Most folks cannot make an argument for why we should vote for Mitt Romney other than that he is not John McCain.
The Anchoress has a great post up begging readers to convince her to vote for Mitt.
I heard Rush say today that McCain didn’t support the Bush tax cuts, that he denigrates profit and that he is bad on immigration, as the issue is defined by the hard right.
Okay. But…he is consistently pro-life. He is consistently pro-troop. Do those things - the former backbones of the GOP - no longer matter, when profits and taxes are on the line? Are those “principles” just not as important as the ones you’re telling me will have you voting for a Democrat in November?
For crying out loud, tell me the God’s honest truth, here: do you REALLY think Mitt Romney is going to do what you want on Immigration? Of course he won’t. Nothing I’ve seen of Mitt tells me this is a passionate issue for him.
What does Romney passionately stand for, besides getting Romney into the White House? I do not see tremendous commitment to anything besides Mitt.
So, I’m asking respectfully - all you Suddenly Romney! fans - convince me: tell me why I should vote for Mitt “and like it,” and do it without using the words “John McCain.”
And the readers are making some really good arguments FOR Mitt.
(h/t Professor Bainbridge)
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
98 Responses to “Why Mitt Romney?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Being very objective, tell me what McCain has done and why I should vote for him without naming some Democrat.
#1, you’ve nailed it.
This isn’t a write-in campaign, where everyone in the country has an equal shot at being president. As things stand right now, one of four people — Clinton, Obama, Romney or McCain — will be inaugurated in January.
We’re tasked with selecting one of them. Using the process of elimination is just as valid as passionate advocacy for a particular candidate.
Look at it this way: if my house is on fire, and the roof is about to collapse on me, I don’t need to hear a passionate argument for living in a motel. I just need to get the hell out.
#1 - That’s an impossible task when the candidate himself is a Democrat!
Mc Cain seems no different tham hellary except her screech is louder. Why would I vote for a liberial on purpose which mc cain is.
Before bush became gov. I said he was not a true concervative and look what we got with him, mc cain is no better and maybe worse. I can not vote for mc cain - so who do I vote for?? Some one help me out here
Because John McCain believes in GLOBAL WARMING! That makes him un-votable to me.
I want Guiliani’s campaign strategist called out! Guiliani was the only chance for us to stop the Hildebeast! Now we’re all dead. Both McCain and Romney lose to the Beast.
Romney is the only true Republican on the ticket.
Romney will appoint conservative judges.
Warren Rudman, the man who recommended Suter for a position at SCOTUS is lead man in the McCain campaign. Who will he recommend to McCain for SCOTUS.
Matt,
Your argument will work with about a third of the vote. Another third is saying, hey, there is no fire on the roof, that is simply the wolf trying to get you to come outside.
It’s the third that are unsure that need to be convinced. Perhaps arguing a negative will work, perhaps it won’t.
And McCain is saying “there’s no fire on the roof, that’s global warming. Let’s raise energy taxes.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUzOGY0ODA1YzBmNjFhOWE5NWU0OTY5NTZiOGNhOGQ=#more
Um, hum, and McCain is also saying, hey, there really is a wolf out there - terrorism. And the occupants of the house know that. Global warming, economy, etc.? Unknown.
Based on what is offerred, Romney is the best of the four. He may not be what you want, but the alternatives are a lot worse and going down hill fast. To put it in my order, it would be Romney, McCain, Obama and then HELLary. HELLary is obviously the worst candidate based on her history and of course who wants Bill wandering the halls of the White House again. He can do more damage untethered by being President. And don’t forget everything has a price and can be bought because the Clinton’s love to sell things (examples that come immediately to mind are over night stays in the Lincoln bedroom, pardons and technology). So hold your nose if you have to but don’t let any Dimwit in especially HELLary!!!!!!!!
Are you talking about Lorel corp intelligence and Clintonius transferring control of it from State to Commerce so Red China could buy it and build a rocket that the stages would separate correctly?
No, I’m not a huge Romney fan, I just think that he is much more in line with conservatives than the other candidate. Talking about voting for the lesser of two evils, here you have it. We know all about how liberal the opponent is. All you have to do is look at all the rinos standing behind him when you see him on TV. The picture of him with the governator and the mayor is enough!
bigjolly
The entire house is engulfed in flames.
Now, Daniel, you know better. Things may not be as good as they could be but they certainly aren’t all in flames. If they were, there wouldn’t be any vets to clean your cats teeth!
It appears to me that a lot of folks are ignoring the fire alarms because they don’t see the flames.
14.
My biggest concern is how Romney will fare in a general election. Will he spend so much time defending his flip-flops that he never gets his message out?
#10 An Observer,
Levin’s article doesn’t count. Remember, the challenge is to make the argument FOR Romney without mentioning McCain.
Hard to do, isn’t it?
Just announced in the West Virginia primary: The Huckster wins.
Huckabee = 52%
Romney = 47%
McCain = 1%
Go figure
#17
Yes sir.
bigjolly
McCain took an oath to defend the Constitution and has done just the opposite on several occasions. He is dangerous. McCain is just as dangerous as Hillary.
If there were no other facts in evidence, the singular fact that the New York Times … a “national” newspaper that has deliberately lied, distorted, and under-cut the United States at every opportunity … has endorsed John McCain, IS more than enough “fact” for me to support Romney.
And I’m just tired of McCain’s *testiculations.
*waving arms about and talking bull
Daniel, you really need to read the post above in full.
McCain, warts, whatever, is not a traitor. Statements like that do not endear you to other voters.
Fontessa,
Once again, the challenge is to make a pro-Romney case, no mention of McCain. Hard, eh?
#20,
Pretty cool, huh?
#18: that’s based on the assumption that relevance doesn’t count. I never accepted any such challenge. I am more concerned in the truth than any effort to hide it.
1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004
These are the presidential elections I have voted in and once, only once, have I gone into the voting booth completely confident in my candidate. That election was 24 years ago in 1984.
I make the best choice I can after evaluating all the information I can find and criteria I have developed over my lifetime. That is what presidential elections are about. There are times when the best you can do is hope your candidate doesn’t allow the country to slip backwards.
bigjolly
If the feds didnt regulate the meds, etc. I would do the vet work myself.
“Most folks cannot make an argument for why we should vote for Mitt Romney other than that he is not John McCain.”
BigJ, what a balderdash statement for you to start off with. I’ve seen one heck of alot of intelligent, pointed reasons why we should vote for Romney over John McCain. Your problem is you refuse their points. While you are free to do so, it’s pure BS for you to make the opening statement you made to this thread. Perhaps you would wish to revise and extend your remarks.
#14 RickG
Yea, Romney is not or has not been my candidate of choice. Fred did not appear to be very interested,
Rudy believed all the stuff what the pundits told him, I didn’t like him either, Duncan Hunter was good, yet he did not connect at all, a shame!
Tancredo was a one issue candidate. Then there were three! OOOPS! sorry, also RP.
bigjolly
Did I call McCain a traitor?
Frankly I dont care if I endear anybody. The facts speak for themselves and I am not alone in my thoughts and feelings.
Big45,
No need to revise my remarks. Count the arguments for Romney that are positive. Very, very few.
Sorry, no balderdash statements today.
Ummmm…. Mitt has nice hair? Did I win?
Nice try BigJolly. My view of the positive vs negative in favor of Romney is quite different.
You are certainly not alone in your feelings. But one thing is beyond question - John McCain has never, even once, NOT defended the Constitution.
And this does indicate that you think he is a traitor:
Note that you said “has done just the opposite”.
LizBV,
Hey, it didn’t mention McCain. Might be a winner.
McCain-Feingold = suppresses free speech. Is that constitutional, or, the opposite.
I dont even need to say anything.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Here is the process used by WV GOP to select their delegates:
Tuesday 5 February 2008. 18 of West Virginia’s 30 delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected by a roll call vote at the State Presidential Convention.
If a Presidential Candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote on the first roll call, that candidate receives all 18 At-Large National Delegates.
If no candidate receives more than 50 percent on the first roll call vote, a second roll call vote is taken among the three highest vote getters.
If a candidate receives more than 50 percent on the second roll call vote, that candidate receives all 18 At-Large National Delegates.
If no candidate receives more than 50 percent on the second roll call vote, a third roll call vote is taken between the two highest vote getters.
The candidate receiving more than 50 percent in the third roll call vote receives all 18 At-Large National Delegates.
Tuesday 13 May 2008: 9 of West Virginia’s 30 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be elected in the West Virginia Presidential Primary.
9 district delegates (3 delegates from each of the state’s 3 Congressional Districts) are individually listed on the ballot with their presidential preferences indicated. The candidate receiving the most votes in each Congressional District receives that District’s 3 delegates.
In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the West Virginia’s Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position.
I’ll leave it to the legal guys to point out whether or not that law is unconstitutional. It is in effect today, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure that most of it remains in force.
McCain - Kennedy, McCain - Lieberman: Those are not in affect are they? With good luck on our part they never will be.
#35 BJ
I’ll be glad to make the case McCain-Feingold was a full frontal assault on the First Amendment. McCain most certainly wrote a bill, and worked ceaselessly to see it become law, that directly and purposely restricts free political speech by American citizens. Doing so is not only not defending the constitution, it is seeking to undermine the very core of it.
#42: Exactly!
OK Big Jolly, I’ll try again.
I believe Romney, predicated his experience and record as the governor of Massachusetts, has the best credentials to be President. Additionally, his experience in the private sector means that he knows what it means to meet a payroll, and jump through the governmental hoops that hobble most businesses.
It means that he has been in the trenches in a hand-to-hand fight with both sides on education, immigration, health care. I know that doesn’t make him a war hero, but it counts for a lot with me.
SCOTUS already ruled it constitutional.
And I knew you would.
I’m really not as dumb as I look.
The thing is, it is still the law. So, in that regards, people must differ in opinion about it. Hard to make a bulletproof case that McCain went against the Constitution, IMO, when there is so much differing opinion.
And I think you know that I’m in your camp on this one.
Too Bad Dj can’t drive to the fire
Sayy Matt, Why the house is on fire analogy - heck man you haven’t even been married a year yet
SCOTUS can rule any way they want. As an free American I find McCain Feingold abhorrent to the Constitution and I need not obey it. It is a slap in the face of every person who ever served. The real test will be before a jury. I think jury nullification would send a final message.
BigJ, there are times when common sense overrides what lawyers and judges say. Bill Clinton was not convicted of perjury. We all heard him lie under oath and commit perjury. Twist that any way you want, but it is what it is.
Romney vs. McCain:
Romney is an honorable man
Romney was the most conservative Governor of Massachusetts
Romney has the endorsement of James Dobson
Romney has the endorsement of Tom Tancredo
Romney has tacit endorsement of the NRA
Romney is not endorsed by the NY Times, the Gobernator, or Maureen Dowd, or Rudy Giuliani
McCain talks as if he is the only military hero in America, I don’t think so, and most of them do not have need to constantly remind himself of something good he did forty years ago.
#45 hamous
Yes, they have. The SCOTUS also ruled in the past in Dred Scott, Korematsu vs USA and Plessy vs Ferguson in direct violation of the principles and rights enunciated in the U.S. Constitution.
McCain-Feingold may have received the current courts stamp of approval, but I am optimistic it will be gutted one day if we have the right judges on that bench. I look for stare decisis to take a big hit on that one.
I’ve honestly never found myself in a position to break McCain-Feingold (that I am aware of) but you gotta be careful when you say that you need not obey the law. It is STILL the law, until it is repealed or struck down. The fact that you and I both find it unconstitutional means nothing until a sufficiently high court agrees.
BigJ - As for getting people to support Romney without invoking McCain’s name, good luck. Ironically enough, the same people, by and large, seem to be willing to bash others for invoking HRC or Obama’s name when saying why the Republican candidate is better.
Go figure…
#48 - I think we all agree it is abhorrent. Same thing with Roe v Wade. But the SCOTUS is the highest court. All the more reason to make sure Hillbama doesn’t get in the White House.
Bulletproof ? Yes, I think it is bulletproof for anyone who actually embraces the First as it is written and its original context. The speech the Founders held most precious and had foremost in mind, when writing the Bill of Rights, was “political speech”. While we can argue over subsequent applications concerning profanities, freedom of “expression”, etc, there is no doubt what they meant concerning unfettered political speech.
Regarding “when there is so much differing opinion”, it is just so much meaningless BS when evaluating the claims on liberty made by the odious language of McCain-Feingold.
There are some things worth fighting for. The Bill of Rights top the list. As pointed out by our Founding Fathers, those rights do not come from man, but instead, from a Higher Authority. The Bill of Rights merely enumerates them. When God tells me McCain Feingold is NOT abhorrent to the Constitution, then I’ll concede the point.
Wow
I came back to find that texpat and bigs agreed with me. Stop it! Ya’ll may ruin my reputation.
Romney is a much better option than McLib.
Yeah, what Texpat 55 said.
I guess I missed something - McCain-Feingold, as bad as it is, hasn’t prevented me from saying a dang thing. I’m not saying it ain’t bad, because it is. I guess, being the non-contributor of money to political parties that I am, I’m not fully aware of the limitations inherent in this bill. I just don’t spend enough money to be directly affected by it.
And I don’t really think that I’ll put much of my financial resources into the political system. I’d rather improve my own family’s economy first.
Although, I think if a group wants to spend however much money they want to spam the airwaves with “elect so-and-so” ads, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to restrict them, even if it “isn’t fair”.
Justice Antonin Scalia began his Dissent in the 5-4 ruling concerning the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold:
Having written what I have in the previous comments, I cannot agree with the statement that John McCain is a true defender of the US Constitution. If he takes the oath as President of the United States, I can only hope and pray he does no more damage to our liberty.
Thanks Texpat. I hope that puts the common sense of the matter before all those who read those words. Those who would argue against it do so merely for the sake of argument…not based on anything intended by those who framed the Bill of Rights. It is a shame upon our government and a grave insult to those who have fought and died to defend those very rights.
Bigjolly, Romney has executive experience in both the government and private industry. While his past stances on issues may not be conservative, he is now touting conservative principles and seem to be projecting a conservative game plan for the future. While he may be playing the game of political expediency, he is also smart enough to realize that the conservative base needs to be appeased to continue his career as a politician in the Republican party.
That helps frame it up better for me, Texpat. Thanks.
Voting for McCain is like voting for an unknown entity. We are clueless how he will rule as king. Remember he says, he has the answer…… we just sure aren’t what that answer is. So we rush out and vote for McCain, and the next 4 years are a mess. Do you want the republicans blamed or would it be better to let the democrats have the label?
In large part, so would a vote for Romney, Huckabee, HRC, or whoever. Voting for anyone requires a certain level of, well, faith in that person. Or at least high-apple-pie-in-the-sky hopes…
jimb
Suppose you and and ninety-nine like-minded people, in your area, oppose abortion, form a non-profit organization and decide to buy radio ads speaking out against Nick Lampson in the coming election. Each member donates $100 to fund this effort. Your group will not be able to air those ads after September 3, 2008, a full 60 days before the election. This is McCain-Feingold.
Holy Moly–okay, here’s mine (Imagine, it’s a long one–and you/ve seen it before), and I find it interesting that we’re where I was a month ago, when I first got here–welcome.
That’s why Romney is the only candidate with the right experience–successful business man–domestic & international; and Governor–ran a State. I get so tired of Senators saying they have all these qualifications and have none.
The election is a Job interview for the lowest paid but most important CEO position in the world. Would you hire somebody to run a company that had never led anything, never had to meet salary/payroll, never had to govern depts. and people, says they have experience, which means they’re lying, especially when their record is public–with either 3 or 7 years in the position they’re touting and never set policy or got their higher ups to go with any plan they came up with to enhance or make the company better–or for that matter, had never submitted much of anything, didn’t make meetings because he was out trying to get people to make him CEO, six months after he joined the company, and when he was there didn’t contribute anything other than to say, “here”? How about a guy that did some pretty good work running one of the remote offices, but his personal live got him in all kinds of conflict/controversy in the community and in all the papers? Or someone that had been sued numerous times, who’s name always comes up as equal part in shenanigans and iffy deals? How about a guy that’s sat in the cubicle his whole career, and yeah, everybody loves him, but always plays down the middle and only has one strong highlight–he’ll protect the company from being taken over–that’s a good one, but is he CEO material–he hasn’t done anything else except being the moral officer? You’ve got some VP guys that are perfect in their position and that’s all they should be, but has some good & bad performance issues in their personnel file–made money here, lost some there, hired these folks and they weren’t qualified, but he supported them for years, and wants to hire more? Would you put a person in the CEO position just because it would look good to have a Black or Woman CEO, just so the world would think you’re a really hip and progressive company; even though their qualifications were non-existent? How about a guy (or two) that run around the office saying the company needs to stay out of international business, do away with the stock portfolio, buy back all it’s debt– breaking the company’s finances, quit paying the employees with money and gave them beans instead–because that’s how the founder did it when he started the company 232 years ago, and also saying that the company doesn’t need to protect itself with security or safeguards–it’ll be fine just the way it is? How about that guy?
Texpat, correct me if I’m wrong. You wouldn’t be able to air them 30 days before a primary either. What you could do is air something about abortion and mention the candidates position, without saying to vote for or against them. That’s what the 527s had to do.
jimb
I will try to find the story for a link. There was a man who owned a commercial piece of property and had his business there in East Texas. I believe it was in Kilgore. He opposed strongly a local Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives in the 2004 election. Sitting on his property was a 45 foot semi-trailer he used for storage. He decided to pay for a very large banner stating his opinion concerning this candidate and hung it on the side of the trailer in full view of the highway.
The candidate filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission for a violation of McCain-Feingold laws and followed up with the local federal AAG’s office. The candidate claimed the citizen was acting on behalf of his corporation since the property and the trailer belonged to business, in full violation of John McCain’s pet legislation.
The man with the banner was served with a federal summons for violating said laws and faced thousand of dollars in fines, etc. I don’t know what the final resolution was, but he was forced to remove the banner, hire attorneys, etc.
This is McCain-Feingold.
70 - I’ve learned a few new things. I know that “MF” has caused a lot of headache and loophole-searching, but the scenarios you mention are very much free-speech violations.
#69 Big45Iron
I think you’re right, but I don’t believe you can even mention any candidates name after the deadline. I’ll have to check.
But their is a good point in this. If Americans have to carry around a manual to stop and check to see exactly what, when, where and how they can express their political opinion, then it, by any definiton, a violation of our free speech.
I’m all for lots and lots of speech. All political speech that doesn’t qualify as slander or libel. I don’t care if it is mean, nasty, ridiculous or untrue. I do not care if the speaker is a billionare or pauper, a holy man or atheist, group, club, non-profit, public or privately held corporation. We are all grown-ups and can make our own damned decisions and gather our own information.
I do not want or need John McCain, Russ Feingold or any other elitist functionary protecting me from other people’s opinions.
BJ
Why will I vote for John McCain ?
Specifically because he is not John McCain and despite what anyone says, it is the best reason out there.
Stands and cheers for Texpat! I agree with your reasoning too…….. he is not John McCain.
I gotta admit texpat, you got me on this one:
Then:
I thought it was a typo until I see AW cheering you on, so…..??? Huh?
#73 RE: Correction
Oh crap, I mean to say Mitt Romney !
I’ve been writing here today with people talking, phones ringing, etc. Many distractions.
Ah, I thought so but AW confused me. Women!
There is another option. And no, I don’t mean that you should vote for Huck for real. But…..
If you don’t want McCain and you don’t think Romney is the real deal, a vote for Huck is a vote for a brokered convention. Which would be totally cool with me because I can’t stand either one of those two guys.
Texpat #70, this what you’re talking about?
If you think such fretting is silly, says Bradley Smith, consider the case of Bill Liles, who faced an FEC inquiry when Mr. Smith was commissioner. In 2000, a businessman in the little Texas town of Muleshoe, Harvey Bass, painted “Save our nation: Vote Democrat Al Gore for president” on a beat-up box and plunked it on his furniture store’s porch.
Sick of looking at it, Mr. Liles and a friend pasted a “bigger and better” poster praising W on a trailer and parked it across from Mr. Bass’ store. This was too much for local Don Dyer, who complained to the FEC that Mr. Liles’ sign lacked mandated disclosures about who paid for it and whether Mr. Bush signed off on it.
Though the FEC in the end let Mr. Liles and his fellow activists off, the men had, in fact, broken not just disclosure rules but any number of other regulations, too, recalls Mr. Smith. They had clearly spent a bit more than $250 on their makeshift sign, for example, but hadn’t reported it, as required, to the FEC. “Total statutory penalties could have easily exceeded $25,000,” Mr. Smith observes.
How different is Mr. Liles’ praiseworthy activism from that of many political bloggers? The medium differs, but Mr. Liles, like a blogger, is simply voicing his opinion. And this was pre-McCain-Feingold. Even if the FEC starts by regulating only a little bit of Web politics, instead of the extensive oversight it had at first planned - and a laxer regime is likelier, thanks to the fierce outburst from political blogs, right and left, when they discovered their freedom of speech under fire - there’s no guarantee that the commission won’t steadily expand its reach later
#78 Big
I remember that one too, now. But there was another instance in East Texas, after McCain Feingold passage, which was very similar.
Texas Math: Free speech = MF/FU
McCain Feingold information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain-feingold
Is McCain-Feingold constitutional? better question is if it’s democratic.
McCain has a great voting record on abortion but he supports embrionic stem cell research. He thinks Alito was “too conservative”. And those Supreme court nominations are key to overturn Roe v. Wade. Miers would have but from what I’ve heard on KSEV, she would otherwise by a horrendous liberal jugde.
Mitt Romney will appoint conservative, originalist judges. That’s something I’ve never doubted about Romney; and he’s defifintely not my ideal candidate (I was for Hunter who was flawless until he endorsed Huckabee). romney was never pro-choice, he took the position to uphold what the courts say and not to seek to disrupt with new legislation the pro choicers. he did, as Governor, ave a solid pro-life votng record. Probably better than McCain.
McCain opposes the marrieage amendment, Romney supports it. McCain, with no doubt, *WILL* continue ot destroy America wit open borders. He’s pretty much promised us that. Sure he’s “talking” about securing the borders but until he says that straight to Ramos and Compean’s faces, his history of open borders will not have any hope of redemption.
McCain tells conservatives “F['n]-jerks” and “hate[s] the gooks forever”. I don’t even knoew Romney knows how to curse, let alone f-bomb others.
Vote for McCain and naturalizing illegals will pretty much be guaranteed. that will lead drectly to civil war and destroy our sovereignty. Romney has said no to the north american Union, wants to push to make American products more compeative in the global economy, lower taxes, has no desire to tax Americans to combat global warming, desn’t care about McCain-Feingold, and has a wonderful smile. Better than McCain’s.
If abortion is your number one issue, Romney not only matches McCain in terms of how he governed legislation in Massachussets, he’s record probably outscores McCain’s. his public position is better as well, especially when you add embryonic stem cell research. But if America falls, as it will if McCain naturalizes illegals which up to this date includes ignoring the constitution to throw law enforcement into jail, really, abortion would be child’s play.
So has anybody actually said why they support Romney without pointing out how bad McCain is?
Again, I find this ironic from some of the same crowd who will yell at you if you suggest that a valid reason to vote for a Republican is that they’re better than the Democratic alternative…
I am sorry. I am all in favor of deporting illegals as quickly as possible, and certainly not granting them legal status, much less outright citizenship, but your statement is way hyperbolic. I doubt very seriously that America would fall even if every illegal in the country were granted citizenship effective today.
I would hate the heck out of the move, but America would not fall as a result.
Yep. Liz (hair), Fontessa (2nd try), duhmoose (he tried his best) and Kent (in a long, round about way).
I’m pretty sure that The Anchoress made her point.
Thanks, Jolly, I think.
jimb
So has anybody actually said why they support Romney without pointing out how bad McCain is?
“Can anyone point ot why McCain is a good candidate. Just why he’s good?”
Pro military? So is Romney
Pro life? According to totality of votes, yes. Romney, according to his guberatorialship, YES. But even more so. He doesn’t support embryonic stem cell
So what’s left? Now you enter the realm of why McCain is a horrible choice. You yourself mentioned a big one, giving ilegals legal status. So the irony you cite reflects back at you.
“I am sorry. I am all in favor of deporting illegals as quickly as possible, and certainly not granting them legal status, much less outright citizenship, but your statement is way hyperbolic. I doubt very seriously that America would fall even if every illegal in the country were granted citizenship effective today.
I would hate the heck out of the move, but America would not fall as a result.”
Why did we have a civil war? One group was loyal to their respective state and the other group was loyal to the federal government. My statement is hyerbolic only because it has not yet been manifested. To naturalize 20 million people that had made no effort to pay loyalty to this land will result in what? Please, humor me.
Hey, how do you do the gray box thing?
Darren
It’s easy.
Sorry, Darren
(blockquote)text you want to quote(/blockquote)
Use the < and > signs in place of the parentheses.
Like this:
<blockquote>your text here<blockquote> becomes:
Ooops, sorry for the dupe, I see texpat already answered you.
Well, sorta. I’d put an l before the ike but other than that, it looks like you got it.
I asked on the other thread who John Coby is - just curious, BJ ?
Nasty Dem blogger/Dem leader in the Clear Lake area. Matt likes to harass him. He’s one of about three people that left the f word on bigjolly.com over the years.
http://bayareahouston.blogspot.com/
LOl, that’s funny.
As you read more and more of my posts, you’ll see that mispelled words are my trademark. I make dang good points however.
#96
Uh, Darren, we have commenters here whose spelling looks like hieroglyphics. I can’t bear to read them, but perhaps you can. Good Luck.
I know the idea was to give reasons to vote for Romney without mentioning McCain, but I don’t see the point. Given the field we have to choose from, voting for a candidate just because he is not as bad as the other is a valid reason. The field is what it is, we can’t change that. So given that, voting for Romney because you think he is not as bad as McCain, is a perfectly good reason to do so, esp. given all of McCain’s negatives. As far as I can see, voting for McCain would be just like voting for a Dem.