What team are you on, Dude? Team Paulnut?

Must have pegged that one Buy Danish..

georgealbert on January 24, 2008 at 1:42 PM

What team are you on, Dude? Team Paulnut?

Whatever it is, I hope for your sake that they have an affirmative action program for the intellectually-challenged.

Do it right NOW!

Deadline is Jan. 25th.

Vote Mitt!!

The way I see it is McCain is guaranteed to be a dissapointment to conservatives as President. If any conservative doesn’t know by now that McCain isn’t fighing on the same team they will be forever blind to that fact. Romney cannot be worse then McCain. That is not possible. But he might be a heck of a lot better. Romney has a much higher upside then McCain. Republicans know they don’t like John McCain for the most part. Republicans are not sure if they like Romney yet. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid Romney is going to be like John McCain and turn into a liberal about EVERYTHING? Seriously, at least we have a chance with Romney. There is no hope for McCain. We already know who he is.

Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Well said.

How important is illegal immigration going to be to us if President Mitt allows Russia to steamroll over us on the world stage for fear of upsetting the economy any more than necessary? With McCain and his well-known temper Russia is going to be inclined to tamp down the embers to ward off igniting a conflict with the sleeping giant.

(Wow, this has been the best defense of McCain I can muster.)

Vote for Mitt, er, uh, McCain, uhmmm—-Oh never mind.

FloatingRock on January 24, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Romney isn’t an idiot. Why would he allow Russia to steamroll over us on the world stage for fear of upsetting the economy? This isn’t a zero sum game? Just because he’s good on economic issues does not mean he must be weak on foreign affairs. Honestly I think Romney is a smarter guy then McCain in ALL areas. He’s just intellectually superior then the simple minded McCamnesty. When it comes to foreign policy, or immigration or the economy, Romney is going to be far more competent then his opponents, whether it be McCain or Clinton or Obama. Republicans are slowly realizing this.

The way I see it is McCain is guaranteed to be a dissapointment to conservatives as President. If any conservative doesn’t know by now that McCain isn’t fighing on the same team they will be forever blind to that fact. Romney cannot be worse then McCain. That is not possible. But he might be a heck of a lot better. Romney has a much higher upside then McCain. Republicans know they don’t like John McCain for the most part. Republicans are not sure if they like Romney yet. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid Romney is going to be like John McCain and turn into a liberal about EVERYTHING? Seriously, at least we have a chance with Romney. There is no hope for McCain. We already know who he is.

The way to improve our economy is through the free market, something that Mitt is not with which Mitt is not familiar.
Bain operates in closed deals using other peoples’ money to enrich a small group of plutocrats. Mitt never started a business. He took millions he got from Daddy and and connections he got from Daddy and became just another corporate internationalist, not an entrepreneur of builder of a real company.

georgealbert on January 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Huh?

I think you need to take a second shot at that, make it actually readable, and maybe actually include some links/facts to back up your claims.

As it stands it sounds like complete bunk to me.

A teamers don’t trash the USA as Mitt did when he worked at the Olympics

A teamers don’t hang around with Islamist terrorist supporters like Mitt did in Michigan.

And A teamers can beat Hillary and/or Obama. Mitt has near ZERO chance of beating either one of them. A Vote for Mitt is a Vote for Hillary as Pres.

McCain may not be a conservative but neither is Mitt. Voting for either one involves tradeoffs that shouldn’t be entirely overlooked because of one or two hot-button issues, as important as they are.

For example, McCain may be weak on illegal immigration but Mitt supports universal healthcare. Without knowing much about either plan, in the debate the other night Obama’s plan at least sounded less intrusive than Mitt’s because it isn’t mandated. McCain may be weak on the 1st amendment because of CFR, but Mitt supports raiding bookstores, confiscating violent fiction and pornography and prosecuting the stores proprietors. Mitt is hardly a champion of the 1st and neither is he a champion of the 2nd.

McCain may have been lying recently about his support of amnesty and regarding the Bush tax cuts, but overall McCain does seem like a fairly honest person in recent years, and even if he’s not perfect in that regard, is Mitt?

I think that with a gun to my head I’d probably vote for Mitt over McCain, because of shamnesty, but the country may be safer with McCain at the helm than with Mitt. How important is illegal immigration going to be to us if President Mitt allows Russia to steamroll over us on the world stage for fear of upsetting the economy any more than necessary? With McCain and his well-known temper Russia is going to be inclined to tamp down the embers to ward off igniting a conflict with the sleeping giant.

(Wow, this has been the best defense of McCain I can muster.)

Vote for Mitt, er, uh, McCain, uhmmm—-Oh never mind.

Years ago, Thomas Sowell wrote a column that I have never forgotten. He said that liberals field their A team, while conservatives field their B team. What did he mean by that? He meant that the “best and the brightest” of the liberals slaver to enter politics, or journalism, in order to control other people’s lives. But our best and brightest — the Right’s elite — are in the economy, inventing things, establishing businesses, and making the country grow.

Well, here is Romney, a clear member of our A team, who segued from business into politics, and succeeded. He is a mixture of private-sector accomplishment and political accomplishment. So boo, hiss, right?

Read it all
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU0YTg5M2M1MmJmMTcxNDQ0YjM0YWJmNDc1NjhkZGU=

And you parroting the dem talking points is just plain wrong.

csdeven on January 24, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Oh please. I was stating the obvious that this is the brand Romney is going to receive. Give me a break.

kcd on January 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Thanks for the encouragement. I’m usually an optimist by nature, but following politics has beaten it out of me regarding campaigns. :)

and you gotta know that the Dems are going to exploit that ad nauseum.

Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:40 AM

According to that logic, no one can ever make any changes in their lives with being branded a flip-flop.

I’ll try to explain this so conservatives will stop using flip-flop in the wrong way.

Kerry was against the war, then for the war, and then against the war. THAT is a flip-flop.

Mitt was pro-choice and then had a heart felt conversion and is now pro-life. That is life. That is what we are supposed to do.

And you parroting the dem talking points is just plain wrong.

I thought a good number of folks might be inclined to think that, but unless you’ve known (and I’m not trying to stereotype here) someone like that…specifically a good upstanding mormon (our neighbors are mormons and I’ve never met nicer, more industrious people),

Mormon endorsement of mormon.

As long as Romney doesn’t stick his foot in his mouth (obviously, there are no guarantees), he can prevent such a label from ever sticking to him.

kayawanee on January 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM

I sure hope you’re right. But knowing the bias of the MSM, I just don’t see him being able to compete with the rhetoric we all know is going to come against him. I’ll support him, but I’m not hopeful.

Just guessing…

This is the same crapola feed to us by Jimmy Carter, it is just that Romney wants to waste more billions.

The way to improve our economy is through the free market, something that Mitt is not with which Mitt is not familiar.
Bain operates in closed deals using other peoples’ money to enrich a small group of plutocrats. Mitt never started a business. He took millions he got from Daddy and and connections he got from Daddy and became just another corporate internationalist, not an entrepreneur of builder of a real company.

highhopes on January 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Don’t forget that he’s angry and violent, remember that one time with the money changers? He will also have what will be dubbed “The Jew Problem,” plus they’ll hit him on forgiving adulterers and associating with tax collectors.

Personally, I’m glad he changed position & had the guts to do that publicly in the Northeast. But it is *by definition* changing positions on a major issue, and you gotta know that the Dems are going to exploit that ad nauseum.

Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Maybe, but I think that really depends on what Romney says and does just prior to the election. Kerry has this tendency to open his mouth and insert his foot, and that’s what got him labelled as a flip-flopper.

Think about this: if Kerry never uttered the words, “I actually voted for the 87 billion dollars before voting against it”, The campaign ads depicting him as a flipper would not likely have been made, and he likely would never have earned that moniker.

Changing your position on something can be explained away, but holding two contradictory positions at the same time cannot. And that’s the difference. As long as Romney doesn’t stick his foot in his mouth (obviously, there are no guarantees), he can prevent such a label from ever sticking to him.

Jimmie on January 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM

You have a problem with this?

…Washington should not be a benefactor, but it can and must be a partner…

And this?

If we’re going to be the world’s greatest economic power, we also have to invest in the future. It’s time for us to be bold. I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion to $20 billion – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology. Let’s invest in our future.

I think an awful lot of “conservatives” are really hard core “Libertarians”. The fact is that we have to be able to develop this technology to become more self-sufficient, and to compete with countries like India and China. We cannot allow ourselves to relinquish our economic advantage to those countries. It is a matter of national security and it would be folly to say we’re just going to give up because of strict libertarian interpretations about the Federal government’s role.

Mitt also wants to do a better job of negotiating trade agreements which too often put us at an unfair advantage. I heard a lot of people complain about that too because he used the phrase “level the playing field”. Hopefully people who read this blog have the brains to differentiate between negotiating international trade agreements and p.c. affirmative action programs based on race and gender.

kcd on January 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Sorry…I see where I confused you. My statement should have read, “Why WOULD you think I support McCain?” I do not, but it seems to be assumption for some folks.

highhopes on January 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Sure – and that’s my point. The Dems are going to find anything possible to tar the nominee with. In Romney’s case, that strategy has already been provided to them by the Republican primaries. Hence my earlier comparison with him to John Kerry (which started this whole mess).