Rumor: Rove wants Romney on the ticket
posted at 11:55 am on March 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Says Novak, who also claims to have heard from Romney’s people that McCain promised Charlie Crist the VP nod in return for his endorsement in Florida:
A footnote: Karl Rove and other prominent Republicans are talking up a McCain-Romney harmony ticket despite personal dislike between the two presidential candidates. Romney also would have to overcome opposition to him going on the ticket by his closest advisers.
We’ve been down this road before vis-a-vis Coulter but since we’ve got some new readers via Captain Ed, let’s run through it again. Romney might bite at the offer since it’s the best leg up he could have on Huckabee, Jindal, Sanford, Pawlenty or whoever else is coming down the pike in 2012/2016, but what does he do for McCain? There’s no shortage of southern evangelical (read: *wince* non-Mormon) social cons around to help him shore up the base, none of whom come with the baggage of nasty exchanges with McCain at the debates and in ads. The only potential advantage he brings is money, which is no small thing when the GOP is taking a hellacious beating on fundraising, but Mitt’s not going to bankrupt himself to make Maverick president and his campaign fundraising wasn’t so prolific as to put him anywhere near the class of Hillary or Obama. He’s not going to deliver any northeastern states to McCain either. So what’s the angle here? Appeasing talk radio by putting a guy on the ticket whom none of them were especially passionate about until he became the only alternative to McCain?
Here’s a better question. Strictly from an electoral standpoint (i.e. not in terms of your own policy preferences), why is Romney a better pick than Huckabee? Silver tongue, tireless campaigner, social con cred, and just enough (shudder) economic populism to maybe steal a few undecideds from the Democrats in the center. I’m not asking if he’s the ideal pick, mind you, just why he’d earn fewer voters than Romney would on the ticket.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
And what if he puts Mitt on as VP?
stenwin77 on March 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM
As long as Lindsey got Secretary of State, I guess, hhhhggg, I guess I could drag myself to the poles and pull the….wait a minute…. I’ll have to get back to you on that. Would his brat sons be allowed in the White House?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 4:28 PM
I was thinking Dr. Condoleeza Rice would be the ideal candidate. Counter the racism and sexism cards from the Demowits immediately, and she has experience in the types of duties a VP might be expected to do besides residing over the Senate. She also has experience with the foreign heads of state and is already ramped up on all the social, foreign, security, and domestic issues that confront the PotUS on day 1. Finally, she seems to have no political aspirations of her own beyond serving her country, which is a big plus in my book.
The only downside would be her association with GWB, but in order to demonize her, the Libs/Left/Democrats would have to swallow a poison pill by tearing down a “minority” (a woman of color), which will never come off looking good.
Geministorm on March 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Spoken like a true class-envy, D.C. wannabe-type, McVain supporter. No wonder the RNC is losing money faster than Castle Grande meanwhile Conservatives get along with their life; don’t look to D. C.; and are grown-up enough to clean up after “gone in four” Obama….
Romney would at least make the ticket somewhat palatable.
Branch Rickey on March 3, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Branch Rickey on March 3, 2008 at 4:33 PM
No class envy here folks, just tired of the Romneys, Bloombergs, British Royals, Kennedys, and Forbes’ of the world thinking that because they have loot, that they are qualified to be commander in chief. If Romeny had come forward and said he was a moderate, I would have given him a serious look. Unfortunately to get the CONservative vote he became a phony and most in this thread fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Whatever that means.
echosyst on March 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM
No Thanks.
I’d rather have Rudy. >:}
Chakra Hammer on March 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Oh good God in heavan, please do NOT choose that ass Huckabee for Veep and alienate the moderates who are looking kindly at McCain at this point. If you want the good-ole-boy vote locked up, pick Fred or some other iconic conservative. It isn’t that hard to secure the base if you understand them at all, and I think McCain does in spite of his actions.
What does Huck gitcha? The evangelicals who are not fans of McCain will vote for him nonetheless because they are generally responsible and serious about their country and their communities. They won’t be able to stand by and watch the whole thing go down the shoot; watch the SCOTUS hatch a couple more liberal gifts that keep on giving, etc., while they sit at home. Who else has Huck got? Nobody. And he has the added bonus of chasing off people who might otherwise vote for McCain. There are some decent, honest folks out there who are genuinely put off by religion-on-the-shirt-sleeve and for good reason. Pick someone that doesn’t leave the first impression of a snake oil salesman.
Immolate on March 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM
This is what I think should be McCains new campaign poster :)
HERE
spacekicker on March 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Kerry’s lifetime ACU rating is 5.6. He’s more liberal than moderate.
dedalus on March 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Dr. Condoleeza Rice, I tell ya’ !
Any gun advocates would be happy to have her…
Young enough (53), intelligent, experienced, good Conservative principles/values, strong on foreign policy, tough, well known, female, black, accomplished, and so on…
Geministorm on March 3, 2008 at 4:53 PM
You are absolutely correct.
I would like Mitt to be on the ticket and then I can vote for Mitt, not McCain. I wouldn’t have to hold my nose to do that.
cjs1943 on March 3, 2008 at 4:53 PM
He’d go back to misspelling his name like, Romenee etc. and making really long argumentative posts like he did before Mitt suspended his campaign.
Domino on March 3, 2008 at 4:55 PM
You do get it, don’t you.
cjs1943 on March 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM
What about the Hennessey’s? Like Cindy? Those “folks” who steal other woman’s husbands…. Be careful where you cast stones; poser. Get back to Daily KOS b/c those freaks probably believe your arguments.
Branch Rickey on March 3, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Wow. There’s another condoleeza? great. The one at state has been a total disappointment.
JiangxiDad on March 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM
“maybe build a bunker underneath my house.”
Is it legal to build bunkers underneath trailers?
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Another one who gets it. I’ve said this before on another thread. More of us/you need to do that.
cjs1943 on March 3, 2008 at 5:12 PM
If McCain wants my vote, putting Romney on the ballot is perhaps the only way I do it.
Seixon on March 3, 2008 at 5:23 PM
s it legal to build bunkers underneath trailers?
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Actuallly, I have a rather nice pad within a country club even. I’m surprised that you wouldn’t welcome one that had a trailer. Maybe you and Romney went to Andover together. See, this is inherently the problem. Many here don’t understand the guy on Main street. You are more compatible with the guy on Wall Street. Until, the Republican party gets back to representing the guy and gal who work fourty hours a week, love their country, and pay their taxes we’ll be in trouble. Maverick will actually bail out you elitist again in November.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Check in with you punks later. I’m going to do my part in stopping illegal immigration. Gonna clip my own shrubs, and mow my own yard. If you could get Romeney and the brats to get their hands dirty, we’d all be better off.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 5:26 PM
IMHO Romney is a better pick than Huckabee because Huckabee is a creepy mouth-breather. McCrankypants is painful enough.
Buttercup on March 3, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Novak was on Cavuto and he says that they think Mitt can win the rust belt states like Michigan.
That makes sense and would be a smart move. I don’t see the South going to the Democrats, Obama or no Obama, but Ohio is up for grabs.
Buy Danish on March 3, 2008 at 5:32 PM
It’s completely illogical to think Huckabee would be a better pick than Romney. Which of the two had a larger delegate count?
davenp35 on March 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Sure. How’s he gonna pay for it? Who’s gonna work for him? Dubya needed a record turnout, large war chest, and an enormous infrastructure to overcome John Kerry, the least electable candidate the Democrat party’s put up since Dukakis; that’s as an incumbent. And even then he only barely eeked out a win.
Now McCain’s going to “easily” beat Obama with no money, no infrastructure and a fractured base.
He doesn’t even have Rush Limbaugh on his side.
Right.
spmat on March 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Lets hope Juan McSorry chooses carefully. Not to be cold but I’ll be surprised if he lives through one term let alone two. He looks older and feebler than his years. Yes I know his Mom is 95 and she looks better than he does.
I am being serious, not mean.
I swore I would not vote for him but I’m not ready to commit voter suicide yet. I’ll slap my grandma and pull the lever.
Buttercup on March 3, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Huckabee is going to claim that he beat Romney in delegate totals and is therefore next in line if he picks up enough delegates tomorrow.
That is a very weak argument and hopefully Republicans aren’t dumb enough to buy it.
Buy Danish on March 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Yes, and his father died at age 70, grandfather at 62.
So, it is a valid concern.
stenwin77 on March 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Romney is better than Huck on Illegal Immigration and Amnesty. And shores up McCain on that issue.
Fred would likely be a better pick but Fred is lacking in energy. Sadly.
whiskey_199 on March 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
It’s the water at Foggy Bottom. “Foggy” explained.
Entelechy on March 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
You had to go say the “F” word.
Buttercup on March 3, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I’m was finally getting over The Fred and moving on with my life. I’m weak, weak I tell you!
I still have some stickers and lawn signs if anyones interested. New and used.
Buttercup on March 3, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Only if you mean that he’ll vouch for McCain’s conversion to “security first”, and that such an endorsement would allay concerns about McCain’s sincerity. Don’t think that Romney joining the ticket will cause McCain to change positions; it would be Romney that would have to alter his own stance to keep the two men on the ticket consistent with one another. Do you really think Romney cares enough about the immigration issue to reject the VP slot (if offered) out of a philosophical commitment to “attrition by enforcement?” If not, his vouching or McCain is pretty much meaningless.
Big S on March 3, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Dude. I didn’t say that.
spmat on March 3, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Huckabee will eventually claim that he beat Romney if he ends up getting more delegates. That despite the fact that Romney had the intelligence to throw in the towel a long time ago.
And the scary thing is that Hucka-supporters will buy it. They aint the brightest bunch, you know.
Roger Waters on March 3, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I guess putting Romney on a losing ticket is a sure way to make sure he’s not the nominee in 2012. Though Romney’s “dedication to principles” will allow him to switch all of positions to match McCain’s without having to stay up late at night to worry about it.
adamsweb on March 3, 2008 at 6:57 PM
The idea of free speech is not that of leveling people out, but of letting people be free. You should not be restricted in your peaceful exercise of it (such as your spending your own money) and neither should anyone else. Not even evil rich folks.
But, thanks for reminding us of another reason not to support McCain.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Heh.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Wrong. Letting a corporation like say I dunno….uuuuggghh…. ENRON give hundreds of thousands to a candidate, and most times BOTH CANDIDATES, gets them preferential treatment when it comes to government oversight. While ENRON was buying off both parties, they were cooking their books while lining their pockets. Then the sons of bitches pump the stock, then dump it. Causing Joe and Betty mainstreet who just happened to have Enron in their 401k, broke as a joke. This happened all the time before Mav/Feingold and thankfully has been curtailed. It’s not perfect legislation, but it is a step. Why don’t you go cry your little free speech bit to some of the folks who lost EVERYTHING YOU MAGGOT!!!!
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Gee it’s so good of the chosen one to denigrate Mitt’s sons. They are all bright, intelligent young men who will add to your social security, because they have been taught to work and to get an education. Tell me about the huck’s sons? Have you seen them campaigning for their father? Really I don’t know anything about them. Why?
With huck on the ticket - good bye mccain.
I hope Mitt doesn’t accept the vp on the ticket. He doesn’t need it and mccain hates him. Please, please, Mitt don’t accept anything in his administration, if mccain ever gets the presidency.
And if he doesn’t - God Bless America.
Bambi on March 3, 2008 at 7:20 PM
You really do think he’s the anti-Christ, don’t you?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Let me splain somethin to you so you can understand. Before Mav/Feingold corporations were able to give company unlimited cash to candidates. Companies like ENRON, TYCO, WORLDCOM, AND many others not only gave $$$ to one candidate, but in most cases both parties. It’s no surprise that oversight was nowhere to be found. Then these companies ripped off their investors by cooking their books, pumping their stock, giving themselves IPO’s before anyone else, and then dumping their stocks while Joe and Betty Mainstreet lost everything.
Mav/Feingold wasn’t perfect, but a good start. So when you cry your little free speech bit, think about those who were the victims of their greed and go tell their children and grandchildren. I suggest you read about Teddy Roosevelt(a republican) and trustbusting. Mav/Feingold is more about stopping corporate greed than it is speech. Now go build a sandcastle.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:26 PM
McCain has several strong choices available, but due to his age, he’d have to choose someone the public could quickly believe could be a good president should the world’s most difficult job prove too much for a man in his seventies.
Given how the Democrats will outspend the Republicans, he probably needs either a respected popular governor or someone who already his significant national exposure. I suspect his best choice would be Giuliani, mainly because they get along well and there’s no one who would do a better job taking over in the event of a national tragedy.
Romney brings money and some economic credentials, along with a record of changing his position on too many issues.
Huckabee breaks the ‘First do no harm’ rule, although he could get the religious voters into voting booths.
Thompson’s voting record and appearance are too similar to McCain.
Lieberman would result in a hell of a unity ticket. The Democrats can’t argue that he’d do poorly in the position. But he’s just too liberal.
Bloomberg combines Romney’s economic credentials, Giuliani’s leadership in the wake of a national tragedy and Lieberman’s appeal to Democrats and independents. But he’s just too much of a nanny state guy.
Tim Pawlenty- Respected executive experience. Reliable conservative from a Swing State. Balanced the budget without raising taxes, so he’s got solid economic credentials. He’s not that well-known nationally, which means some time & resources would have to be used introducing him to the electorate.
Crist- Fairly limited experience, and McCain’s leading in Florida.
Mister Mets on March 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM
That’s a pretty wide swath, bro! Maybe, among other things, you need to bone up on your British civics a bit…
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Freedom of speech means you can give any amount to any person at any time.
Even the Romneys or (hee-hee) the Royals.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Bambi on March 3, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Don’t worry about Mitt’s spoiled brats. Rumor has it that before Mitt got into this campaign he allocated 150,000,000 for the boys in a trust. So each of them gets a nice twenty five million for doing absolutely nothing. So, when you talk about how smart and nice they seem, your a fool. Who wouldn’t be out their stumping for the man that’s about to give them a personal fortune. Save your nice talk about the brats for someone who gives a damn. Oh yeah, Mitt don’t talk about your kids sacrificing on the campaign trail, while good men and women are fighting for our safety and freedom.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM
I’m sure your gardening has the border-crossers shaking in their boots.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:36 PM
You really begrudge him his money, don’t you?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Wrong again. It’s called the The Equal Protection Amendment. That’s why congress passed Mav/Feingold, they were scared to death that it might make it’s way to the high court and be validated. So congress passed it on the condition of 527’s, so that folks could still “bundle” their money for these groups on behalf of a certain special interest i.e. Abortion, Immigration or what have you. Thank you Maverick for trying to protect my right to be heard over the voices of Enron and the rest of the gang.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:38 PM
You really begrudge him his money, don’t you?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I can’t stand a guy who keeps LOSING and LOSING, but can stay in the race with an unlimited warchest, while a great man like Duncan Hunter has to drop out or Mav has to take out a personal loan.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:40 PM
If other people have more money than you, they should be allowed to spend it however they want.
Do you love freedom as much as you hate rich people?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:40 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:26 PM
You are so wrong, its pathetic. McCain Feingold is a direct assault on our free speech, and on property rights because we should be able to spend our money as we see fit. This is THE reason why I was anti-Fred, and anti McCain. His stance on the border is salt in the wound.
You are so full of class envy, I am surprised that Huck isn’t your man, or the Democrats, seriously.
A better system is let whoever give what they may, it just has to be reported. Open books create honest people. Its amazing for being such a class envy guy…hello, the campaign finance laws make it so only the rich have the power to overcome the stupid anti-free speech law.
BTW Just because a corporation gave money to the political process doesn’t mean they cooked the books.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM
As others have said already, he has, even after dropping out, more delegates than Huckabee, who’s sticking around like something unpleasant on one’s shoe.
But, far more to the point is the fact that you can’t stand seeing somebody do what he wants with his own money.
I don’t know who chose you, TCO, but it wasn’t me.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Anyone who is a spoiled brat, its you. His sons are fine young men. So what they got money from their father…My heck you are so in the wrong party, me thinks you shouldn’t be a Democrat either, but the Communist Party might be better suited for you.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I just don’t see it happening. There are way too many voters in the South who will refuse to vote for Romney for THE unfortunate, obvious reasons.
It would be interesting, however, to see how The Left would immediately bring the Mormon angle into the conversation and dare anyone to call them on it. They won’t. The DNC will NOT be sending out memos to the, let’s say Alabama, decmorat party telling them to cease with the Mormon talk.
SouthernGent on March 3, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Screw you. Teddy Roosevelt would slap you with his big stick. Romeey’s boys are argyle wearing, private schoolers, who will never know what it means to worry about paying the gas bill or putting food on the table. What happened to Republicans who respect the workin’ man?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:46 PM
You don’t respect the working man, and Teddy Roosevelt would agree with me. He was against monopolies not against capitalism. You seem bent against people who are better off than you. Hello, his sons aren’t Paris Hilton. They are hard working clean cut men.
Go join the communist party, seriously.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Lastly, show me where Romney hasn’t respected his employees comrade.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Your a f’n fool. It’s about corporate influence, not speech. That’s why your here SPEAKING YOUR MIND. No one is stopping you from expressing yourself.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:51 PM
What are you so afraid of? Maybe a politician having to listen instead of being bought?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Gee, how can you argue with that?
His screwing stick?
Romeey?
So what? What’s your problem with argyle? What’s wrong with avoiding government schooling? What’s wrong with being rich?
(I ask this as an academician who does have to worry about the gas bill.)
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM
McCain-Feingold=THE LAW OF THE LAND. If you don’t like it, take it to the high court.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Conservative Voice, give it up. You’re never going to win against such logical superiority and verbal dexterity as this…
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Nothing wrong with being rich. Influencing elections with your millions is wrong.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Are you insane? Seriously, the average voter doesn’t read these blogs, only political junkies. Take a look at Ron Paul. His groupies owned the internet yet his campaign was pathetic. It limits free speech, because it limits on how much I can donate to reach the average voter who picks their nose in front of the TV.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:55 PM
And so can’t be criticized? Can one not, while submitting to a law, also grumble about it?
Or is that kind of free speech also curtailed by McC-F?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:56 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Which is why Bush and Fred and McCain all failed in their duty to uphold the constitution. The fact you don’t understand this shows how little you understand.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Not it’s not. If you have money, you can spend it however you want. If you want to spend it on politics, you have that right under the First Amendment.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Hey a$$hole, the Supreme Court has already heard your violation of the constitution. Guess what, they agree with me.
5-4 decision 2003. Get some, beeeeeaatch. Which side controls the courts, uuuuggguuugggg, Republicans!!!!
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:58 PM
5-4 2003 The court said you were wrong and that I am right.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Exactly, influencing an election is our right. Using money to buy political favors is where it gets people in trouble, which is why if its an open book than it keeps people honest.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:00 PM
you have that right under the First Amendment.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 7:57 PM
What are you deaf? 5-4 You lost. It’s over. It’s the law, you’re wrong!
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:01 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Doesn’t mean they are right comrade, judges can, and often are wrong.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Okay, it’s totally clear now. You”ve got to be a Kos-Kid.
(By the way, I love how you insert the dollar-signs into the proctus.)
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Exactly, influencing an election is our right.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Guess what, The Supreme Court which knows a lil’ about the law, says you are wrong. Are you deaf, or just stupid.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:02 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Doesn’t mean they are right comrade, judges can, and often are wrong.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Why don’t you go tell them that.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Get what?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
I love the smell of Victory!!!!!! Thank you Mav!!!!!!!!!
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
How hard is this to understand?
Freedom of political speech means freedom to support speech with your own money. Freedom of speech (provided it be peaceful) is unlimited.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
May?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:04 PM
No, it shows they are a bunch of liberals who write law from the bench versus using the law. In other cases the Supreme Court has ruled that money in politics is Freedom of Speech. How is it not speech idiot?
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
See, there is this group of people called the Supreme Court. They get to decide who is right and who is wrong. So you can keep telling yourself that your right, but in reality, your wrong. It’s a republican majority court. Now if you want to discuss all this with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, then that is your choice. The law is the law, get used to it, stop being difficult.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:07 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Why do you think I refuse to vote for McCain? Any politician who doesn’t understand our constitution is unfit to be President.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:07 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Doesn’t change the fact that the judges are liberals who failed in their duty to uphold the constitution
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:05 PM
I don’t like the fact that I can’t run down the street buck naked, but hey, it’s the law. I obey laws or I go to jail. You guys just don’t listen real well.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM
pointless. Like talking to a bag of hammers.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:09 PM
That says something about your attitude towards government and the individual, but it doesn’t say anything about why limiting private speech is right.
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Where am I saying we should disobey the law? I am simply saying that the courts and your man McCain are idiot liberals who had power they should of never been trusted with.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
You should read the law again. To the surprise of many, McCain-Feingold actually increased the limit on “hard money” contributions from individuals, so you can donate more money to the politicians you favor now than you could have before the bill was passed. This was done in order to offset the restrictions placed on large “soft money” donations, which must now go through dedicated 527 groups. The best case to be made that McCain-Feingold restricted free speech has to do with the 30/60 day pre-election prohibition on TV or radio ads that reference specific candidates.
Big S on March 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
A bag of Tom Delays?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Why does that not surprise me?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
But they get away with it because of too many people like you who are full of class envy and ignorance its sad.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM
You have opinions on your side. I have legal opinions on my side. Game over.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Big S on March 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Take out all limits and I am there.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Who’s not listening? We’ve said that yes, you follow the law. But you can still criticize it and work to have it repealed.
(Like slavery for example…?)
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM
It’s about stopping corporate influence, not stopping you from free speech. Go to street corner and yell your ass off. That is free speech. What you want is free influence. Stop hiding behing one of my favorite ammendments you hijacker.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Are you done? Ready to concede defeat? Turn over your sword?
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:13 PM
I have legal opinions on mine as well comrade, it was a 5-4 decision, meaning 4 had their brains on. Read the founding father documents, read the constitution, all legal documents. I also have people who voted against the bill…and many many legal professionals who agree with me. So its a matter of liberal judges who like you, are full of crap and class envy.
Seriously comrade, join the communist party, it fits you.
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM
“You disagree, game over!” Your totalitarian inclinations are really coming through.
With your talk of the bourgeoisie, I imagine your style as being that of Pol Pot. Will you pash my head in for wearing spectacles?
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 3, 2008 at 8:14 PM
And corporations are owned by trees?
Conservative Voice on March 3, 2008 at 8:17 PM
So, free speech for me but not for thee?
Free speech is for rich people too!
Tzetzes on March 3, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »