…

After two seasons of Big Love, that movie, and the anti-Mormon pundit rant (not to mention YouTube) – that he has survived is a miracle and a testament.

Romney will be the nominee. The rage focussed on McCain after Thompson drops out, then Rudy, will destroy him. McCain is gonna snap from the pressure. (Anyone notice he looks a lot like Dean?)

Frankly Romney reminds me of Reagan – there I said it.

Listen up Fredheads…..

Here is the difference between Fred and Mitt.

While Fred engages people like a grumpy constipated old man who can’t keep the kids off the lawn.

Mitt hires the kids to mow the lawn.

csdeven on January 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM

LMAO!!!!!!!

OMG, that is freakin’ GOLD.

I’m gonna steal that iffin’ you don’t mind…….LOL

Mitt hires the kids to mow the lawn.
csdeven on January 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Mitt Romney, whose intolerance of illegal immigrants has been a central theme of his presidential campaign, was caught out for a second time employing undocumented Guatemalans to tend his lawn. Tim Reid, London Times

30 yr. old kids that are illegal…Que????

Mitt hires the kids to mow the lawn.

I thought he got illegals to do that.

As for the Kennedy Kerfuffle, this is by far the most astute comment at Michelle’s site:

On January 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am, gandolphxx said:
I would much prefer a polite President who had the sense to ‘disagree with Kennedy on virtually every issue’ than a belligerent President who agrees with Kennedy on way too many issues – amnesty being the most obvious.

Most people
amkun on January 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Most people? Do you mean most people who support him or most people in the country?

Here is the difference between Fred and Mitt.

While Fred engages people like a grumpy constipated old man who can’t keep the kids off the lawn.

Mitt hires the kids to mow the lawn.

Only a Moonbat could claim that he is a Socialist when he talks about leveling the playing field in this context.

maverick muse on January 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM

If you listen to the video, Mitt is clearly talking about global competition when he says we need to “level the playing field”. That would apply to idiotic ideas like the Kyoto Treaty which would give China a huge advantage over us, and fair trade issues like this:

“However, as we pursue new trade agreements, I’m far less interested in just getting an agreement signed than I am in getting an agreement signed that is good for America. I promise you that any nation that unfairly manipulates its currency, steals our patents and designs, dumps unsafe products in our markets, or stifles the American goods in their market place, will face a very aggressive President across the negotiating table.

“Now let me be clear, I strongly support free trade, but free trade has to be fair in both directions. And when the playing field is level, America can compete with any country in the world. And we will win.

As for BKennedy, I did not agree or disagree with what he had to say; I was merely correcting a false statement made by another commenter, who was not you (unless you have dual identities and also go by “theregoestheneighborhood”).

bkennedy speaks for himself, and would err at my expense. pay your own bill. you do not speak for me.

Do you realize you’re basically hijacking a Mitt thread to talk about Fred?

theregoestheneighborhood on January 19, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Actually if you do a search of the word “Fred” on this page, 4 different commenters mentioned Fred before BKennedy came in.

Not to mention the fact that the comment you cited also mentioned Huck, and McCain.

Just the facts, ma’am(?)

Wow! That’s a big serving of irony. Talk about how Fred attacks all his opponents, while you then proceed to attack every one of Mitt’s opponents. Anyone who’s been reading these comments knows who spends all his time attacking other people.

I’m not running for federal office, and I’m simply making observations which are easily verifiable by any clip of any of the candidates.

But that’s too much straight talk for ya.

Now back to our regularly scheduled overt hatred for all liberals everywhere.

Maybe he should be like Fred Thompson and spend his every waking hour attacking his opponents.

Or Mike Huckabee who goes on religious crusades and makes backhanded comments about his threat du jour.

Or McCain, who can’t seem to hold an interview without verbal diarhea about somebody.

If you people really aren’t going to vote for Romney or you’re going to attack him because he doesn’t say he hates your personal list of most hated entities (Uncle Ted and the Clintons), then I hope you don’t vote at all.

Maybe Huck can give us a speech on who is the “real Christian,” right after he finishes telling us that he “loves his enemies” by making snide remarks about their religion.

BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Wow! That’s a big serving of irony. Talk about how Fred attacks all his opponents, while you then proceed to attack every one of Mitt’s opponents. Anyone who’s been reading these comments knows who spends all his time attacking other people.

For further irony, this thread about Mitt barely mentioned Fred apart from a few Fred/Mitt calls. Until you brought him up here.

Do you realize you’re basically hijacking a Mitt thread to talk about Fred? It’s almost like you consider Fred such a big threat that you can’t praise Mitt without attacking Fred.

Naw. Surely not.

Huge problem though.

He ain’t Fred.

I’m like Fred Thompson supposedly is: I call a spade a spade.

….

BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM

With your constant hyperbole, you’re about as far away from what Fred Thompson is as a person can get.

Being insulting is not to be confused with being honest.

make sure we have a level playing field
maverick muse on January 19, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Kerist – He’s talking about global competition. Fair trade and all that with countries like China.

Anything else, Moonbat?

Who cares if Romney likes Kennedy? Reagan liked Tip O’Neill, too, and vice versa. Reagan and Gorbachev liked each other. It is no great disadvantage to like your political opponent; it shows a generosity of character, as well as personal maturity and security, that come in handy if you’re a public figure and leader.

Does Michelle Malkin actually like anybody? I don’t know if I’ve ever heard her say or write a nice word about anyone. Allahpundit, what about you? Who do you like?

BigD on January 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM

BigD is quite right.

Michelle loses a lot of credibility when she reacts to silly stuff like this. Her very excellent logical mind always seems to go off the far far far right cliff and she becomes the exact rightwing nut job sterotype of the leftwing nut jobs. It’s sad.

In the world of adults, Mitt can certainly like his political opponents and still be true to his conservative principals because his deeds and his record prove it. It’s just a fact.

I guess Mitt hired him from the Clintons

William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Bill Clinton was a genius politician!

That’s why Mitt gets confused with Bill Clinton.

They’re both genius strategists, without compromising their core values.

Of course as you mentioned, you’re not a policy wonk, so that explains a lot of things.

His is a generic plan that says we are going to resist extremism and support moderates who don’t embrace radicalism.

So I should accept his positon because its generic ? Thats an odd way to defend it.

And yes I wouldnt be a policy wonk like the person who wrote Mitt’s plan. I guess Mitt hired him from the Clintons

Mitt wanting to send taxpayer dollars in a Marshall plan to the Saudis is laughible. We should push the saudis to drop their more extremist ideology not send them money to build more Madrasses.

Again where is Iraq and Afganistan in all this ? Mitt doesnt say. Its almost a non issue with him and this is critical right now.
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM

You really don’t get the overall strategy that Mitt has here. He’s not implanting specific policies at this time!

His is a generic plan that says we are going to resist extremism and support moderates who don’t embrace radicalism.

Take note of your thought process, because it is obvious why they haven’t hired you for a policy wonk.

Whats wrong wiht Mitt’s Foreign Policy on Jihad ? Well lets see..

One why should we give money to Islamic Countries to help Moderates ? Saudi Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world and most of the 9/11 Hijackers came from there. Most Middle Eastern Countries where jihadist come from are very wealthy.

What we know about the Jihadists is most of their leaders come from Well to do backgrounds. Yes they exploit poverty but we know it isnt about poverty but Ideology.

Mitt wanting to send taxpayer dollars in a Marshall plan to the Saudis is laughible. We should push the saudis to drop their more extremist ideology not send them money to build more Madrasses.

And Mitt wants to include other nations in this Marshall Plan. Fine except most other nations have long ago took the path of least resistance. They are trying to pressure us to give up the WOT and that is why the UN human rights org is now headed by mostly Islamic nations it was an appeasement by other western nations. There is no political will that Mitt can draw on to get this to fly.

Again where is Iraq and Afganistan in all this ? Mitt doesnt say. Its almost a non issue with him and this is critical right now.

So yes I have a lot of problems with Mitts Foreign Policy. And as an American and a republican I have a right to call attention to his foreign policy.