When a particular rag known as The New York Times calls McCain a 'Maverick' while trashing the other candidates, you know something is up...

McCain says he's pro-life but suppots embryonic stem cell research.  So, uh, when does life actually start, John?  It's a baby if it's going to be aborted, but just a clump of cells if it's going to be frozen and ripped apart?

My guy is Romney.  He doesn't have the pro-life record, but I believe his change of heart/mind on the issue.  Especially when looking at his response to the issue that moved his conversion.

Because McCain thinks invading Iraq was a good idea.  What else is there to say?

He actually is preferrable to those who are still running in much the same way that being dropped in the center of the Pacific Ocean and abandoned is preferrable to being shot, drawn-and-quartered or sent to the electric chair.

At least with one of the options, there's a fighting chance . . . albeit a small one.

Boboman42:

So? The NYT always endorses a candidate for both parties. If you read the article it cited the problems with Huckabee and Romney as their main reason why he is best. In fact the article said he was not a moderate (in their definition) and disagreed with him "strongly" several times.

If pro-life is a big issue for you, I'd say Romney is not your guy. You read the things he said in the 90s and in 2002? He even called socons "religious extremists". How does it feel to be compared to the mullahs of Iran or the mujahadeen of Afghanistan by Willard?

FFF: Due to the intel given to the Senate, it was a far better idea than letting a genocidal dictator, who believes that his country is still at war and courts terrorist organizations, have weapons of mass destruction, which we were bound by international law to keep him from having. That being said, there were none. But we must put ourselves in the mind-set of the time. Today it's clear we simply cannot pack up and leave, especially not with the surge working.

~IM_R

I'm going to post this (and much more) later on facebook, but it's definitely something to think about.

No other presidential candidate can claim the following record: Dr. Paul...
 has never voted to raise taxes.
 has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
 has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
 has never voted to raise congressional pay.
 has never taken a government-paid junket.
 has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
 voted against the Patriot Act.
 voted against regulating the Internet.
 voted against the Iraq war.
 does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
 returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
 supported Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford in 1976.
You can't possibly tell me you're a true Reagan consverative and vote for a liberal like McCain.  It's a complete non-sequitor.  I've said it in many places, I'll say it again -- I will vote for Obama before I ever vote for McCain, Romney or Huckabee.   And just so you know, I'm by no means anti-military (I only say this because it's the very first argument I hear every single time).  I'm anti-unconstituional wars.  I would say over 2/3rds of my friends and family are currently in or have served in the military.  I love the military more than anyone else I know.  I've spent years working to get better things for them from our government.  So you can't say I'm anywhere near anti-military.  Isn't it curious to know that Ron Paul has received the most military support?  And not just the wackos who are think their time in Iraq was a death sentence or something like that.  I mean honest to goodness real American patriots who serve in our armed forces and will continue to no matter what, but they would like to see the Constitution followed always, not just in declarations of war.   Another good place to look (and I'll grant you, it does have a very strong Dr. Paul bent---but this doesn't come close to negating the truth of it) is here: http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/.  I wonder if, my some miracle (that the American people stop being blinded by political rhetoric), and Paul were to get the nomination, if Fred Thompson would come back asVP... now that would be a happy ticket.  :D    -- Sarah

^ No other candidate will eliminate our military presence everywhere on the planet, either.

Yeah. Right. Go Ron Paul.

The statement about Fred coming back is accurate to a degree, albeit only if as a renewed candidate to a brokered RNC.

(not a real response)

Because he's 71 and he might not last 4 years...

^HAHAHA!!!^ boboman42 that comment is beyond hilarious, it is fantastic!! (gasps for breath after laughing sooo hard)

For me this election year is probably the most interesting because everyone is fresh in the box! (I love the flying sparks)

1) We can already omit Huckabee, everyone has gone "hush, hush" on him sooo he must be out of money... ; P

2) Romney is widely declared a Mormon and... there for will hit a red-light from anti-religious fanatics. (and possibly counter-thinking Christians...)

3) Paul has nice words... but I am doubt he can live up to them. (if he could I would go for it in a step towards my view... --though he doesn't have it 100% right--)

I really don't think you can get me to say that anyone of these are better then the other... "Honest!"

And McCain... well... I would like you to tell me two things, what do you think he will actually do when he gets into office, and who is he indepted too?

~Lael

I like McCain..always have...I don't agree with him on a few things...but he's a good man.

http://www.xanga.com/uprisingyouth/641199494/cpac-and-beyond.html

new blog: http://nofishleftbehind.com

http://reformedville.reformedblogs.com

Keep up the blogging!  John

 

@CelticCrazy - 

I see no reason that Ron Paul would not live up to his words. He's actually the only candidate that would. He's always been consistent and doesn't say what you want to hear but instead, what he believes to be right.