This is why I like to combine great tweeters, woofer, and even a subwoofer in back….

Communist NAMBLA Druid while snorting heroin off the body of a dead hooker

Interesting notion. If Romney adopted the Ace of Spades™ Lifestyle, he might pick up a few votes.

right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 3:48 PM

I wonder why the people of Iowa and NH don’t see it your way?

Why do you guys hate Mitt so much?
Vanceone on November 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM

The question is…why do you love him so much? You have never met him, sat down and talked to him, you share the same religion, that’s all. I am not wooed by his religion, I have to look at what he has and has not done.
The famous “victim card”, why do you hate him so much? Read my post with his flips. These are not your normal little change of direction that all candidates do and should make. These are major policy, political decisions. Immigration, gun control, taxes, abortion, come on these are more than planks, they are the foundation of the Republican party, and he can’t define where he stands.
This is my proposal, from days ago and repeated. He is a fine candidate, that does not know who he is. He should be the VP (or some cabinet post), so we can all find out where he really stands. It will take about 4 years for him to decide and go with the path he chooses. Stem cell, where is he? immigration where is he? taxes he has changed on that so often…come on these are major issues in this campaign. I am asking for clarity, and unfortunately, he has been so wishy washy, words don’t do it (do it for you, not for me), one should judge people on their words, but more on their actions…he has to act, and action takes time. It is too late for pretty words.
But you don’t think; immigration, taxes, abortion, stem cell,gun control are important issues, you just blow them off as changes in opinion…the first sign of a sucker being sweet talked.

while snorting heroin off the body of a dead hooker

Shouldn’t he be performing an abortion on the dead hooker’s fetus?

the list of issues he hasn’t flipped on is shorter than list of those he hasn’t

PIMF

the list of issues he hasn’t flipped on is shorter than the list of those he has.

Why do you guys hate Mitt so much?
Vanceone on November 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM

It’s not that we hate him, it’s that he’s just not a compelling candidate for most.

The “everyone does it” response to Mitt’s flip-flopping doesn’t hold water- no other candidate comes close; the list of issues he hasn’t flipped on is shorter than list of those he hasn’t. Plus his flip-flops seem all to be perfectly timed with changes in the political winds or other political strategy.

Seriously- what does Mitt even stand for besides getting elected? Does he even know? There’s no “there” there- he seems to lack any remotely consistant core political principles- not on social issues, not on fiscal policy, not on defense. To many of us, he represents what’s wrong with the system- a politician’s politician who’ll say anything to get elected regardless of their actual record or recently held previous stances. Mitt hasn’t even stayed consistant with his newfound conservativism- a fiscal conservative who’s in favor of ag subsidies, corporate welfare, homeowner buyouts, and increased foreign humanitarian aid spending? Please.

I realize that the Romniacs- particularly in the Mormon community- aren’t going to be swayed by any argument or event short of Romney announcing a change in affiliation to Communist NAMBLA Druid while snorting heroin off the body of a dead hooker, but you asked, I answered.

Romney just isn’t believeable as a conservative who’ll stick to conservative principles- not when he can’t seem to stick to a given position in the course of a few years or even months.

That comment makes you a togib!!!
tommylotto on November 16, 2007 at 1:32 PM

It takes me to know me.

The problem is that no one can find one single instance of a Mormon destroying any of those things. As a matter of fact, my experience is that they generally make it better than it was when they got there.

csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 1:27 PM

That comment makes you a togib!!!

Imagine it looking like this. Bwahahahaha!!! Oh happy days!!!

csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Sorry, its too late for me now. Go. Tell my story…

csdeven, that is perhaps the worst choice of words you could have possibly used. The horrible images that sentence inspires are going to take years to dissapear from my nightmares.
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Imagine it looking like this. Bwahahahaha!!! Oh happy days!!!

Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 1:03 PM

I really hate to say this, but MA isn’t known for evangelical conservatism so Mitt’s religion wasn’t an issue. It’s sad that now he is on a national stage his religion is an issue. This is driven by the evangelical gibots.

It seems strange that a Mormon destroying a city, county or state, isn’t an issue, but destroying a country is. I submit that destroying a little league is enough to take a stance. The problem is that no one can find one single instance of a Mormon destroying any of those things. As a matter of fact, my experience is that they generally make it better than it was when they got there.

I think the voters are starting to learn more about Tax Hike Mike and don’t like what they see.

Dudley Smith on November 16, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I think that Huckabee now has the very best positions on illegal “immigration” of all the candidates.

Huckabee on illegal “immigration” from his web site

It is almost absolute perfection.
Only one thing wrong with it. It so flies in the face of his past pronouncements (very close to 180 degrees out) that it is hard to believe that he is not lying trough his teeth or that some enlightened staffer made it up without telling him or that someone hijacked part of his web site. Frankly it boggles my mind.

Can you imagine the effect of a female stomping a mudhole in Hillary’s butt?!

csdeven, that is perhaps the worst choice of words you could have possibly used. The horrible images that sentence inspires are going to take years to dissapear from my nightmares. As to your point, I totally agree. I really wish Jeanine Pirro didn’t get her pages mixed up in that speech while running against the Witch in NY. Thatcher would be great though, and I bet you could find a awful lot of prominent women CEOs, athletes etc that would be willing to share their opinions about hillary’s “if you sit when you pee vote for me” campaign slogan.

Why do you guys hate Mitt so much? I realize every candidate has their detractors, (such as csdeven for Fred), but there seems to be a LARGE number of people who simply cannot remain quiet about Mitt, regardless of the topic. I haven’t the faintest idea who right2bright supports, if anyone. Nor Nailinmyeye, or numerous others. They seem to solely exist to attack Mitt, rather than promote another candidate’s positives.

Good news is, I am not quite sure how any democrat could be any worse.

Vanceone on November 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Vanceone, they have all been around for a while. They are all good commenters and I like reading what they have to say about most things. They just have a strong passion against Mitt. I don’t know what fuels that. For my whole life that strong distain has been restricted to Mass liberals when talking about Romney. I don’t know if its the Morman thing or what but that was never an issue when he was Gov of MA. It honestly never even crossed my mind because it never seemed to be an issue for him. Why anyone would have a problem with that is beyond me. I’m not sure where the resentment stems from and it is kind of too bad.

Then there is all that “I’m your girl” nonsense. And who says that girls aren’t as tough as boys. From one side of her mouth she says that she is up to the challenge of taking on the Bin Ladens the Kim Jong Ils and the Ahmedinejads of the world but then from the other side of her mouth she complains about the boys ganging up on the girl in the debates. Quite the feminist icon she is though. Known for nothing more then having been married to some guy who cheats on her.
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM

What GOP needs is an ad featuring clearly tough conservative woman to get right in Hillary’s a$$ with both feet. Margret comes to mind.

She could start by saying…”OK, Hillary, you want to play gender politics, lets play. I was the PM of Briton for several years and not one time did I have to make an excuse for a statement that made me look like I was playing the gender card. As a representative of my country, I am what I am and my vagina has nothing to do with it. So, stick your gender politics in your vagina and buck up, because the enemies of the USA aren’t impressed with it.”

Can you imagine the effect of a female stomping a mudhole in Hillary’s butt?! She couldn’t claim the boys were ganging up on her and the stark difference between her and a REAL woman would be devastating.

right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Guys, my point was not that Mitt doesn’t change positions. My point was that they all do. They all do very often and you can go back and find contradictory statements all of them have made throughout their careers on virtually every major issue.

The only exceptions to this are the candidates who have no shot at winning (Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, Tancredo, etc). They don’t have to condradict themselves because they aren’t actually in it to win it. Its reality fellas. If you don’t like flip floppers good luck with either Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel or Tom Tancredo.

Good news is, I am not quite sure how any democrat could be any worse.

They can’t go after him for corruption.
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM

I think you better review the big dig. Giving Bechtel a free pass, after amassing one of the nations biggest boondoggles, boggles the mind. His saving grace was the Dems were just as much or more at fault. He shoveled so much money to Bechtel, who just happened to help bail him out of the Olympics and is a contributor to his campaigns.
He had no problem as a consultant closing down businesses, consolidating, firing execs…but Bechtel was left unscathed (well a little knuckle tap for the media).

Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Did you read the last link in the post above? He makes a very compelling argument why Mitt’s flip flops make him unelectable. He has flip flops on most major issues on which he is campaigning today, and the flip flops were extremely recent — in some cases less than a year ago. His success in Iowa is based upon his conservative positions (“I’m from the Republican branch of the Republican party…”). However, he apparently didn’t hold any of those positions only a few years ago.

For example in a previous debate he called McCain’s Z-Visa, an A-Visa — “A for amnesty”, but just a few months earlier in support of comprehensive immigration reform he said of McCain’s proposed legislation that it is:

“very different from amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay.’ It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”

If he has recently change his position on immigration, taxes, CFR, stem cell research, guns, abortion, gay rights, etc. and it is merely his position on these issues that make him an attractive candidate then why bother? He is just a smart guy with a nice hair cut.

I guess now that the Fred menace is receding its time to take down Mitt.

Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM

These aren’t minor flips, read the update.
Is he for abortion or against it?…don’t care, ok
Is he for gun control or against it?…don’t care, ok
Is he a tax and fee increaser?…don’t care, ok
Boy, your tough, how about this;
Is he for campaign reform?…don’t care, ok…one more
Immigration, what is his stand, last year, this year, this week…you have to care about something!!

Ok, he looks presidential…

Regarding Mitt, I think there is ONLY ONE relevant question to ask regarding his candidacy.

Does he have a real legitimate shot to beat Hillary?

I read a piece from Dick Morris a day or so ago (OK,not the most credible guy, but not someone with an obvious axe to grind) who dismissively said, that Mitt has absolutely positvely NO CHANCE in hell to take out Hillary in the general election.

I thought that was a tad overstated, but if it ends up being true, and Mitt rides a populist wave in Iowa and NH to the nomination only to get trounced in the general, then where the heck are we? At this point Rudy and even McCain run better than Mitt vs HRC in every poll I’ve seen.

So what is the case that MITT can beat Hillary???

Thats the only Q I have about Mitt.

Always Right on November 16, 2007 at 11:59 AM

ZOMG, I agree with csdeven. I bet you have heard that a lot lately. ;-)

Electability in the general is the primary question but not the only one for me. I also want a candidate who will stick to core conservative principles. I also think that sticking to core conservative principles is a winning strategy.

As to electability, Mitt’s problem, IMHO, is that he is slick. AP’s link to Baseball Crank covers this topic pretty well.

B. Americans Hate Phonies

This is admittedly subjective, but Jonah Goldberg aptly summarized the way Romney often comes off in public by describing his demeanor as, “What Do I Have to Do To Put You In This BMW Today?”. I’ll discuss the specifics in more detail later, but the broader issue is that Romney seems unconvincing as the conservative he is running as; his calculations seem too close to the surface.

When the race kicked off, with Rudy and McCain as the frontrunners and the second tier filled with unknowns and/or candidates with their own issues with the base (e.g., Huckabee on taxes, Brownback to some extent on immigration), there was an opportunity for a candidate to build a market niche as the sane, electable conservative. Romney, to the credit of his business instincts, jumped on that opportunity like a starving man on a sandwich. The problem is that that posture is just not consistent with Romney’s history of campaigning and governing as a moderate, pragmatic, non-ideological Northeastern Republican, and specifically with numerous stands he has taken in the very recent past. Now, a good businessman, or even a candidate running principally as a competent technocrat, can get away with running on what the public wants today rather than on principles. But Romney is running a fundamentally ideological campaign, and he is doing so all too transparently as a businessman pursuing an underserved market rather than as a true believer.

ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Two top mob bosses wanted a hit on him. The other Godfathers didn’t like the idea. Giuliani actually began prosecutions in 1983 when he became U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That was after serving in the 3rd highest position in Reagan’s Justice Department.

See, he indicted 11 organized crime figures, including heads from the top five families during the Mafia Commission Trial. That took place in 1985-1986. Time Magazine called it “the most significant assault on the infrastructure of organized crime since the high command of the Chicago Mafia was swept away in 1943″.

Take Hillary for example. This is a woman who has had a 100% rating from NARAL. She has been the face of the pro-abortionists since day one of public life. She supports abortion on demand for minors paid for with taxpayer funds without parental consent. She is in support of partial birth abortion. She is as far left as anyone can be on this issue and always has been. But look at the headlines now. She is all of a sudden a moderate on this issue. She has repositioned herself from as far left as you can get into a moderate. Please.

Then there is her phoney accent. Mrs Yale Law School/Wellsley undergrad suddenly and temporarily transforms into Aunt Jemima when talking to a black church. Can you imagine what would happen if Mitt was this phony? He would be crucified.

Then there is all that “I’m your girl” nonsense. And who says that girls aren’t as tough as boys. From one side of her mouth she says that she is up to the challenge of taking on the Bin Ladens the Kim Jong Ils and the Ahmedinejads of the world but then from the other side of her mouth she complains about the boys ganging up on the girl in the debates. Quite the feminist icon she is though. Known for nothing more then having been married to some guy who cheats on her.

Then there is the statements she made one year ago in 2006 about ruling out the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, but now she has the balls to call Obama naive (which he is) for stating that he was willing to take the biggest option in the US arsenal off the table.

Now I’m picking on Hillary here because her evasiveness and wind shifting stances are the most egregious but all the candidates are guilty of this. They all do it! McCain has had to change is rhetoric about illegal immigration after nearly dropping out of the election because of it. Now he is out there saying that we need to close the borders. Fine, but does anybody actually believe he has really changed his mind? You can’t be arm in arm with Teddy Kennedy one minute and the next be all about enforcement. It doesn’t jive. The only reason he has changed his position is because he knows he cannot possibly get elected unless he does. John Edwards was supposably the moderate Southern Democrat who was supposed to be able to appeal to swing voters when he was running the first time around and then as John Kerry’s VP candidate. Now he’s the golden child for the Kos kids. He hasn’t just shifted on one issue here and there he has undergone a complete and total makeover politically. Guiliani has been all over the place on immigration and has been wishy washy at best on the abortion issue. Honestly, what is all this in comparison to Mitt having once been moderately pro choice? I mean seriously. He has gone from moderately pro choice to moderately pro life. And that is supposed to make him more of a flip flopper then the rest of the group how exactly? I really think the only reason that accusation sticks with Mitt is because they can’t get him on anything else. They can’t go after his personal life. Its a damn Norman Rockwell painting. They can’t go after him for corruption. There is none there to be found. They can’t go after him for incompetence because by talking about that they will just end up making him look good. So what do they decide to go after him for? They choose to go after him for BEING A POLITICIAN! Well, I’ve got a newsflash for you Walter Cronkite… HE IS A POLITICIAN!

Thats all. I’m done. Other then that I have no strong feelings on the matter.