appalled at Bush’s expensive expansion of Medicare, Romney wants to expand it even further.

Moreover, Romney was raised in the Midwestern State of Michigan, not Massachusetts.

Buy Danish on September 4, 2007 at 6:54 PM

So why not run in Michigan? Apparently for the same reason Hillary ran for the Senate in NYC instead of her home state of Arkansas. He may have been raised in Michigan, but his political career (all 4 years of it, not including his failed Senate campaign) were exclusively in Massachusetts.

Voidseeker on September 4, 2007 at 5:18 PM

I’ll second that!

I think a Mitt Romney – Rudy Guiliani ticket would be strong.

Christoph on September 4, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Agreed, but I don’t think either would settle for the #2 spot. But, for what its worth, the ticket would be a fine one.

This is another reason I don’t really care for Mitt – say whatever he needs to to pander to the weak-kneed wishy-washy linguine-spined middle.

jdawg on September 4, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Are you refering to the those same weak-kneed, wishy-washy linguine-spined middle who actually decide elections? If so, you might want to be kinder to them. They are the only people standing between you and another Clinton presidency. Lovely eh?