peacenprosperity on November 10, 2007 at 8:27 AM

I was being sarcastic. The Fred heads always claim that Mitt is buying his votes. They see this as an insult to Mitt, but it really an insult to the people of each of those states. IOW, they are just too stupid to think on their own.

corporate welfare

That phrase means absolutely nothing. It is leftist buzz.

I’m too disgusted

Then stay home like you did in 2006. Sit back and watch hilary bring fascism to the United States.

doing a better job of fooling the ignorant hicks in Iowa, SC, and Florida,

I’m sorry we are not all as sophisticated, urbane, successful and as intelligent as you. If we were, we could all be miserable little creeps, too.

And for his VP?

Duncan Hunter

And as far as the garden and Romney trying to be a regular guy. That’s the point, he is a regular guy. Not everyone with money is John Kerry.

And I don’t believe that Mitt will either, and his declarations are perfectly in line with my own opinions, which are that immigration is great, and needed (in measured doses), but that illegal immigration must stop now, and that illegal immigrants that are here should be dealt with sternly. Back of the line for citizenship, behind the European, Asian, and Afican applicants who can’t walk across the street to live here.

Mitt is extremely bright, talented, and accomplished in the private sector, and uniquely so in this campaign. Everyone else is a career politician.

Go Fred!

The best we can do is to get a difinitive answer out of them and hold them to it.

Just keep the tape.

Zetterson on November 9, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Thanks for the compliment, though I see little in common with csdeven.

After watching a Republican Congress and President that have been more concerned about bringing home the bacon, increasing the size of the federal government and pushing for amnesty I’ve had it with fighting my own side. I’m no longer interested in a two-front war. The Republican party didn’t get the message after losing in 2006; the recent pork-laden water bill demonstrates that. I’m not interested in rewarding bad performance; not anymore.

I just don’t see Romney pushing the party back to it’s principles- not when he’s flip-flopped on amnesty, stands in favor of more gun control, advocated big government spending on subsidies, corporate welfare, health care, education, etc, etc, etc. There’s just too much self-contradiction in too short a time period that just happens to coincide with an election campaign.

Had his positions changed over a 10 year period, then I’d find him much more credible. Unfortunately too many of his positions have changed almost overnight with the dawn of a new election cycle.

He’s given little reason for me to believe that his conservative “epiphany” is genuine and would hold up after being elected. We see the same version of events every election cycle- a Republican candidate moves right for the primaries, leftward to the “center” for the general election, then just does whatever they want when elected since few remember or care what promises were made during the primaries.

I don’t blame anyone who’s committed to voting for whomever the Republican candidate is, even if they disagree with them greatly. That’s a reasonable opinion, and one I’ve shared in previous elections. Not this time- I’m too disgusted with the outcome of what should’ve been a historic opportunity of Republicans holding Congress and the Presidency to vote “lesser of two evils”.

Hollowpoint, the nominee will either be Rudy or Mitt. If you’re committed to a “conscience vote,” and your conscience won’t allow you to vote for either one, there’s no reason for you to continue to blather, because other “conscience voters” will have made up their mind already, and those of us who still have our brains turned on will reject the arguments of those who don’t.

Splashman on November 9, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Vote however you like; I’m not trying to convince anyone to stay home or vote for someone they strongly disagree with. That’s their decision.

A very possible end result of nominating someone without a clear and consistant conservative agenda is a Republican party that slides even further from it’s principles of small government, law enforcement and individual liberty than it already has in recent years. If the party is going to abandon conservative principles, they’ve abandoned me and thus don’t deserve my vote.

Bottom line- given the current ideological decay of the Republican party, we need a clear, consistant conservative as nominee more than ever. Otherwise, a win is still a loss.

Hollowpoint on November 9, 2007 at 12:17 PM

But you don’t understand…Mitt has grown in the past year, he has grown to understand the effects of illegal immigrants. The man is always growing, learning, studying, he is a saint…put a horn in his hand and put him on top of the capitol building.
Garbage…he says what he needs to say, he can’t break a campaign promise, he makes so many in so many different ways that he covers his statements.
He is against illegal immigration after he was for it.

I stand with you.

And for his VP?

JiangxiDad on November 9, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Hunter or Steele

The only definitive answer I’ve heard from Hillary is the loud “Yes” when asked if she would continue taking lobbyist cash.

HA! That is so true! And it would make a great area of focus for a competitors campaign ad. You should be a political strategist Splashman (assuming you aren’t already).

They all pander. The best we can do is to get a difinitive answer out of them and hold them to it. Just keep the tape.

Zetterson on November 9, 2007 at 1:36 PM

That’s exactly right. Those who hold out for the the perfect candidate are kidding themselves.

And when it comes to “definitive answers”, the contrast couldn’t be more obvious, with Romney/Giuliani on one side, and Hillary on the other. The only definitive answer I’ve heard from Hillary is the loud “Yes” when asked if she would continue taking lobbyist cash.

Of course, the way things have changed since the debate, it’s possible Hillary might lose out to Obama, who, despite his other faults, at least avoids squishy answers. But I’m guessing Hillary & husband have got a few teams of character assassins they haven’t unleashed yet. Obama’s in for a rough ride.

Mitt has never broken a campaign promise.

csdeven on November 9, 2007 at 1:38 PM

That is true and very difficult to argue with. Now all we need to do is get him to promise.

As for what Mitt would do? No one can really know what he’d do about much of anything since his positions tend to shift and change with the political winds. Remember, McCain et al clamed that their “comprehensive immigration reform” POS really wasn’t amnesty; Mitt could just as easily make the same claim, shady though it would be.

Hollowpoint on November 9, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Hollowpoint, love reading your arguments by the way. I’m begining to wonder if you and csdeven are on the Hotair payroll, iphones in hand.

As to your point above though, I think sometimes its just common sense. Mitt doesn’t just get swayed by the political winds, he speaks about the issues with an obvious full understanding/comprehension of them. It may be arrogant for me to assert but I believe that when someone understands the issues they will inevitably come down on the right side of them (our side). For example, I think McCain and President Bush are wrong about illegal immigration. But why are they wrong? They are wrong because they don’t understand or refuse to listen to the arguments that Michelle Malkin, Heather MacDonald, Pat Buchanan, etc have been making for years. If you asked McCain to echo Malkin et al’s arguments eloquently he could not do it. He probably wouldn’t even know where to begin. Neither would Bush. For God sake Bush’s attempt to do so would be painful. Romney echo’s their arguments, though, on the spot, off the top of his head. He knows them. Its obvious that he’s listened to them and he understands them. And he’s right.

Its also important to note that George Bush was never clear about his position about illegal immigration before getting elected. After the election though we sure found out what his beliefs were. Romney has been grilled on this and has stated difinitively what his position is on the issue. They all pander. The best we can do is to get a difinitive answer out of them and hold them to it.

Just keep the tape.

Instead, I’d like to respond to something you wrote in a thread a few days ago. I couldn’t respond at the time, because HA’s commenting was down.

In response to my two choices (help the Republican or help Hillary), you wrote:

3) Help neither of them win.

Not voting is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “LALALALALALALALA THERE IS NO ELECTION LALALALALALALA”. But hey, knock yourself out.

If your conscience would allow you to vote for someone you disapprove of simply because they have an “R” next to their name (R being short for RINO in Rudy’s case), then perhaps you should consider the health of your own.

Wrong again. I didn’t say I’d vote for an “R” just because it’s an “R”. I’m voting for the “R” because it’s certain that the person behind that “R” will govern more in line with my principles than will the “D”.

As for me, mine tells me that in a choice between Rudy and Hillary, since I oppose both and support neither I shouldn’t vote at all.

That’s either intellectual laziness or you’re scrounging for a plausible reason not to vote. You won’t ever find a candidate that you will agree with 100%, so it’s all a matter of degrees. If you agree with Rudy 10% of the time and Hillary 3% of the time, it is in your best interest to vote for Rudy. Since (I assume) you would never vote for Hillary, sitting out the election is depriving the more like-minded candidate of a vote, and helping the less like-minded candidate. Like I said, there is no choice #3.

Hollowpoint, the nominee will either be Rudy or Mitt. If you’re committed to a “conscience vote,” and your conscience won’t allow you to vote for either one, there’s no reason for you to continue to blather, because other “conscience voters” will have made up their mind already, and those of us who still have our brains turned on will reject the arguments of those who don’t.

NO ONE IN THIS RACE ISN’T. What will Mitt do re. immigration if elected?

JiangxiDad on November 9, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Whatever the faults of the other candidates, none have engaged in the level of opportunistic pandering and flip-flopping that Mitt has.

As for what Mitt would do? No one can really know what he’d do about much of anything since his positions tend to shift and change with the political winds. Remember, McCain et al clamed that their “comprehensive immigration reform” POS really wasn’t amnesty; Mitt could just as easily make the same claim, shady though it would be.

Who do you most agree with on Immigration ?
Rudy Guiliani (1) 6%
Mike Huckabee (0) 0%
Duncan Hunter (5) 29%
Tom Tancredo (7) 41%
John McCain (0) 0%
Fred Thompson (4) 24%
Mitt Romney (0) 0%

Total Votes: 17

http://willamos.myblogsite.com/entry2.html#track

William Amos on November 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Whomever voted for Rudy is in dire need of a full psychological workup, unless Vincente Fox was that one vote.

BTW, I voted and am one of the 41%.

“Hi, there. I’m Mitt. I have been absurdly successful at every venture…”

“Hello, I’m Hillary Clinton. I used to be a sleazy lawyer in a politically connected backwater law firm and married to an impeached President…”

“Hello, I’m Barry Hussein Obama, the one you have been waiting for. I’m black, but not too black. I went to Harvard Law, but never practiced law…”

Jaibones on November 9, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Great point, and one I’ve been making: At the point, a large percentage of the population doesn’t know much about Romney. Once people have a chance to compare him directly to the Dem nominee, those currently depressing R vs. D poll numbers will slide more and more toward the “R”.