Florida Republican Debate

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Florida Republican Debate

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

God bless you mirk.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Just for not voting for McCain? You must like him less then I do.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Bless me, too, baby!

Smaug · Senior Member

Everyone has a right to vote the way they think is right. Could I convince you to vote for McCain (not in the primaries, but against Hillary or Obama) if I could show you examples of great leaders who at one or another time in their lives did evil? A few are King Saul, then King David and his son, King Solomon.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind this. If Hillary or Barack is elected, look for more abortions, including partial birth abortions, a horrible increase in entitlements, possilbe hate speech laws, and more Supreme Court Judges like Ruth Bater Ginsberg.

To me, not voting for the lesser of two evils, because you expect near perfection is like telling Schindler during WW II that unless he can save all the Jews, you don't want him to save any.

Pt314 · Senior Member

I am upset with McCain over the way he has conducted himself lately, however I think I would still vote for him in the General.

With McCain we at least get someone who is pro-life, at least tries to reign in spending, and fights the war on terror. With a democrat in office expect none of those, and who knows the damage a Hillary or Obama could do.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

I don't vote for evil, even if it is lesser.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

So is Huckarat still in there cuz he's looking at VP with McCain?

Cuz then I'm REALLY not voting for him.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

lol...no kidding, that would be like voting for Clinton and Clinton

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that abortions have increased every year of Bush II's presidency. He is a supposedly pro-life president. So I'm not buying the argument that McCain would curb abortions.
Practically speaking, Bush II had the best chance. For 6 years of his presidency he had a Republican dominated congress. The Supreme Court had candidates mostly appointed by Republican presidents. If ever there were a time to challenge Roe V. Wade, that would have been it. But instead, the Republicans were timid and afraid of challenging the Democrats, and not much got done on the issue except to try to ban the worst type of abortion.
I don't see how a democrat would increase abortions, unless they passed a law making abortions mandatory for certain people.
I'm with Mirk; I'm not going to vote for evil. They're still evil. Would it be a good idea, for instance, to tell missionaries at a Ukrainian birthday party to drink beer, and not vodka, because it's less evil? It's really, really hard to avoid drinking at a Ukrainian birthday party. You can really offend the hosts no matter how many times you tell them that it's against your religion. You could argue that it's really serving good purposes to show honor to your host by drinking at his birthday party. But that would be wrong.
It's the same thing here. We're not going to serve good purposes by voting in an evil president, even if he is less evil.
And yes, we've all committed sin, so we've all done evil in one way or another. But if someone is occasionally too impatient with their kids doesn't mean that they're in the same league as Ted Bundy or Adolph Hitler. Ted Bundy was the lesser of two evils, after all. He didn't kill anywhere near as many as Hitler did. Not even by an order of magnitude.

Smaug · Senior Member

Well are you then equating McCain with Ted Bundy? And what about the judges that Hillary or Obama will undoubtedly name to the Supreme Court if given the chance. That won't affect us only for the next four years, until the Republicans realize they've been "punished" by the voters. That will affect us for at least a generation. Are you ready to put that---in addition to what the do-nothings in Congress have already done---onto yours and my children and grandchildren?

arbilad · Head Chef

Actually, Smaug, I'm not really interested in punishing the Republicans. What point would it serve? It's sort of like shopping. If the supermarket stops carrying my favorite brand of hot dog, but a local deli still carries it, then I'll shop at the local deli. The Republican party has gone the direction their leadership wants them to go. That's their choice. It would be pointless to punish them. Meanwhile, since they no longer are the party of small government, support of the Constitution, etc., I will go to the candidate (Ron Paul) or the party (Constitution Party) that still offers those things.

arbilad · Head Chef

And BTW, I would think that voting for good would be more effective in guaranteeing a bright future for our posterity than would voting for evil.
It's too easy to lose sight of the overall picture when we focus too much on one issue. Yes, it's very important to have good judges. Frankly, I strongly doubt that McCain would appoint good judges, since he helped the democrats play the obstructionist game. But let's say, just for the sake of it, that he would appoint good judges. That still doesn't help us if he signs legislation that takes away our civil liberties.

Smaug · Senior Member

Unfortunately, you're much more likely to get a reduction in civil liberties if the dems control the presidency and Congress.

I'd be all for supporting the Constitution Party--at least most of what they stand for--if they could get anyone elected that could actually change things. Though I don't agree with much of what our government is doing---the large majority are worthless wimps who pay lip service to problems which we so desperately need fixed, like Social Security (which never should've been created by FDR's administration in the first place, but that's a whole other story), and who continually expand government (Hillary-care, only the next thing to happen among many)---I think to vote for someone who has no hope of winning is a waste of vote and could do a lot of harm if enough people do so. But that's my opinion, and I grant that you think you are doing the right thing. I only hope that you will grant me that I think I'm doing the right thing.

Speaking of evil, were Thomas Jefferson and some of our other early presidents evil because they owned slaves? And was Jeffeson evil because, though he helped write the Constitution, and wrote about not becoming involved in foreign entanglements, got America involved in wars with the Islamic Barbary pirates? I'm not trying to trap you--I just want to define your parameters of what makes one potential president evil and one great Founder possibly not.

And, in the interest of fairness, please read this article about McCain and the "Gang of 14": http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/603zrznu.asp?pg=1

-- Edited by Smaug at 21:48, 2008-01-30

Pt314 · Senior Member

Smaug wrote:

Unfortunately, you're much more likely to get a reduction in civil liberties if the dems control the presidency and Congress.

I'd be all for supporting the Constitution Party--at least most of what they stand for--if they could get anyone elected that could actually change things. Though I don't agree with much of what our government is doing---the large majority are worthless wimps who pay lip service to problems which we so desperately need fixed, like Social Security (which never should've been created by FDR's administration in the first place, but that's a whole other story), and who continually expand government (Hillary-care, only the next thing to happen among many)---I think to vote for someone who has no hope of winning is a waste of vote and could do a lot of harm if enough people do so. But that's my opinion, and I grant that you think you are doing the right thing. I only hope that you will grant me that I think I'm doing the right thing.

Speaking of evil, were Thomas Jefferson and some of our other early presidents evil because they owned slaves? And was Jeffeson evil because, though he helped write the Constitution, and wrote about not becoming involved in foreign entanglements, got America involved in wars with the Islamic Barbary pirates? I'm not trying to trap you--I just want to define your parameters of what makes one potential president evil and one great Founder possibly not.

And, in the interest of fairness, please read this article about McCain and the "Gang of 14": http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/603zrznu.asp?pg=1

-- Edited by Smaug at 21:48, 2008-01-30

Oh no, 3 of the 4 most explosive issues on this site, in one post! The viability of 3rd parties, Thomas Jefferson, and John McCain, (The only one missing is Evolution).

I mostly agree with Smaug here.

John McCain has really upset me recently with his dishonest attacks on Mitt Romney he has been spitting lately, but many of the attacks against McCain have been just as ugly.

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm sure that I'm about to explode this discussion more by bringing up a controversial topic, but I'm not sure that a democratic congress and president would take away more civil liberties than a Republican president and congressmen did with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, seizing of private land by government to sell to another private company (ok, that last one was the Supreme Court, populated by judges mostly nominated by Republican presidents), etc.
The only thing in the way of a third party win is insufficient votes. That can be cured by fewer people believing that third parties are not viable and actually voting for them. Or mobilizing disillusioned voters who no longer vote. In any case, both the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party are gaining in strength, number of candidates, and even, very occasionally, a win on the local level.
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were people of high moral character. That they kept slaves is indisputable. Many people don't look further, considering it impossible for a person who owned slaves to be good. However, both Washington and Jefferson were reluctant slave owners, and both treated their slaves well. They would have manumitted them if the law allowed it.

Smaug · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

I'm not sure that a democratic congress and president would take away more civil liberties than a Republican president and congressmen did with the Patriot Act

So, special permissions for survelliance of suspected terrorists has diminished your civil liberties? How?

warrantless wiretaps

Same question

seizing of private land by government to sell to another private company (ok, that last one was the Supreme Court, populated by judges mostly nominated by Republican presidents), etc.

Imminent domain is a travesty--but I think it should be applied to the U.N. building and we can put a Wal-Mart there.

The only thing in the way of a third party win is insufficient votes. That can be cured by fewer people believing that third parties are not viable and actually voting for them.

If the message is one that the people believe in, and you can convince people, yes, you're right. But it's never happened in U.S. history before. The Whigs were already finished as a party when the Republicans ran for the first time.

In any case, both the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party are gaining in strength,

How?

number of candidates, and even, very occasionally, a win on the local level.

It has to be much more than this. You need a viable defector from one of the major parties, a hugely recognized name. And even then...Teddy Roosevelt fell short with the Bull Moose party.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were people of high moral character.

I know. I love them both. Washington was perhaps the greatest American ever.

That they kept slaves is indisputable. Many people don't look further, considering it impossible for a person who owned slaves to be good. However, both Washington and Jefferson were reluctant slave owners, and both treated their slaves well.

My point was that slavery is evil, yet Washington and Jefferson are not considered evil. They weren't evil. Yet John McCain is called evil. McCain ain't no Jefferson or Washington---but who is? Tell me why he's evil, though, and slave holders aren't.

arbilad · Head Chef

Regarding "special permissions for surveillance of suspected terrorists" I have a few questions for you.
First, how is a terrorist defined? I mean, after all, someone (I think it was Glenn Beck) recently called the Constitution Party terrorist. Besides, when you allow the government to politically persecute one group, it opens the door for them to politically persecute any group that they want.
Second, the Constitution makes no allowance for suspending those rights if you are a terrorist. So where are they getting their authority for all this? Definitely not from the constitution. And they didn't amend the constitution to allow this special surveillance.
Third, out of practicality, monitoring terrorists means monitoring all of us. If they knew for a fact that someone was a terrorist beyond any reasonable doubt, why not just arrest him and try him? If they're able to pinpoint who the terrorists are with such accuracy, why do they search people at the airport from all social and ethnic backgrounds?
So, the net effect is, they are exercising unconstitutional power to put special surveillance on all of us.
How are the Libertarians and Constitution Party gaining in strength? Greater numbers, greater donations, and greater number of candidates elected to local offices. Why does it have to begin at the national level? Granted, I'm grateful to them for running national candidates so that there are alternatives to the major party candidates. But if you become ubiquitous at the local level, people will see your party as viable. After all, if you have a city councilman who is a member of the Constitution Party, and you like his politics, then you'll be more inclined to vote for a state or federal candidate who is a member of the Constitution party. And they are getting candidates elected at the local level in many cases. In fact, one state (I forget which) elected a CP member to the state legislature, although his win was stolen from him in the courts by the democrat who got the judge to discard votes until the democrat won.
I think that others have amply demonstrated why John McCain is evil. There is plenty of recent evidence, such as his attempt to open our borders with that recent immigration bill garbage.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

The persistent cry of "you are wasting your vote" when you vote third party is the cry of the two party system in it's continued effort to maintain the status quo. If we continue to buy into their mantra we deserve what we get. I don't agree with all third party positions or candidates, but where I do it is foolish not to give them support based on the "wasted vote" cries of the Repubs and Demons.

arbilad · Head Chef

Ok, I read the article that Smaug linked to about the gang of 14.
Here are some thoughts that I had.
First, the agreement was non-binding. In fact, it wasn't even an agreement between parties. It was 14 republicans and democrats who decided to form a voting block to oppose the nuclear option.
Second, the agreement basically allowed the democrats to retain the right to continue to be obstructionists. Granted, the nuclear option may not have been implemented (it does appear as if Frist simply didn't have the votes). But the democrats were facing a lot of anger because there was a huge court case backlog. This way they retained the option to be obstructionist in the future while appearing to solve the problem and thus assuage public anger.
Third, as has been mentioned before, the democrats simply didn't have the political capital not to give supreme court nominees an up or down vote. That's a non-issue.
Fourth, it seems to me that, due to the public anger that I mentioned previously, the democrats were probably going to need to give an up or down vote to a lot of candidates anyway. This way they got to look good while doing it and at the same time get rid of the two candidates they hated most.
Fifth, I simply don't like the argument that the filibuster option needed to be preserved for the Republicans to use when they were the minority. Every judicial candidate should get an up or down vote, period. They shouldn't be stopping a candidate because of his politics. They should only be voting on whether he is qualified or not.
Of course, I don't like how the Republicans acted in regards to this issue. I say that if the democrats threatened filibuster, that the Republicans should have taken them up on it! That way the democrats obstructionism would have been more visible.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I think it would be kinda fun if the parties were able to nominate *two* candidates each for the General Election.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

that might force them to play nicer during the primaries... if they knew they'd have to get along in the general election.

Smaug · Senior Member

I think that others have amply demonstrated why John McCain is evil. There is plenty of recent evidence, such as his attempt to open our borders with that recent immigration bill garbage.

That may be wrong, but it's not evil. Evil is willfully attempting to do harm to a person or group of people (or torturing animals for that matter). One can be wrong without being evil. McCain's marital indiscretion may have been an evil deed. In searching the net, I can only find anti-McCain sites that even reference the occurence in detail. I prefer hearing both sides of the story.

And again, most of those who call McCain "evil" liked Reagan as a president. Well, Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegals, traded weapons to terrorists for hostages, and while governor of California, signed a pro-abortion bill. And he also did some great things, like "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." What about you, arbi, did you like Reagan as a president?

-- Edited by Smaug at 18:52, 2008-01-31

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Smaug wrote:

I think that others have amply demonstrated why John McCain is evil. There is plenty of recent evidence, such as his attempt to open our borders with that recent immigration bill garbage.

That may be wrong, but it's not evil. Evil is willfully attempting to do harm to a person or group of people (or torturing animals for that matter). One can be wrong without being evil.

Or both. McCain's attempts to disintegrate the border are causing harm to this country.

Smaug · Senior Member

McCain's attempts to disintegrate the border are causing harm to this country.

How is McCain trying to "disintegrate the border"?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Maybe the question should be... What is McCain doing to keep our borders intact and secure? You don't see any possibility of terrorists from Brazilian or Venezuelan cells coming up through Mexico?

Smaug · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:
Maybe the question should be... What is McCain doing to keep our borders intact and secure? You don't see any possibility of ists from Brazilian or Venezuelan cells coming up through Mexico?

Oh yes. And Islamic terrorists sneaking across the border. But it seems to me that McCain was finally convinced by the public outcry that we need the fence---he's said he'll build it. Now either he's lying (possible) or he will build it. Right now though, it ain't gettin' built. Did you happen to see Bill O'Reilly last night? That can be lain squarely at the feet of Congress, which of course, includes McCain, but isn't limited to him. One thing I do agree with wholeheartedly and that's securing our border. Now McCain has pledged to do that---but what do I know---he's an evil man so anything could happen.

-- Edited by Smaug at 06:53, 2008-02-01

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug, it matters not what McCain has promised - it matters what he's done. Every time he has voted, he has voted for an open border. Border patrol hate the guy. It doesn't matter if he went with the flow and approved the fence - his immigration bill would have meant full unrestricted movement across our southern border of anyone who wanted to come. That's not security.
So I'm unimpressed when he promises to secure the border. All his previous actions have been to unsecure the border. Would you believe Hillary if she promised to reduce the size of government?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

McCain is not worthy of the Republican nomination, whether you support the two dominant party system or not.

Why? Because he is barely a RINO. The Democrats have dirt on him as being ready to jump ship to the Democrat party as Jeffords did shortly after George W Bush took office as POTUS in 2001.

Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP

And why, pray tell is this not being widely circulated? Because it will weaken his ability to fool the masses of liberal leaning independents and democrats that are able to cross over and vote republican in primaries. And if McCain doesn't win the Republican nomination, Billary or Obama will not have as easy a time getting in the White House (despite what the media's polls are saying) against Romney.

As the primaries move onward, it has become increasingly clear that even Fox News seems to have a leg in to see that McCain wins, although they continue to be polite to Romney. Their coverage of Huckleberry Hound has been part of that. And, with all due respect to Dr. Paul, they haven't had to do much to show he is not going to appeal to most people. He has done that adequately himself in every debate I've seen him in by stumbling over words and phrases and whining about not being asked equal numbers of questions or given the opportunity to respond to everything everyone else has been asked.

Unless something drastic happens and Romney can pull out some major upsets soon, I'm of the opinion we had better hunker down and get used to the idea that Billary is gonna be back at Pennsylvania Avenue for at least four more years and life is gonna suck and just get worse for everyone...

Pt314 · Senior Member

The people at Redstate are in a frenzy.
example

I can respect the positions of Arbilad and others much more than the Republicans who say they would vote for Hilliary just to spite McCain (if you are going to not vote for the Republican nominee off of principle, at least vote for someone closer to your politics, sheesh.)

Edit: I felt I needed to clarify it a bit more.

-- Edited by Pt314 at 14:56, 2008-02-01

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Cat Herder wrote:

Unless something drastic happens and Romney can pull out some major upsets soon, I'm of the opinion we had better hunker down and get used to the idea that Billary is gonna be back at Pennsylvania Avenue for at least four more years and life is gonna suck and just get worse for everyone...

Buy food storage and get outta debt, people! It's not getting any easier!

I'm feeling a Hillary-Obama alliance coming on.

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 10:38, 2008-02-01

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I don't think McCain's evil... there's just nothing exciting about him. I used to be a pretty big fan, but since he's started trashing Romney, I've lost all respect for the man.

You can say "well if you don't vote for him, you're casting your vote for evil" but what I'm beginning to see that because there's so little to be enthused about with McCain, it won't matter if I vote or not, (Well... I've known that for a while, since I live in Washington state, and everyone here are politically insane...) and I think many conservatives feel very demoralized by a McCain win, in much the same fashion.

--Ray

Smaug · Senior Member

Ray, I don't like McCain trashing Romney either, but Mitt began the negative campaigning first. That's really undeniable.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

There is a difference between negative, trashing campaigning and pointing out the facts about an opponents stance and history. The media doesn't make a differentiation though.

Did Romney start reminding the electorate of the facts about his opponents stances and histories first? You betcha. Has he outright lied or even stretched the truth about his opponents? No. Huckabee and McCain are the ones who are doing that. They are simply carrying forward the "time honored tradition" of telling half truths interpreted wrongly and out of context that even when defended against leaves a foul stench in the air around the target for those who are willing to listen to that sort of stuff. And that sort of stuff has been leveled at Romney since day one by those who dislike him.

I read somewhere (don't remember where) about someone lamenting that we have no Teddy Roosevelts or other big name people that are for the common man like that these days... and I got to thinking, whoever thinks that probably doesn't realize that the people they were citing were not "common man" people, but from political dynasty families themselves. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but I thought it was interesting...

Pt314 · Senior Member

I am a big Mitt Romney fan, however I was disappointed with his negative ads he started. They may not be as bad as Huckabee and McCain paint them, but they aren't just 'contrast' ads either.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

and whining about not being asked equal numbers of questions or given the opportunity to respond to everything everyone else has been asked.

Would it be whining if any other candidate got the same treatment and pointed out that fact?

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Ray,

McCain is truly evil.

He is mean, he is extremely vindictive... He reminds me of the Clintons.

I may have mentioned earlier, I know a stake president who wanted to help Mitt but he told me he didn't dare. I said, what do you mean? He told me that he just didn't fee safe talking about it, but that it was McCain.

Now here is a stake president, CEO of a HUGE ...... (I don't even dare tell you what he's into over the net, but it's honorable employment )and he is afraid to help Mitt Romney.

I was noticing the big republican donors... His name was there with a $2300 donation to, yup, you guessed it, the McCainiac. His wife was also there with a donation to Mitt... but they used different addresses. He must be that afraid.

I know another extremely wealthy man... he's now serving as a Bishop. I asked him if he wouldn't chip in for Mitt and he said, "I can't, I don't dare risk the possible problems of not supporting McCain, I don't like the man, he is not a good person, but I have no choice."

This just scares me.

Like I said, if McCain is the nominee, I vote for the Constitution Party candidate or I write in Mitt Romney.

M

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

mirkwood wrote:

Cat Herder wrote:

and whining about not being asked equal numbers of questions or given the opportunity to respond to everything everyone else has been asked.

Would it be whining if any other candidate got the same treatment and pointed out that fact?

Yes. Huckabee has done it too.

There was a debate not too long ago where Romney got side lined by the questioners who were focusing on Guiliani, Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson. But, Romney didn't whine or complain about it during or after the debate.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

I have a good friend who just callled.

Said he saw a big sign on 19th Ave just south of the 10 freeway...

It said

[spoiler] MITT HAPPENS, HUCK OFF![spoiler]

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I sent in my early ballot for the Arizona Primary this morning.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Mahonri- what the heck are you talking about? Who are these "big" people controlled by fear?

Smaug · Senior Member

To me that sounds ridiculous. One man? McCain? Heck, if I had that kind of moula and wanted to give it to Romney I'd do it. Do these guys think they are making a payoff to McCain or what?

Smaug · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

There is a difference between negative, trashing campaigning and pointing out the facts about an opponents stance and history. The media doesn't make a differentiation though.

Did Romney start reminding the electorate of the facts about his opponents stances and histories first? You betcha. Has he outright lied or even stretched the truth about his opponents? No.

He certainly has. Lies of omission are just as bad as lies of comission. He has left out the full story time and again. Here's just one example of how his negative ads haven't told the whole story, and at times, haven't even been accurate. http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_malarkey.html

Honestly, as a member of the Church, I expected more out of Mitt. He began the negative campaigning in Iowa, and continued it, even though it did him no good. What he should have done is focus on the reasons why we should vote for him, the things he can do for America. He should be hammering on one or two aspects, a cause, that will become his cause, so that we will know he is a great leader. His speech on God and politics, for example, was as fine a speech as I've ever heard. Why can't he bring that kind of fire to other positive aspects of his campaign? Instead, he has reacted at times with a pettiness unbecoming a member of the Church. I expected that kind of garbage out of life-long politicians. But I didn't expect it out of someone who at the same time as running for President, is representing the Church.

Of course, it would be hard not to react to dishonesty about yourself, but if Mitt had had the self-control of Jackie Robinson, the first black player in Major League Baseball who was persecuted severely, I'd have a lot more respect for him. The fight isn't started by the first person to hit. It's started by the person who hits back.

-- Edited by Smaug at 06:33, 2008-02-02

-- Edited by Smaug at 06:54, 2008-02-02

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

I got this interesting email from my aunt. The Romney supporters will probably find this the most interesting:

From: tchristensen@mittromney.com [mailto:tchristensen@mittromney.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:45 PM
To: Evans, John R.
Subject: What Republicans need to know before they vote! (PLEASE FORWARD)

Dear Fellow Romney Supporters,

We have heard a lot of feedback from Romney supporters all over the country
that feel like they are not getting the real picture about Governor Romneys
chances of winning the Republican nomination for President of the United
States. Many people say that the information they do receive always paints a
picture of Governor Romney as losing this race. You are entitled to know how
Governor Romney is truly doing in this race. PLEASE FORWARD this information
on to friends and family and help get the word out about the truth about
Governor Romneys campaign!

The TRUTH is this: Governor Romney CAN and SHOULD win the Republican
nomination for President of the United States. This is a two-man race
between Governor Romney and John McCain and Governor Romney is literally
only a few points/delegates behind! Senator McCain would like everyone to
believe that somehow Governor Romney is too far behind to ever catch up.
That is NOT true. We need to rally behind Governor Romney, because only a
slight increase in support among conservatives is all thats needed to tip
the scales in favor of Governor Romney and conservative change!

People shouldnt think that McCain has this rapped up. They need to
understand the tremendous support that Governor Romney already has. Consider
the following:

1) Governor Romney has led for most of this race and is still positioned
well to win the nomination! Until recently Governor Romney has handily led
the delegate count. Though he is currently in second place in the delegate
count since the Florida Primary, by CNNs count Governor Romney has 6% of
the support he needs to win and John McCain ONLY HAS 8%. Translation =
Governor Romney is not trailing far behind; in reality, he is right on
McCains heels and is well-positioned to succeed in the upcoming primaries
because he is the true conservative.

2) Governor Romney is the True Conservative in this race. Governor Romney
supported the Bush Tax Cuts and supports making them permanent, he supports
appointing conservative judges and justices like John Roberts and Samuel
Alito, and he will confront and defeat radical Islamic Jihad, end our energy
dependence on foreign oil, curb federal spending, and sustain traditional
American values. But dont just take my word for it.

3) True conservative thinkers all support Governor Romney. For a small
sampling, consider the following sources:
- Michael Reagan, son of President Ronal Reagan:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelReagan/2008/01/31/john_mccain_hate
s_me

- Mark Levin:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI
4MGI=

- Sean Hannity: "I'll tell you right now, and I've not announced this, but I
will be voting for Mitt Romney in this campaign. It's the first time I've
stated it publicly. I'll state it now." ("Sean Hannity Radio Show,"
1/31/08.)

- Laura Ingraham: "All right, I'm going to see your endorsement and raise
you an announcement: February 12th is the big D.C. primary, I'm pulling the
lever for Mitt Romney. No doubt about it. No hesitation." ("The Laura
Ingraham Show," 2/1/08)

- Lars Larson: "It's time for the GOP to pick a real Republican standard
bearer. I've been keeping my powder dry on this question for months till I
had the chance to talk to all of the potential nominees. I've done that now,
and I'm left with only one conclusion. Governor Mitt Romney is the best
choice for 2008." ("The Lars Larson Show," 2/1/08)

4) Governor Romney has National Support: Listed at the bottom of this email
are just some of the additional names of the endorsements of Governor Romney
from elected officials, national figures and several publications and
newspapers. (Feel free to add yours as well when you forward this on!)

5) Governor Romney has tremendous financial support, from people just like
you. Not including ANY of Governor Romneys personal contributions to his
campaign, Governor Romneys campaign has raised more money than any
candidate in the history of the Republican Party! He has raised roughly $20
million more than John McCain thus far. And that financial support remains
strong; in fact, the day after placing second in the New Hampshire
primarywhat some were calling a big loss to McCainGovernor Romney held a
fundraiser and raised $5 million in one day. By comparison, the democrat
winner in NH, Hillary Clinton, also held a fundraiser that day and raised
only $700,000. This relates directly to his ability to stay the course and
beat the Democrat nominee in November.

6) Governor Romney is the most electable Republican because he can fight the
fight. I just mentioned money raised. Money will mean a lot in the coming
months! John McCain is currently spending as much money as he brings in and
is $4.5 million in debt. The Democrats have raised hundreds of millions of
dollars and if Senator McCain becomes the nominee, he will have no money
with which to compete with the Democrats. The Democrats will bury him with
the sheer size of their war chests. He CANNOT compete with them financially.

7) Senator McCain CANNOT beat the Democrats. You cannot beat the Democrats
by acting like a Democrat. John McCain has sided with the Democrats on
issues from supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, attacking the 1st
Amendment with campaign finance reform, opposing drilling for oil in ANWR to
reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and he voted TWICE against the Bush tax
cuts. John McCain was reported to have considered running as John Kerrys
running mate in 2004. You cant beat Democrats at their game, you need
someone who talks AND acts like a true Republican leader. That is clearly
not John McCain; that person is Governor Romney.

We need to unite NOW behind Governor Romney. People ought not to vote for
John McCain simply because they arent given all the information about how
strong Governor Romney is as a candidate. PLEASE FORWARD this on so that
those who believe in having a strong military, and a strong economy, and
strong families know that Governor Romney CAN win this election.

Governor Romney is as strong as ever in this race. And with all of us united
behind true conservative principles, Governor Romney WILL win. Please
forward this email on and vote for Governor Mitt Romney.

Best regards,

Trent

Trent Christensen
Romney for President, Inc.
(o) 857.288.6398
(f) 857.288.6588
tchristensen@mittromney.com

Governor Romney Endorsements (Feel free to add your endorsement at the
bottom)
Governor Matt Blunt (Mo.)
Lt. Gov. Jim Risch (Idaho)
Brig. Gen. Thomas R. Mikolajcik
Fmr. Governor Kenny Guinn (Nev.)
Fmr.Gov. Robert Ehrlich (Maine)
Gary Marx - Dir. Judicial Confirmation Network
James Bopp Jr. - Legal counsel for the National Right to Life Committee
Jay Sekulow - Chief Counsel American Center for Law and Justice
Joe Earle - Director of Outreach Iowa Christian Alliance
Attorney General John Suthers (Col.)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)
Rep. Bill Shuster (Pa.)
Rep. Brian Bilbray (Calif.)
Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.)
Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.)
Rep. Dennis Hastert (Ill.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Howard McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.)
Rep. Jim McCrery (La.)
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (Mich.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. John Carter (Texas)
Rep. Kay Granger (Texas)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Rep. Ralph Regula (Ohio)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Ron Lewis (Ky.)
Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.)
Rep. Tom Petri (Wis.)
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.)
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (Mich.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)
Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah)
Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Sen. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
Dorothy Bush Koch - sister of Jeb & President George Bush (Tex.)
Neil Bush - brother of the President
Dr. John Wilke - Chair Right to Life Committee
The National Review
The Daily Nonpareil (IA)
The Times-Republican (IA)
Sioux City Journal (IA)
The Grand Rapids Press (MI)
The Oakland Press (MI)
Las Vegas Review Journal (NV)
Reno Gazette-Journal (NV)
Elko Daily Free Press (NV)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA)
Hartford Courant (CT)
Salt Lake Tribune (UT)
Trent Christensen (MA)

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

And from Ron Paul via the Glenn Beck Show:

Message from Ron Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom, and a belief in sound money. We need to return to those principles so our economy can thrive once again.

Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone. I have fought for these measures in Congress as the Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, and as a member of the Joint Economic Committee, and will fight for their passage as president.

My plan entails four points: Tax Reform, Spending Reform, Monetary Policy Reform, and Regulatory Reform.

Tax reform means reducing the tax burden and eliminating taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes. If we cut spending to the level it was at under the Clinton administration, we can permanently do away with the income tax and the IRS. No true conservative would say that government was too small during the Clinton years!

There are several steps we can take to immediately ease the tax burden. I have proposed H.J. Res 23, which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and thus eliminate income, estate, and capital gains taxes. H.R. 191 would repeal President Clinton's 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits, while H.R. 192 would repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I also support legislation to accelerate depreciation on investment and end the practice of taxing forgiven mortgage debt.

In the area of spending reform, I want to eliminate wasteful spending, reduce overseas commitments, and freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels. I never vote for pork-laden bills, and I will veto them and any unbalanced budget as president. We need to refocus our national defense so that we guard our own borders, instead those of other nations. We can save billions if we stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan, South Korea and other nations. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to send out foreign aid, and our current foreign policy of nation building is bankrupting us.

Monetary policy reform means expanding openness at the Federal Reserve and requiring the Fed to televise its meetings, as well as returning to sound money. Washington's disastrous fiscal policies, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation, are some of the greatest threats facing our nation today. It is this one-two punch Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Treasury printing money to make up the difference -- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars. It's time to end the fiat money system, legalize competing currencies, and restore soundness to our dollar.

Finally, we need to institute true regulatory reform by repealing Sarbanes/Oxley's regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of U.S. markets. Congress' rush to action after the Enron scandal gave us a bill that has heavily burdened small businesses and driven companies offshore. I also support repealing federal regulations that prevent financial institutions such as independent and community banks and credit unions from fostering economic growth.

A true package to stimulate the economy not only puts money back in Americans' pockets, it deals with the underlying causes of our current situation - an out-of-control foreign policy, runaway deficit spending, and currency devaluation brought on by the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Smaug wrote:

He certainly has. Lies of omission are just as bad as lies of comission. Lies of ommission? Just what is a lie of ommission? Be careful how you judge a fellow church member, my friend, since this is the light in which you have chosen to hold a political candidate to (ergo you are holding a religious test on the candidate that you are not holding any of the other candidates to). I'm sure no one has given 100% disclosure to the public about everything they know and or that other people assume they do...

Honestly, as a member of the Church, I expected more out of Mitt.
...Instead, he has reacted at times with a pettiness unbecoming a member of the Church. I expected that kind of garbage out of life-long politicians. But I didn't expect it out of someone who at the same time as running for President, is representing the Church. He represents the Church no more than you or I do. Does his public visibility embarrass you or make you uncomfortable?
Of course, it would be hard not to react to dishonesty about yourself, but if Mitt had had the self-control of Jackie Robinson, the first black player in Major League Baseball who was persecuted severely, I'd have a lot more respect for him. The fight isn't started by the first person to hit. It's started by the person who hits back. Politics has never been a pretty business when it comes to campaigning. That is not the nature of an election where a candidate is trying to outshine his or her opponents. All the candidates have a fair amount of charisma, so one has to work at diminishing the raw charisma of the other. So, is it done fairly or with below the belt tactics? I think, for the most part with the exception of some of the things said by McCain and Huckabee -- and Keyes for his brief foray-- the candidates on the Republican side have displayed an uncommon restraint in ad hominem and below the belt attacks, focusing instead on issues and their opponents actual documented actions. Was Captain Moroni out of line and hitting below the belt for stating things clearly and succinctly concerning the intrigues and problems facing the Nephite government because of the king men? Not knowing whether the chief judge Pahoran was still loyal to the nation or not, did he not warn him that he would call him on the carpet if it turned out he had colluded with those who were trying to destroy the nation from within?

I am more concerned about members of the Church who get all uptight with one another about politics and debating it than I am about politicians and those running for office of doing it. For them, it is par for the course and expected, and usually when the election cycle is done, they move on. For us normal folks, we don't behave that way. We let it stick in our craw, and that is when the opportunistic politicians (those who are wrong for the nation) are able to use that to their advantage next election cycle. Think about it. If certain groups of people were still not bitter about Gore and then Kerry losing to Bush, would Hillary even stand a chance? Think about it... what experience does she or Obama really bring to the table as Sophomore and Freshman Senators?

Smaug · Senior Member

Cat Herder wrote:

Just what is a lie of ommission?

Simply put, it's putting forth a half-truth which would lead the hearer to assume something that isn't necessarily true.

Be careful how you judge a fellow church member, my friend, since this is the light in which you have chosen to hold a political candidate to (ergo you are holding a religious test on the candidate that you are not holding any of the other candidates to).

Indeed, because everyone knows he's a member or the Church, he becomes a shining light for the Church (if he chooses to) or he can also become a bad example for the whole church. Yes, I"m holding him to a different standard, because we members of the Church are trying to live a different standard.

I'm sure no one has given 100% disclosure to the public about everything they know and or that other people assume they do...

Right, but intentionally keeping someone in the dark so that they'll believe something that's not true is wrong.

He represents the Church no more than you or I do. Does his public visibility embarrass you or make you uncomfortable?

The second part of this quote is really a non-sequiter. As for representing the Church, our responsibility is the same as his for our actions. We shouldn't omit vital information in our discussions about the character or the beliefs of others either. The difference lies in the number of people influenced. Mitt, as a public figure, can affect more people as either a good example or a bad one.

Politics has never been a pretty business when it comes to campaigning. That is not the nature of an election where a candidate is trying to outshine his or her opponents.

Then, as my former mentor in the stake presidency once said when I told him that writing westerns required a few cuss words for realism, "then maybe you shouldn't write westerns." If politics requires one to get ugly, then perhaps it's the wrong choice for a follower of Christ.

All the candidates have a fair amount of charisma, so one has to work at diminishing the raw charisma of the other. So, is it done fairly or with below the belt tactics? I think, for the most part with the exception of some of the things said by McCain and Huckabee -- and Keyes for his brief foray-- the candidates on the Republican side have displayed an uncommon restraint in ad hominem and below the belt attacks, focusing instead on issues and their opponents actual documented actions.

I gave you the link from factcheck.org. You can believe it or not.

Was Captain Moroni out of line and hitting below the belt for stating things clearly and succinctly concerning the intrigues and problems facing the Nephite government because of the king men? Not knowing whether the chief judge Pahoran was still loyal to the nation or not, did he not warn him that he would call him on the carpet if it turned out he had colluded with those who were trying to destroy the nation from within?

No. And neither would Mitt be if he were doing it in ignorance. Captain Moroni accused Pahoran of not helping him, and he didn't find out until later that Pahoran was in trouble himself.

I am more concerned about members of the Church who get all uptight with one another about politics and debating it than I am about politicians and those running for office of doing it.

Good point, and I'm sorry if I've seemed to be a little uptight. I just feel that Mitt Romney (who is a fine man), is being put up on this pedestal in which he never says anything misleading or wrong, and that's far from the truth. Conversely, I think calling McCain "evil" is counterproductive. I would like to have substantive conversations on the plusses and minuses of the various candidates, and be agreeable while disagreeing. Maybe I haven't been able to do that. If so, I apologize.

-- Edited by Smaug at 18:29, 2008-02-02

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Well said Smaug

Smaug · Senior Member

Thanks. And here's an interesting site that allows you to compare all or most of the candidates views--it's opened up on McCain, but you can just click on any of the other names to see their views: http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm