Romney Dismisses McCain's Electability
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said that he does not believe the American people would elect Arizona Sen. John McCain president and that he does not believe McCain could be the GOP nominee.
"I, frankly, don't think that the Republican Party is going to nominate John McCain," Romney said, adding: "I don't think the American people are going to line up behind John McCain."
Romney, once the clear favorite in Iowa and New Hampshire, is now battling to keep his presidential campaign viable after losing Thursday to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in Iowa and trailing McCain in recent New Hampshire polls.
"I'm planning on winning in New Hampshire. It may not happen. But there was something else that happened along the way. The need for getting those early primary states was conditioned on the idea that Rudy Giuliani was the powerhouse I'd be facing in Florida at the end," Romney said. "[H]e doesn't look like the powerhouse he was."
"[T]here have been a lot of people who have not won either Iowa or New Hampshire to go on to win the nomination of their party," Romney said.
Romney said he will not disclose how much of his own money he has spent on the campaign until the legally required Jan. 15 deadline, citing "certain competitive advantages I have by not letting my competition know exactly what I'm doing."
He said he does not have a limit on what he would spend, but his wife, Ann, has set a cap.
Romney acknowledged that he erred when he said Saturday night, in a prime-time Republican debate, that he had never called McCain's immigration plan "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
One of Romney's campaign advertisements uses that word. After being shown the ad on "Fox News Sunday," Romney said he had not seen it. "I was simply incorrect," he said.
He then said that "under the normal colloquial definition," McCain's plan does equate to amnesty, even if "not in a legal definition."
"My definition is, if illegals are able to all stay in this country and thereby get an enormous advantage over everybody else, that is a form of amnesty," Romney said.
Former Tennessee senator Fred D. Thompson agreed with Romney that amnesty depends on the definition on the word.
"Here is my definition of amnesty: If you get something that you otherwise didn't have, to the extent that you get it, that is amnesty," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "If you get citizenship or you [get] a pathway to citizenship and get to remain in this country because of your illegal activity, that is amnesty to that extent."
The immigration issue is considered by McCain's GOP rivals to be a potential weakness for the Arizona senator in New Hampshire, where he has been quizzed closely about his plans to address it.
In two Sunday appearances, McCain said that "we have to secure our borders first" in immigration policy and added that some illegal immigrants should be sent back to their home countries. Others might remain, however.
McCain defended himself against charges that he voted twice against Bush tax cuts before voting for them. McCain said he wanted tax cuts, but with requisite reductions in spending.
"Without spending cuts it was clear we would be facing the financial debacle, the fiscal debacle, that we are facing today," said McCain, who appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS's "Face the Nation."
Romney also took on Huckabee, returning to earlier criticism of the former Arkansas governor for writing in an article that the Bush administration has demonstrated an "arrogant bunker mentality" in its foreign policy.
"To say that there have been mistakes, to say that the war has not been conducted perfectly, is totally appropriate," Romney said. "But to say this president acted out of arrogance or out of a bunker mentality is simply wrong. He listened to alternative voices and he took the course which he felt was best for America."
Huckabee, appearing on Fox and ABC's "This Week," gave no ground.
"I think the general theme is that when we say you're either with us or you're with the terrorists, that sort of, 'Here's the line in the sand and it's all or nothing,' sort of defies the basic rule of politics in that you want someone to be with you 100 percent, but if they're with you 80 percent, that's better than zero percent," he said.
McCain also stepped into the debate, saying that his foreign policy experience would provide him an added advantage in November, even if such experience has not been pivotal in recent presidential election cycles (see: Bush, George W.; Clinton, Bill).
"[T]he difference up here between now and 2000 was in 2000 we were not at war. Now we're in two wars and a struggle against radical Islamic extremism. I think that obviously would shift people's priorities," McCain said.
McCain, after being pressed, said he would have still invaded Iraq even if intelligence did not show that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"The invasion was not a mistake," McCain said. "The handling of the war was a terrible mistake."
McCain defended his recent comment that the United States might have a military presence in Iraq for 100 years -- similar to its bases in Kuwait and Korea.
"That'd be fine with me," he said, adding: "As long as Americans are not being ... harmed or killed."
On CNN, Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), still lagging in the polls despite leading Republicans in fundraising for the just-finished quarter, reiterated his foreign policy views.
"[O]ur foreign policy does aggravate a lot of people. You don't blame the American people, but you have to understand what's going on," he said. Discussing Saturday's debate, in which he was criticized for blaming Americans for being attacked, he said, "I really was defending my position with the George Bush position in the year 2000, when he didn't want to get into nation-building, he didn't want to police the world, he wanted a more humble foreign policy."
Huckabee continued to try to expand his base from the evangelical Christians who lifted his candidacy in Iowa, sounding a populist theme and blasting Washington chatter.
"When people sit around their dinner table, they aren't talking about the same things you guys are talking about," Huckabee said. "They know that $3-a-gallon gasoline touches their life. They know that the cost of health care is touching their lives and making their decisions different than they were a year ago."
He said it was vital for the Republican Party to focus on these issues.
"If we become the party that forgets that, if we become the party that does not empower the individual who wants to struggle from his place at the lower end of the economic spectrum up the ladder, then we're going to lose a lot of the base that gave us great strength," he said.
McCain and Huckabee continued an informal alliance against Romney.
"We have both been brutally assaulted by Governor Romney with amazingly misleading ads that attacked and distorted and misrepresented our records, Romney attacking me in Iowa, attacking him in New Hampshire," Huckabee said.
For his part, McCain said he admires Huckabee as a "congenial individual," but would not comment on the widespread belief that Huckabee is eying a No. 2 spot on a possible McCain-led ticket.
"I've got a pretty big ego, but I'm not quite big enough to start thinking about that," McCain said.
McCain would not bite on offerings by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert to criticize Romney's character.
"I think Governor Romney is a good man," McCain said.
"You don't like him much," Russert said.
"I don't know him much," McCain said.
McCain said that people in New Hampshire oppose the style of negative ads that Romney has been running and noted, as he has often done, that Romney has changed his positions "on almost every major issue."
"It's fine for people to try and push that as a political campaign and as a theme, and the McCain folks have done that from the beginning," Romney responded. "It's not going to stand up to the test of time."
McCain said he will support the GOP nominee and ruled out running as an independent.
But McCain said he expects his popularity among independents, on display in New Hampshire, would help him run strongly against the Democratic nominee in a general election.
For his part, Thompson, who tied with McCain for third in Iowa, said he does not expect to do well in New Hampshire. For his candidacy now, "it is all about South Carolina" on Jan. 19.
Edwards Sees 'Conviction Alliance' With Obama
John Edwards said Sen. Barack Obama's strategy for bringing about change in Washington is a "fantasy," but he acknowledged a "conviction alliance" with the Illinois senator as they both try to end Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions.
"We have an epic fight on our hands against these entrenched monied interests," the 2004 vice presidential candidate said. Obama "talks about this in a way that suggests you sit at a table and negotiate with drug company lobbyists and insurance company lobbyists and oil company lobbyists, and ... they'll negotiate their power away. ... I don't think it will ever happen."
That said, Edwards said he and Obama share "a basic general view that's very similar."
Edwards also continued to attack Clinton over whether she can bring about change.
"Day one in my White House, there will be no corporate lobbyists, no people, nobody who lobbied for foreign governments," said the former North Carolina senator. "Senator Clinton is in a very different place. ... She's actually taken more money from lobbyists, the pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry, than any candidate, Democrat or Republican."
Edwards said his ban on lobbyists working in the White House would extend to the Association of Trial Lawyers for America, whose members are among his biggest backers.
"There will be no lobbyist who's worked for the trial lawyers, no lobbyist who's worked for big corporations that will be working in my White House, period," Edwards said.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, running fourth in the Democratic contest, reiterated his call for Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharaf, to step down.
"[W]hat is in our best interest is a broadly based democratic government in Pakistan," Richardson said. "Musharraf is a source of tremendous support for al-Qaeda and terrorist elements."
Richardson also said that rumors that he signaled his Iowa supporters to back Obama as a second choice were false.
"For me to be able to tell Iowa voters, one of the most sophisticated in the world, what to do after they support me is incredulous," Richardson said. "That is totally not the case."
By Post Editor |
January 6, 2008; 2:00 PM ET
Previous: What Would Bill Do, Edwards Asks of Hillary Clinton |
Next: Clinton Says Obama Playing Racial Politics
Posted by: Nicklan | January 6, 2008 2:27 PM
Mitt Romney is correct in his estimation that McCain is not electable. Too much water has gone over the dam--his closeness to Bush and Bush's war, and his name on the Comprehensive Immigration Bill. Despite the fact that McCain now says we need to secure the borders first, this statement came only after his back was to the wall and he saw his campaign crumbling as a result of his stubborn support of what most Arizonians hated. And then, there is the factor of age. He's 72, and would be 80 before completing two terms. Compare that to vibrant Obama, and guitar-playing Huckabee.
Posted by: Zaney | January 6, 2008 2:33 PM
Romney says, ..to say this president acted out of arrogance or out of a bunker mentality is simply wrong. He listened to alternative voices...." Romney has a problem with the truth and these are glaring examples.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 6, 2008 3:08 PM
Let me get this right. Romney says McCain is not electable. So, if McCain is the nominee, Romney won't support him? And isn't that more of a personal attack than anything that anyone's said about Romney?
Posted by: Steve | January 6, 2008 3:18 PM
No Republican can win in '08. Evangelicals will stay home rather than vote for a Mormon, and the right-wing nuts will never vote for McCain. If 5% of the Republicans stay home, the Democrat, whoever it is wins. Remember the Republicans stole it in 2000, barely won it in 2004 and starting disintegrating in '06. They've screwed everything up and they're going to get tossed out in '08.
Posted by: thebob.bob | January 6, 2008 3:27 PM
I'm afraid each of the major republican candidates has a problem with at least one of the major issues facing our nation or that the republican base cares about. From the most recent debate it appears that Mitt Romney is by far the most well balanced candidate we have as evidenced by the fact that he sparred with each candidate over his area of weakness. If you watched the debate or looked at the post debate analysis Mitt outspoke the other candidtates almost 2 words to one because he appears to be competant in all areas. He is the only candidate I would trust with the economic future of my family and friends in this great nation. His economic policies are superior to those of the other candidates just look at his track record with fixing broken companies. His leadership could transform our healthcare system, dependence on foreign oil, and several other major areas that effect each of us on a daily basis.
Posted by: United | January 6, 2008 3:33 PM
"Romney acknowledged that he erred when he said Saturday night, in a prime-time Republican debate, that he had never called McCain's immigration plan "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
One of Romney's campaign advertisements uses that word. After being shown the ad on "Fox News Sunday," Romney said he had not seen it."
What happend to "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this ad"?
This is getting ridiculous. He's turning into "Slick Mitty"
Posted by: Anonymous | January 6, 2008 3:36 PM
Unfortunatley, the previous posts are reflect the scary truth. I agree McCain is not electable or he would have won the previous times he ran, he has burnt too many bridges among the republican base. I'm sure that all of the candidates will unite regardless of who wins the primaries becasue any republican would be better for this nation than the alternative democrats. Our duty as republicans should be to elect the individual that is most electable so the party and the conservative leaning independents can unite to defeat any democratic challenger. I beleive that has to be either Mitt or possibly Guilliani, the other candidates have too many glaring deficiencies.
Posted by: United | January 6, 2008 3:38 PM
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but haven't Mitt's ads only questioned the previous policy decisions of the other candidates and not their character? Most of the attacks I have heard against Mitt on the other hand appear to be personal attacks on his religion or his financial success which should be left out of any United States Presidential debates unless we are simply a nation of bigots. I wish candidates would simply focus on showing the holes in thier opponents plans and refrain from the personal attacks. I like to hear how the candidates differ in thier approaches and not personal attacks. If anyone has seen a Mitt add attacking someones character and not just thier previous policy decisions please point me in that direction because I have not.
Posted by: United | January 6, 2008 3:46 PM
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are all unelectable. People don't want to continue the Bush Administration. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson all said they would continue what George Bush started. I listened to the debate and they all supported Bush. The people are tired of a lying corrupt leader and a endless occupation that drains billions of dollars that could be spent on Americans in this country. People are tired of Americans dying in Iraq. People are tired of Republicans that want more of the same.
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are all unelectable.
Posted by: Scott | January 6, 2008 4:33 PM
United, attack ads come in all kinds of flavors.
Even misleading "truths" can be attack ads. What would you think if someone were running a "Mitt Romney had illegal aliens employed in his own home!" ad? Of course, he didn't, really. A company that worked for him did. But the ad, as worded, is technically true.
Ads that distort the truth, like Mitt has run against McCain, are even worse. It's particularly rididculous when Mitt gets all huffy because someone "attacks" him by mentioning a position he held 18 months ago.
Put it another way, it's OK to claim that McCain is against the Bush tax cuts -- because six years ago he (correctly) believed that cuts in taxes without cuts in spending would balloon the deficit.
But it's an "attack" to point out Mitt was pro-abortion and in favor of McCain's immigration plan two years ago?
Mitt give the strong impression that he can dish it out but he can't take it.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 6, 2008 4:46 PM
If Republicans nominate McCain, then they must have a death wish. Most people are fed up with the Iraq adventure and even the diehards are going to have a hard time swallowing McCain's 100 year stay there. Immigration rednecks will sit on their hands if McCain is nominated. Put these two together and Republicans will be lucky to poll 40% against whoever the Democrats run.
Posted by: Richard Friedman | January 6, 2008 5:40 PM
f you support amnesty for illegal immigrants, you have only ONE clear choice in this election: AMNESTY-JOHN McCain.
You can rest assured that after another half-hearted effort at "securing our boarders", AMNESTY-JOHN, if elected president - or otherwise - will do everything in his power to p*ss on those legal immigrants awaiting for citizenship, and immediately grant full citizenship status to all those that illegally entered our country (with the usual BS that they "learn" English ;) and pay a "fine" ;)).
Don't be fooled by cheap imitators like the Huskster - who will only use your tax dollars for more benefits for illegals, or Rudy "Sanctuary City" Giuliani, who just looks the other way whenever an illegal approaches.
So, if 1. you've always wanted to have to learn spanish, or 2. you really want your town to achieve the coveted "barrio" status, or 3. you enjoy lower wages, or 4. you want all those empty spaces in the local prison filled, or 5. you want to pay even more hospital costs for ANCHOR babies --- THEN AMNESTY-JOHN IS YOUR GUY!
¡Hurra para la amnistia!
Posted by: ALEX H. | January 6, 2008 5:43 PM
McCain and Obama are the only straight talkers from either party. Both are genuine and lack the arrogance exhibited by the other candidates. Independants will be hard pressed to choose between them. Although miles apart on the issues, both men can be expected to approach problems in a similar manner - with intellect, sound judgment, and most importantly exhibiting candor with the American people. Time for a change with either the old maverick McCain or the new pup on the block Obama.
Posted by: rgn1 | January 6, 2008 7:56 PM
Problem is, although a majority Americans somewhat like McCain better than the others, most republicans don't.
Neo Cons like McCain, fundies don't, Wall Street money folks like Willard, fundies don't, fundies like Huckabee, neo cons and the Wall Street folks don't.
Hell of a fun thing to watch, pass the popcorn.
Posted by: C. Feher | January 6, 2008 8:13 PM
My disdain for Hellary has nothing to do with her supposedly being a woman! I love women and would vote for one for president readily. But, let's not vote for Klinton just because of gender: think back to that administration, all of the spies, lies, corruption, deaths, smears, immorality, backstabbing, laws broken, drugs, bribes, Chinese spies, payoffs, character assinations, assasinations, investigations, using dead people, theft, obfescations, stealing china, destruction of public property, threats to bimbos, assaults, rape accusations, sex not sex, asprin factory murders, tyrant coddling, Whtewatering, Rose law firming, missing files, DNA disapearance, Foster bodies, Lies in diaries, lawyers commiting suicide, hidden agendas, payoffs, Luewinskiing, coverups, mismanagements, bodies in the parks, bodies in the cell, bodies in the water, nuclear secrets being sold, FBI files stolen, blackmailings, ..... all with Hellary right smack dab in the middle either orchestrating or covering up!
Use your memories people!
Other than that I have nothing against her.
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Posted by: stevenBallmer | January 6, 2008 9:20 PM
Just finished watching Mitt Romney Night on Fox News Channel -- All Mitt, All the Time. I have no dog in this hunt, but I was struck that he got all the face time heading into the debate, then 12 of the first 15 minutes to clarify his record on his strongest issue in contrast to McCain and Huckabee (they at least got a minute each to respond). And of course, all the post debate coverage detailed how big he won it.
Maybe all coincidence, but I wonder if Fox was aware -- or cares -- the appearance of significant cheerleading on their part. Probably the latter.
Posted by: David | January 6, 2008 10:10 PM
The evangelicals don't like Romney and Rudy. Only the evangelicals like the Huckster. Independents are the only ones who like McCain. Ron Paul's supporters can't stand to log off the Internet long enough to vote. It's starting to look as if none of these guys are capable of winning. Who does that leave? Alan Keyes. Hey, at least he's already got experience losing to Obama.
Posted by: Patrick | January 6, 2008 10:34 PM
Please please please... for the sake of us foreigners living in foreign lands .. dont vote for i'm-a-massive-geek-with-money Romney, or I-love-rhetorical-jargon-but-cant-solve-problems Obama, or I-was-fat-and-know-where-Jesus-lives Huckaby, or that Law&order-I'm-bitter guy, or that idiot who went to meet Saddam and didn't know not to display his under-feet.
Please vote for someone who can occassionaly represent the US and the free world as an insightful, responsible and globally aware individual. Perhaps even someone who has passport this time. Or at least someone who doesnt make us all roll our eyes in shame when he speaks to the world.
P.S. We care not for your ancient health care or suffering migrants... just your ability to drag us to war, and provide entertaining footage of your current monkey-crew trying to fix the world. Oh, and bomb Iran's nuke sites already, they deserve it on so many levels.
Edwards + Clinton is the ticket you and the rest us can be proud of. Obama can give speeches to 5 yr old who are not yet aware that america is united and free (his only skill, other than knowing where the dealer in the capitol hangs out).
Don't embarass the concept of democracy by allowing fools who speak of 'christ', 'abortion' and 'gay-marriage' as federal election issues to apease evangelical sheep.
United States of Australia
Posted by: ay | January 7, 2008 10:20 PM
If Mike Huckabee had made racial comments about a leading black candidate or sexist comments about a leading female candidate, he would have been castigated by the media. How he was able to launch his surge on religious bigotry is dumbfounding to me. It seems that everyone is oblivious to the obvious.
In the event that Mitt Romney does not win the nomination, then history will show that Mike Huckabee pulled off the political crime of the century. It was Mike Huckabee that raised religious issues among Iowa evangelicals by comments toward Romney's religion.
As Huckabee's tactics started to show in the Iowa polls, Mitt responded with his "Faith in America" speech. Romney was then forced to work on damage control. Romney's efforts in Iowa payed off and he continued to rise back in the polls but the damage gave him a second in a state he held firmly until Huckabee's misuse of the public forum.
McCain saw his window and concentrated on New Hampshire while Romney was being unduely "occupied" in Iowa. Romney was forced to agressively address things detracting from what his positive messaging had been and did so famously. Romney then relied on comparison ads to contrast differences. These ads were constantly referred to as "attack ads" by Huckabee, who continually portrayed him as "desperate", and "attacking".
Now Huckabee is able to capitalize on such tactics. Because of his use of the majority evangelical state of Iowa and with the ignorance of the media toward the Mormon religion, he flew under the radar of a nation that has worked since Lincoln to erase such bigotry.
A majority of the nation now sees only that Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus and know nothing of the back story. I think it important to present it. Observe for yourself and pass these perspectives along. We need a TRUE man for change and a proven record of turning things around in the oval office.
Vote Mitt Romney
Posted by: Kelly Warnick | January 9, 2008 1:13 PM
If the economy is one of the major issues for the upcoming election, it seems that we have to decide whether a person with an education in military and war, a person with a degree in theology, or a person with a degree in economics, a juris doctorate in law, and a masters degree in business administration would have more insight into what it will take to fix the economy.
McCain graduated from the Naval Academy, at the bottom of his class (790 out of 795). McCain is formally educated in military and war. McCain does not have any economic or business experience outside of the existing Washington political establishment.
Huckabee graduated with a degree in theology from Ouachita Baptist University. Huckabee's only experience with large scale economics was as Governor of Arkansas. As Governor of Arkansas the Cato Institute gave Huckabee's economic policies and abilities a grade of "F". Under Huckabee Arkansas state taxes increased by 65% over a 10 year period, government employees increased 20%, and Huckabee left the state with a 500 million dollar deficit at the end of his last term.
Romney graduated with honors from Harvard Law School with a juris doctorate in law. Romney also earned a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard Business School, again, with honors.
Romney has been responsible for founding and running one of the most successful businesses in recent years, Baine Capital. Through Baine Capital, Romney has been able to create 1,000's of jobs in the US economy.
As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney turned a multi-billion dollar state deficit he inherited into a multi-million dollar surplus in the state budget. Romney was able to create this surplus by downsizing the state government, consolidating redundant programs and services, and reducing the number of state government employees.
In short, if you want a person with a demonstrated record of economic success in both the private and public sector, if you want a candidate that has a proven history of reducing the size and cost of government, then there is only one candidate to fit the bill... Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America!!!!
Posted by: Roy Dew | January 10, 2008 7:42 AM
Scottsdale AZ Straw Poll 80% for Ron Paul!! Votes were almost stolen!!
Daily Paul
Sunday January 13, 2008
We just go back from the straw poll in Scottsdale Arizona! The vote total was 515 votes. 414 went to Ron Paul 80%!! 64 for McCain 12%, 13 votes for Romney, Giuliani 7, Fred Thompson 6, Huckabee 1, and Hunter 3.
My Husband, and I watched the ballot box all night. Suddenly, a group of McCain supporters took the box to count the votes without anyone noticing but us! My Husband John followed them. They went to a corner to count the votes and John jumped in to help count. They informed him that they did not need his help.
He pushed his way into the group and let them know that he too would be assisting with the counting. They chose reluctantly not to argue! My husband is a cowboy and was not taking no for an answer. The pile of votes for Ron Paul was so high, that the pile kept falling over onto the John McCain pile.
Posted by: AZ | January 14, 2008 3:57 AM
How could any American who truely cares for this country cast a vote for any Rebublican knowing that they enabled and encouraged Bush and Cheney to systematically destroy the trust,reputation,authority and percieved morality of The United States?
Success is measured by positive and permanent improvements not negative,and devisive quick fixes.
Posted by: Brent R. | January 23, 2008 12:38 AM
Congressman Paul Fights to Block Congressional Pay Raises
Published 01/24/2008 - 12:05 a.m. GMT
(PressMediaWire) Washington, DC Jan. 23, 2008 - Congressman Ron Paul is an original cosponsor on legislation proposed by Representative Harry Mitchell (AZ-5) to block Members of Congress from receiving the automatic pay adjustment scheduled to take effect in 2009.
"With all the waste going on in government, the dollar losing its purchasing power, the collapse of the housing bubble, the economy is really struggling. We Members of Congress should not be padding our pocketbooks when our constituents are tightening their belts," stated Congressman Paul.
The bill was introduced yesterday and so far Congressman Paul is the only cosponsor. Congressman Paul famously returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the Treasury. He recently estimated he would be able to return $75,000 from last year's office budget. He also refuses to participate in the lucrative pension program that Congress has awarded itself.
__________________
Posted by: Dr | January 24, 2008 4:54 PM
The entire world is grasping for something secure, something different and new, and gold is the best security there is. How long till gold hits $1,000? Not long in my opinion.
Most Americans have never held a ounce of gold in the palm of his/her hand. The metal for Kings. Paper is the ghost of money, gold frees the nation while paper enslaves it.
No matter how long the Bankers fight history always prevails and the time has come for gold and silver to shine bright and free America from this debt/slave Empire that has been placed upon Americans buy bankers/usury.
If I stole a car and sold it to someone, it would be a 100% profit, wouldn't it? If I stole a car, sold it to someone, and financed it for the buyer at maybe 6% interest, it would be even more profitable, wouldn't it? If I robbed a bank, got away with it, and loaned the money at interest, it would be hilariously profitable, wouldn't it? The Federal Reserve does exactly that. It creates money by printing it, loans it to the government, and collects interest on the money. It's the same as the stealing the car or robbing the bank scenario! What's the difference? The Federal Reserve has a license to do it, and if we robbed the bank or stole the car, we might end up in jail.
Posted by: Gold | January 25, 2008 8:11 PM
Romney was never "pro-abortion." Personally, he has always abhorred the destruction of unborn babies. He merely promised that as Governor of Massachusetts he would not attempt to outlaw abortion in that state.
Over the years since, he has come to believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that the states can make their own legislative decisions about abortion, as was the case before 1973. If that is ever to happen, the pro-life cause needs to welcome converts like Gov. Romney, not castigate them for past positions that they have abandoned.
Posted by: Richard Bassett | January 27, 2008 9:34 PM
McCain is not a social conservative. He voted for funding for stem cell research. Check out his positions on wikipedia.
Posted by: Jeff Lindsay | February 3, 2008 8:30 PM
Zogby is calling California for Romney!!!
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Zogby_Romney_Obama/2008/02/03/69702.html
Romney popular among Massachusetts Republicans:
Romney 55% McCain 23% no other candidate coming close (Rasmussen Reports)
Don't Fall for Polls:
January 1980 Gallup Poll Carter 63% Reagan 32%
"Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk." (Ann Coulter, Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth, January 23, 2008)
TEN REASONS WHY ROMNEY IS THE MOST ELECTABLE
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
Posted by: Jeff Lindsay | February 3, 2008 8:34 PM
aqxa52ub http://www.680359.com/772848.html ghpepunzsvvw
Posted by: 3685aj0sa0 | March 26, 2008 4:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Mitt wishs he had a chance of beating McCain. But Mitt would be best off if he joined McCain as his running mate. For he will never beat him, so he should join him.
McCain is the only Choice America has !