Tuesday, January 15, 2008

No McCamnesty

Romney Wins Michigan GOP Primary
The former Massachusetts governor defeated John McCain, the Arizona senator who was hoping that independents and Democrats would join Republicans to help him repeat his 2000 triumph here. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, trailed in third, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was waiting for the top three candidates in South Carolina, already campaigning.

McCain wants the democrats to vote for him, Romney was endorsed by Tom Tancredo. Nuff said.

35 comments:

RINO WATCH said...

There is only one Conservative left in this race and Romney endorsed by Tancredo doesn't square up.....

Pierre said...

Ron Paul beats Giuliani and Thompson!!!!!!!!!!!

RON PAUL 2008!!!!

(And I'm a former Tancredo supporter)

Anthony DeLucca said...

In my opinion, Thompson is the most Conservative of the bunch, but I'm afraid that he's got a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere.

I'll pick ANY Republican over McCain. McCain was once an honest man, but he's been corrupted by a life of Politics just like most everyone else. He'll pander to the illegal immigrant simply as a way to garner votes.

If it comes down to it, it'll have to be Romney.

Anonymous said...

"He'll pander to the illegal immigrant simply as a way to garner votes."

Votes from whom? Illegals don't vote.

Anonymous said...

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com . I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment — all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.

Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.

During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.

Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

Please help Fred win in South Carolina:
https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791

Anonymous said...

God himself could endorse a Republicon and he won't win the election this November.

Anonymous said...

Romney is from Michigan. It is like Gordon Smith running for President and not winning the Republican vote in Oregon. Tancrepo is not in the race any longer and last debate I checked immigration wasn't even discussed. It was the economy stupid.

As for Romney sweeping the country, it ain't going to happen. In the end evangelical christian conservatives won't turn out for him. Independents won't turn out for him. As a 1 trick poney, immigration ain't that important of an issue for Romney to win the Republican nomination.

If he does--which I hope he does, it will be fun poking holes in his entire political career. pro-abortion, pro-immigrant, pro-criminal, pro-national healthcare, anti-war, on and on. Oh Danny boy, by November that guy will probably regret he ever decided to run for president. Nuff said.

R Huse said...

John McCain:

The media loves him, always has. Gee? Wonder why? Well, probably because one of two things will happen if he ever won the nomination:

1) He is certifiably crazy, so its a certain bet that he will make one doozy of a post convention slip up so bad that even Dukakis/Carter/Mondale or Gore could beat him in an election. And that's without any dead people voting or any help from China.

or

2) He is so in bed with the left that Republicans would probably stay home and watch "I love Lucy" re-runs rather than vote for him. I mean McCain vs. Any Dem is hardly an election worth getting out of your chair for.

Face it, McCain is so detested within the Republican party that the fact that he gets any traction in his quadrennial quest for the presidency beyond that of an air hockey puck is more a testament to the power of the press to skew, than his abilities as a candidate.

Roger Doger said...

Case in point, during his Michigan primary speeches, immigration wasn't even brought up. On the other hand, his entire focus was the economy and high unemployment rates. Romney promised the moon and stars to residents of Michigan. If the dimballs like Daniel would read a newpaper or listen to a broadcast sometime they would know. It is so sad how uneducated fools are allowed to have a blog. Now all we need is a braindead comment from Ricky Hicky Hill Billy to top it all off.

Exit polls: Economy was top issue for Michigan voters


(CNN) -- The economy was foremost on voters' minds Tuesday as they cast their ballots in the primaries in Michigan -- a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.


Voters in both the Republican and Democratic primaries in Michigan ranked the economy as the top issue.

More than half of Republican voters ranked the economy as the most important issue, exit polls showed.

About 41 percent of those for whom it was the top concern cast their ballots for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, compared with 29 percent for Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Michigan's economy is powered by the automotive industry, which has been struggling.

During the campaign, Romney said he believed he could bring back lost jobs and pledged that in the first 100 days of his presidency, he would convene a summit to rebuild the Big Three automakers.

>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/michigan.issues/

Allen said...

2008 is for the Liberals to lose and they just may well do it, again.

Tough economic times are upon us folks and the voters will see through those who promise free cake and doughnuts.

As for now I see a Romney/Thompson ticket in our future.

Anonymous said...

Roger No blogger-
"It's is so sad how uneducated fools are allowed to have a blog."
If that's true, where's yours?

Judith said...

Romney promised Michigan Repubes cake, doughnuts and phoney christian bullpuke. As for a Romney/Thompson ticket-that is funny.

What is really sad is the lackies running from the Republican party. Thompson, McCain and Paul all look tired and old--really old. There is just no energy there. The "Mac is back" thing with "Gonna Fly Now" playing in the background is more than a bit laughable. Should be "Mac is back, balder, fatter and more tired looking". I am suspicious of the diaper rumor with Thompson though. As for Huckabee, something doesn't sound right: President Huk-a-bee. Sounds like a character from a cartoon.

Romney, there is something about that guy that ain't right. Ever watch him move around looking at people when others are speaking for him. What a creepy looking fella. He actually looks homosexual.

Here is one comment I found from an article that seemed almost spot on:

And Romney...Is there one single thing about him that is not creepy? With so much focus on his Mormonism (probably his least strange trait, at least to my religiously unsophisticated eyes), how could people (even Republican people!) not see the obvious? He is the single weirdest presidential candidate in modern history. The hair, the "smile," the eyes, the five sons, the dog tied to the roof of the car, the u-turn on every single position he's ever taken, his love for Battlefield Earth, all of it!

Ha ha. Well, I guess the Reagan era is truly dead. But you are right, it is the Democrats race to lose. We will see.

Anthony DeLucca said...

Anon 8:47

I wouldn't think that I'd have to explain it to you as if you were a 6 year old...but O.K., here goes:

While Illegal Immigrants may not vote (although some speculate that many of them have registered to vote with false I.D....there's a shocker), the pro Illegal Immigration and Amnesty crowd who are legally in this country DO vote.

Now, that should clear up any confusion. If you're still unable to figure it out...I can break it down by syllable if you like.

Anonymous said...

Read it and weep: there won't be a Repub in the White House next year. You could have a Giuliani/Rice ticket with an endorsement from Jesus Christ and you still aren't going to win. GOP fu*cked themselves, per usual. All your speculating is a waste of time, but it it amuses you then I guess it can be labeled "harmless fun."

Scottiebill said...

Now we all know why Roger Dodger doesn't have a blog spot.

Anthony: You are likely right about Thompson. If McCain does get the nomination from the convention, his famous volatile, sometimes out-of-control temper will do him in. Besides, which, he joined forces with Russ Feingold to come up with the McCain-Feingold Act, which is a direct attack on the First Amendment, and with Teddy Kennedrunk on amnesty for the illegals. Right there is reason enough for him to be beaten by just about anyone else, except for Jimmy Carter's clone, Hucksterbee, or Ron Paul.

To me, McCain is a Mugwump. That term came from the Cleveland - Blaine presidential race in 1876. Mugwumps were Republicans, like McCain is now, who espoused Democrat philosophies. Their mugs were on one side of the fence and their wumps were on the other side. And back then, Republicans called them Assistant Democrats, a term that very well fits guys like McCain, Hucksterbee, and Gordon Smith, to nam just a few.

Anonymous said...

although some speculate that many of them have registered to vote with false I.D....there's a shocker

And that's all it is--speculation. Until you have some evidence you'd best shut keep your mouth shut about it. That is, if you want any credibility.

Robert said...

Hey Repubics: Who are terrorist sympathizers and supporters now?

Indictment says Former Republican congressman aided Islamic group

2:20 PM PST, January 16, 2008

WASHINGTON -- A former three-term member of Congress from Michigan was indicted today in connection with his work for a U.S.-based Islamic relief organization that allegedly supported a prominent Afghan warlord.

Mark Deli Siljander, 57, a Washington lobbyist who served in the House between 1981 and 1987, was charged with money-laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice in a multi-count indictment handed up by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Mo.

Federal officials said Siljander was hired in 2004 by the Islamic American Relief Agency, of Columbia, Mo., after the group had been included on a list of organizations banned from receiving government contracts because of concerns that it supported international terrorism.

Nick said...

i don't think there is going to be a Republican in the White House for years and years. Certainly, the Bush "dynasty" is over. Hopefully we've all gotten over the lame litmus test of "who would you like to have a beer with" when voting for our leaders.

R Huse said...

To assert that it is speculation that illegals vote makes about as much sense as saying there is some speculation that Larry Craig is gay.

When laws that require ID to vote are considered controversial, and fought tooth and nail by one party, I would say there is there can be little question that not only do illegals vote, but we can also be pretty sure for whom they are voting.

Anonymous said...

To assert that it is speculation that illegals vote makes about as much sense as saying there is some speculation that Larry Craig is gay.

When laws that require ID to vote are considered controversial, and fought tooth and nail by one party, I would say there is there can be little question that not only do illegals vote, but we can also be pretty sure for whom they are voting.


Bullshit.

Until you provide real evidence, not bullshit speculation, you deserve to be taken as seriously as a lollipop running for President.

Anthony DeLucca said...

Anon 11:27,

Hey dipshit...that's why I said it was SPECULATION. I never said that any illegal immigrant has ever been found to have voted in any election in the U.S.

Personally, I believe that it has happened, but nobody has caught it yet. If election officials in the past have found votes cast by DEAD people, people who have voted in the same election twice, people from out of state voting in state elections, etc..then it is certainly not beyond reason to think that the possibility of an illegal immigrant, with phony ID could be able to cast a ballot in an election.

By the way, you telling me to keep my mouth shut is a laugh. This is the United States of America after all. I have just as much right to voice my opinion as you have of voicing yours.

So stuff it, Captain Douchebag...I'm not posting here to make YOU all warm and fuzzy inside, I'm posting here because I can.

R Huse said...

Oh well, at least I have a better argument than simply saying the word "Bullshit".

The flaw in your logic is that you think the absence of prosecution of a crime indicates that the crime doesn't occur. This is an especially flawed mode of reasoning given that election law violations are exceedingly rarely prosecuted.

The idea that all these groups are fighting voter ID checks (with hilarious results in Indiana I might add), and fighting for drivers licenses for illegals with no motivation in registering illegals is silly. The idea that advantage of that isn't taken by illegals in terms of voting is sillier still.

The fact that even a cursory glance at the internet will show that some of the most notorious terrorists in this country were registered to vote pretty much proves my point. To think otherwise is to believe someone would be willing to violate the law to enter illegally, be willing to register to vote illegally, be willing to commit acts of terror and yet have this one small area of respect for the law - to not vote illegally.

Come one, no one can possibly be crazy enough to believe that can they?

Anonymous said...

Anthony "FBI/INS Statistical Report" DeLucca established his credentials to be taken as seriously as a lollipop when he tried to fool everyone (including himself) several weeks back with ... shit, what was that thing called? Some fancy schmancy name. Oh yes, I remember! An "FBI/INS Statistical Report."

Anonymous said...

Okay, let's pick a story and stick to it.

On this blog one second all illegal aliens are lazy shiftless ne'r-do-wells who spend every waking moment loitering, molesting our children, running over old ladies, and breaking in to our houses.
Then next second, you guys turn on a dime and suddenly they're all politically savvy activists rallying and organizing their compadres, and preparing to vote in droves!

I can't keep up! Which is it? What will it be tomorrow?

R Huse said...

Turn on a dime? Wait, you mean like for the last several elections when Democrats insisted massive vote fraud was the only reason they lost and now that voter ID laws are being passed Democrats insist "vote fraud? what? where? I am shocked SHOCKED that anyone would think there is vote fraud going on"

Sorry, that was way to easy, but just had to point it out after it was teed up so nicely.

Come on, if illegals weren't voting and voting Democratic, then you guys wouldn't be fighting reasonable ID checks to register, or vote.

Anonymous said...

I haven't heard any complaints of vote fraud lately other than the reliability of electronic voting. I haven't heard of a single incident of illegals voting either, not even from states like Arizona, Texas or California. Was anyone arrested or indicted for voter fraud due to illegals voting in the last election? If you have proof of this, I sure would appreciate a link.

So I guess the illegals, who are now in a basic hiding mode due to current events, are going to show up to vote, exposing themselves not only to sneers and jeers but possible arrest for voter fraud?

Yup, sounds like a plan, Pedro. Let's go stand in line at the voting booth with all the gabachos. There will be a spotlight on us but I've brought our canes and tophats. We can do a song and dance routine and maybe people will give us money.

Anonymous said...

Issue licenses to ALL drivers. If they don't have proof of citizenship or "green card" then issue a license that expires once a year (that way they have to come in once a year, and provide proof of insurance once a year) and issue the license in a different color, that readily identifies them as illegal and therefore, unable to vote. Simple. Efficient. Done.

Anonymous said...

Hey dipshit...that's why I said it was SPECULATION. I never said that any illegal immigrant has ever been found to have voted in any election in the U.S.

Yet you want public policy to be changed because you assume your speculation to be true.

Until you have some evidence it's irrelevant.

And, since you're so concerned about vote fraud, how come not a peep from the right about people illegally struck from the voting rolls?

I know, you only care about the integrity of the voting process when it might help your side.

R Huse said...

"And, since you're so concerned about vote fraud, how come not a peep from the right about people illegally struck from the voting rolls?

People have been illegally struck from the voting roles? Who exactly? Can we have names of those convicted of this or is this all speculation?

"Yet you want public policy to be changed because you assume your speculation to be true.

Until you have some evidence it's irrelevant."

Now that is pure silliness. Public policy is probably more often than not based upon the speculation that something might happen, and thus preventative, rather than because something has happened.

This is why we tend to put in place severe security restrictions around nuclear power plants, not because there is a rash of them being taken over, but because it makes sense that if they weren't there they might be.

The only irrelevant thing here is the concept that issuing drivers licenses to illegals is done so in the interest of public safety. Now that is an argument that is truly irrelevant, given the outrage most citizens have to the idea. People know what's this is about and safety aint it.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for any kind of proof, documentation, links, ANY evidence AT ALL of illegals voting. ANYONE? HUSE? Surely, with such a looming threat there must be indications, whisperings, conspiracys... Any evidence at all people? Any documented incidents? Leaked memos. Anything? Yoo hoo!........

R Huse said...

Sure, just do any cursory check on the internet, you will find ample incidences of groups such as ACORN and others constantly running fairs to register illegals to vote. You will also find numerous instances, including the now infamous incident in the Indiana case now before the Supreme court where the plaintiff, the poster child for you "what me worry" types was caught red handed being illegally registered. Since this is the stage at which the crime is prosecuted, not at the voting booth, that's where you need to be looking.

Also, it would be helpful if you would drop this reasoning, which is exceedingly flawed, that if a crime isn't ongoing, attempts at its prevention are not worthwhile. Going by this logic, all security at nuclear plants should be immediately dropped, civilians should be allowed to carry bazookas, and regulation of mail order sales of small pox virus should cease.

After all, is there any evidence, of anyone convicted of taking over a Nuke plant? Mowing down school children with a bazooka? Or launching bio war with small pox they got through the mail?

Look, the point of the matter is, no one has a lot of interest in granting drivers licenses to illegals simply so the Democrats can get another voting block. Even Ted finally recognized this.

Nice try though.

Anonymous said...

People have been illegally struck from the voting roles? Who exactly? Can we have names of those convicted of this or is this all speculation?

In Florida in 2000 there was a widespread effort to remove people from the voting rolls, even those whose only offense was having the same name as a convicted felon.

lso, it would be helpful if you would drop this reasoning, which is exceedingly flawed, that if a crime isn't ongoing, attempts at its prevention are not worthwhile.

Hmmm, in my recollection, it's conservatives who used to have the mantra "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

I agree, there are some crimes that it's useful to expend resources to prevent in spite of the fact that it's not an ongoing problem.

At the same time, you have to look at the costs vs. the benefits. If it's a crime with little perceived probability and no loss of life incurred, is it really worth using large amounts of resources to prevent it?

Anonymous said...

I have already done the "cursory google check" and found less than little evidence of any illegal aliens caught being organized to vote or even voting as individuals. Sorry, nice try though.

Anonymous said...

to Anthony Delucca:
Wasn't there a law passed, the McCain-Feingold-Thompson assault, on the people that the USSupremes failed to strike down that gives us a lot of grief? What about Fred Thompson's role in McCain's previous presidential run? Although I enjoy some of the surprises that come out of Fred's mouth, I think he's a McCain supporter. When Fred and Huck finally drop out of this race after having finished their dirty work of splitting the votes, I'm thinking they're going to both throw their support behind McCain. I'm hoping like crazy that all THREE of these guys soon disappear into the deep pit of nothing-ness and that the voters wise up to the fact that SOME Republicans can, and do, play dirty and slimy politics. I DO NOT want to have Huck-Christian-Socialist, or Maverick-can't-know-where-I-stand, or Fred-what's-he-doing put forth as our nominee. Fred never intended to be the nominee, IMO.

Anonymous said...

to pierre said:
Ron Paul 2008? You're kidding. Right? If you're serious, then I would suggest that you round-file your ballot 'cause you're not yet ready to make adult decisions. Ron Paul is going exactly nowhere. He's a whole lot of talk, but he wouldn't be able to bring to fruition 99% of what he babbles. Congress would be too busy laughing him right out of the district. About the ONLY thing he would be able to influence is removing our military from Iraq.. which is precisely the reason Republicans DO NOT want him as president. Recall: The 9/11 murderers were just thugs? All we have to do is sit down and talk, and everybody will agree to get along? Most Americas want this WOT fought without left-wing-fringe undermining our guys and gals -driving up our cost in lives and cash. Most Americans want us to KICK BUTT and make their nazi agression too costly for them to continue. For this reason, alone, RP is the WRONG leader for America. Pierre, Jimmy Carter is smart, but he was a TERRIBLE president. RP is smart, but he's NOT presidential material and he's NOT, EVER, going to be president.