"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." -Samuel Adams
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Thursday, March 6, 2008
On Beer and Politics
A word of encouragement from a patriot. In light of the discontent among the various conservative groups over John McCain's nomination, I thought that this quote is timely. So to all you Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee fans out there, crack open a Sam Adams and remember:
Friday, February 29, 2008
New York Times
Newsflash folks !!! The New York Times endorsed John McCain. Does no one remember that? It would be ridiculous for them to endorse him one day, and then turn around and set out to destroy him the next.
They are lobbing softballs to the "conservative" punditry so that they spend more time defending him against the simple articles, refuting "attacks," and less time discussing his substantial policy differences with the mainstream of both his party and the mainstream of the country.
The constitutional question raised recently regarding his citizenship status was resolved in 1790. The hinted to inappropriate relationship story was mostly inuendo and had little to no checkable facts. The New York Times may at times show bias, but they are very effective at what they do. They have sources for stories and the new fangled internet thingy for fact checking.
McCain still does not have the delegates he needs to be the Republican nominee. There are 3 candidates in the race (some have even said that Romney left the door open by suspending and not quitting) and a slim chance for a brokered convention.
If nothing else make McCain answer the tough questions, grill him on economics, diplomacy, constitutional law. Have him prove that he can at least govern as a moderate. He told a reporter just yesterday he was liberal. He later apologized, meaning to call Obama a liberal.
Do not think for a second that he needs your help defending against attacks from his friends at the New York Times. He does not have to prove anything to the left, they love him.
He needs to prove to the libertarians, the social conservatives, the old right, the fiscal conservatives, etc. that he can be their nominee.
They are lobbing softballs to the "conservative" punditry so that they spend more time defending him against the simple articles, refuting "attacks," and less time discussing his substantial policy differences with the mainstream of both his party and the mainstream of the country.
The constitutional question raised recently regarding his citizenship status was resolved in 1790. The hinted to inappropriate relationship story was mostly inuendo and had little to no checkable facts. The New York Times may at times show bias, but they are very effective at what they do. They have sources for stories and the new fangled internet thingy for fact checking.
McCain still does not have the delegates he needs to be the Republican nominee. There are 3 candidates in the race (some have even said that Romney left the door open by suspending and not quitting) and a slim chance for a brokered convention.
If nothing else make McCain answer the tough questions, grill him on economics, diplomacy, constitutional law. Have him prove that he can at least govern as a moderate. He told a reporter just yesterday he was liberal. He later apologized, meaning to call Obama a liberal.
Do not think for a second that he needs your help defending against attacks from his friends at the New York Times. He does not have to prove anything to the left, they love him.
He needs to prove to the libertarians, the social conservatives, the old right, the fiscal conservatives, etc. that he can be their nominee.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
California Debate
Tonights debate...
McCain-It seems like he is so happy with the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine, Bush's economic policy, the current state of our economy. I can't help but wonder if his cognitive functions are all there. He blatantly lies, doesn't respond to the questions actually asked and name drops in place of presenting a defense for deviation from his party line. He kept making that awful smile in place of what you know he really wanted to do, which was light up Romney and Anderson the same way that he has to numerous Republican Senators and aides. Seemed to be running toward Bush while everyone else was running away. Kept Romney on the ropes and the spotlight off of himself.
Huckabee-So funny. Starting to take off the gloves a bit in his differences with Bush. Potentially has an old right streak he is trying to keep under wraps? He almost hints at, especially with his NRO article that he may think we should take a non interventionist approach in the future but with Iraq, "we broke it, we bought it." Sounding more and more Teddy Roosevelt every debate as well. Laid off the focus on his faith which is to his credit largely but may make some question his credibility. The Clintons talk about God a lot in the south too. Seemed a little whiny and much less in control with his not enough question bits.
Romney-"Facts are stubborn things." He did well. While I may disagree with him on some issues, he is a great speaker, a great debater and wears better suits than all the other candidates combined. Probably needed a much stronger night than he had. Should have tried turning the tables on McCain and focused on the economy. Paul showed during the last debate that the economy is a HUGE weakness of McCain's. Romney needed to go for the jugular here and didn't.
Paul-Not given many questions tonite. Didn't handle the ones he did receive very well. As most of you know I strongly support Ron Paul, but don't need to hear him rehash the same points with every question. I do agree that our occupation of over a hundred countries impacts our economy in severe and unneccessary ways, I also know that I am in the minority opinion. One must never hide the truth or lie, but taking every opportunity you get to talk to share those things which keep you in the minority is just bad strategy. But one of the best moments of the night had to be when he said, "I find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with," he said. "They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy."
McCain-It seems like he is so happy with the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine, Bush's economic policy, the current state of our economy. I can't help but wonder if his cognitive functions are all there. He blatantly lies, doesn't respond to the questions actually asked and name drops in place of presenting a defense for deviation from his party line. He kept making that awful smile in place of what you know he really wanted to do, which was light up Romney and Anderson the same way that he has to numerous Republican Senators and aides. Seemed to be running toward Bush while everyone else was running away. Kept Romney on the ropes and the spotlight off of himself.
Huckabee-So funny. Starting to take off the gloves a bit in his differences with Bush. Potentially has an old right streak he is trying to keep under wraps? He almost hints at, especially with his NRO article that he may think we should take a non interventionist approach in the future but with Iraq, "we broke it, we bought it." Sounding more and more Teddy Roosevelt every debate as well. Laid off the focus on his faith which is to his credit largely but may make some question his credibility. The Clintons talk about God a lot in the south too. Seemed a little whiny and much less in control with his not enough question bits.
Romney-"Facts are stubborn things." He did well. While I may disagree with him on some issues, he is a great speaker, a great debater and wears better suits than all the other candidates combined. Probably needed a much stronger night than he had. Should have tried turning the tables on McCain and focused on the economy. Paul showed during the last debate that the economy is a HUGE weakness of McCain's. Romney needed to go for the jugular here and didn't.
Paul-Not given many questions tonite. Didn't handle the ones he did receive very well. As most of you know I strongly support Ron Paul, but don't need to hear him rehash the same points with every question. I do agree that our occupation of over a hundred countries impacts our economy in severe and unneccessary ways, I also know that I am in the minority opinion. One must never hide the truth or lie, but taking every opportunity you get to talk to share those things which keep you in the minority is just bad strategy. But one of the best moments of the night had to be when he said, "I find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with," he said. "They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
