Dear Mike and Rudy:

No, actually I'm leaning Obama. But I'm also a bit of a realist, and I think Clinton still has a better than even shot at the nomination (probably 70/30).

spiff:

HUH!?!?!?!

I wouldn't give either one of them more than a 48% chance right now (that number might change tomorrow).

I'd say they're about 50/50 with a small chance of a dark horse in a hung convention.

70/30 is way to big. In other words. I'll TAKE that bet.

:^{)>

Obama is going to give her a run for her money, but in the end I think Hillary has the organization to pull it out. Obama is finally starting to pick up endorsements and close the gap in the polls, but the compressed schedule makes it harder for him to eke it out, I think.

But I guess we'll see. :-)

If there's no clear winner by the time Texas comes around, I'll be overjoyed. They might have to campaign in my state!

spiff:

One of the problems for Hillary is that she'll need to win 50% +1 of the pledged delegates to carry it off. If the convention is techinally open, she's doomed.

Plurality won't do it.

while Obama and clinton's platforms are largely the same, Clinton still represents the 'old guard' politicians. I see Obama as a much more effective leader and obviously a much better orator. Which, compared to Clinton's shrill cackles, is important.

mee,

Getting done something in our Congress takes 4 years when the elections are set.

The politicians care only about #1, themselves.

hillary man

Thats my thought too...

If McCain is the nominee come November, I'll be voting for everything except president. It's been decades since I didn't cast a presidential vote, but McCain's not worth the energy to remove a hanging chad.

I still don't know what I'm going to do in November, and I'm not just a Republican, I'm a county chairman! I haven't voted for a Democrat in my entire life, but today talk show host Tammy Bruce on Fox expressed what many conservatives are thinking: "If this country is being driven into a wall at 80 miles an hour, it might as well be by a real liberal as opposed to a fake conservative." Here's a link to the video on that, if you're interested.

Cutty:

Coming from a fake liberal like Tammy Bruce, that's saying something.

There's only one teeny weeny possible flaw in that analysis. What if the liberals don't drive the country into a wall at 80 mph?

lisa:

Oh please. I saw somebody else using that as an excuse to SUPPORT McCain, but in any event, it's just an exaggerated fear.

What did the Dems get through the last time they had everything? NAFTA and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Whoopy ding.

If the Dems can survive Bush, DeLay and Lott/Frist/McConnell, ysota can survive Pelosi, Reid and Obama or Clinton.

lisa:

Silly man. He's the damn Senator from ARIZONA, where the Super Bowl was played.

McCain didn't mind scoring comp tickets to championship boxing matches in Las Vegas with his buddy Harry Reid, why the heck wasn't he at the Super Bowl?

No vote for either Hillary or McCain, I will take the consequences. At least I will have a President that I dislike. Bill wants another chance, he made big mistakes and he wants a legacy.

lisa:

Rather than raising your hopes falsely with a prediction like I did last week, I just bought ten shares of Romney at 11 cents each.

If he even survives tomorrow I should be able to double my money.

Deter -

Sen. Chambliss is up for reelection this year.

Exactly and the Senator Chambliss is warned already that he better find a good substitute.

lisa:

You can be a right-winger all you want, but there's no "solace" in my analogy, because whatever else you might say about Allende's rule, it ended contra-constitutionally.

If your party really is as divided as you think, it's actually MUCH better for you to lose in November. It's not just that reconciling those factions is more difficult when governing, but for McCain in particular, every compromise he makes with the Dem Congress will simply exacerbate the fractiousness.

A lot riding yesterday? Just this great run Boston's on. Now we're back to curses of Bambinos for another 86 years. BUT ....

It's a good omen politically. I can never seem to get my elections and my sports teams synched up so they both win in the same year. I might be a Mets fan come October!

You conservatives won't support McCain if he is the GOP candidate, that could mean the we could have a socialist, Obama or a liberal, Hillary in the WH.

That makes no sense.

lisa:

A more apt analogy is the Labor governments in Britain immediately preceding Thatcher. They'd come together grudgingly to eke out an election, then kill each other in government until finally the electorate said "Get out and stay out until you get your act together."

lisa:

Er, ..... the fractiouness is a good part Bush's doing. Nevermind the economic private sector types vs. Evangelical, just split off those hard-core Libertarian Ron Paul types from the GOP coalition in either of the last two elections and your majority is below 50%, even if the Paulites are only 4% of the electorate.

lisa:

LAUGH. I've had this argument in the opposite direction with some of the Paulines.

The answer is No. Ron Paul may be a lunatic who thinks 21st century America can be governed with the ideas and institutions of Colonial America, but he's smart. He understands that you take the basket of issues you care about and weigh it against the baskets of priorities of the two parties and you pick the one that best (or most) overlaps yours. For him, that's the Republicans. Always has been. In the unlikely event that he weights things differently enough that he has more in common with the Dems, I expect he'd simply endorse the Democrat.

But I find that exceedingly unlikely.

I think Paul's going to try again for his congress run if he doesn't go for an independent bid, and endorse the libertarian candidate, if anyone at all.

Oh, and I must throw in that he's not a lunatic, but I'm sure you saw that one coming.

mee:

Look. I said he was smart, that should hold you for now.

:^{)>

Look. I said he was smart, that should hold you for now

Must... defend... ron paul....

AAAAAHHHH... the urge is overwhelming. It's because of the brainwash training at the Paul Army Boot Camp.

He's a religious fanatic.

Romney vs. Obama...that would be a good fight!

I don't think Romney would have a chance, I'm sorry. But the Democrats are turning out in larger numbers than the republicans. And even the republicans seem to be favoring McCain.

If Romney flip-flops after getting the nomination, to appear more moderate again, he could win the election, but risk infuriating his party.

mee

Mitt knows that he will be accountable for every promise and read the latest Polls if you believe in them.

Don't believe that we the Republicans don't know what we are doing, I will go and vote for Romney in few hours.

I can live w/my decision of not voting for McCain in November.

I vote for a President that I can defend and not for "winning".

Like I said, I don't care about Mitt's religion, previous policies and I admire some of economic conservatism. However, you still couldn't pay me to vote for him. And I still don't see him winning the election... probably not even against Hillary.

It would depend on whether Bloomberg entered as a third party candidate.

O.K.:

Fact not in evidence.

McCain-Lieberman -- now there's a ticket.

Lieberman sez the Democrats are lost. He's correct.

That would kill the conservatives... My guess is going to go for Huck for the VP so he doesn't lose the evangelicals. Who'll probably stay home if McCain wins.

Those who stay home from elections diminish their voice and abrogate their duty.

I wouldn't mind seeing McCain taking the moderate base from the Democrat leadership because, after all, the moderates have been abandoned.

This should make you smile.:) Hope you don't mind all these links. I'm just doing a basic search and there's such great stuff that no one has seeded here that I think you and det and Cutty and Scott would really enjoy. :P

How, having a TTT like Lazio and let the men sorry for the lady?

Looks like we're thinking alike, OK.

I don't know... I think Bloomberg, as a conservative type democrat could give McCain a run for his money. It would certainly split the independents.

Ah, we actually do agree. What I meant to say is that if Bloomberg were to enter the race, he would split the moderate vote with McCain, and neither of them would probably win.

So, I too doubt Bloomberg would enter the race upon a McCain nomination.

Lisa,

This, too, might cheer you up a bit.

Looks like Romney's doing pretty good in Calif. according to the Rasmussen reports.

I don't know why you find Romney so attractive as a candidate. His "positions" have changed as much as or more than Clinton's. When I listen to him speaking I never get the impression he really believes what he is saying, or perhaps believes in it. And just because he has been in the business community does not mean he will be good at running economic policy, unless you want it run for one class of people only. We have already had 8 years of that. I just don't see it. Enlighten me?

poleclaw, you can look into my column if you want to learn about Romney. There is also a very good book out called "A Mormon In The White House?" by Hugh Hewitt who has worked in politics for several years and has come out of writing this book on the effect of Romney's religion on his political viability convinced that Romney is a better candidate than even Reagan was. You might want to look into it if you want to know what all the buzz is about.

Briefly, I'll say this. In preparing for the possibility of running for President, Romney read several books on Iraq, Iran, and the middle east and the problems we are having as well as reasons for the war there. He also visited Iraq, Iran, Afgahnistan, and other countries to learn those things he couldn't read in the books. He has more than done his research, and knows as much or more than McCain on the subject. However, he is reticent due to his lack of military service and, I assume, not wanting to seem as if he discounts McCain's obvious long term experience. However, he is more prepared than we realize or would even imagine. I invite you to read his website and to read McCain's and tell me who you think has the better plan - or even a plan at all - for succeeding in Iraq. McCain's claim that Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal was laughable if you know the real Romney and his real history. He isn't good at getting it over on television, but he's the real thing.

His position changes have been exagerrated. He has changed on a few things over the past 14 years in politics. But who hasn't. He has been very upfront about those changes as well. And they are sensible and reasonable and his voting record supports his current stands.

And as for his ability to translate business to running the economy, his business, education, Olympics, and government experience all showed the same thing - he is brilliant and able to take on incredibly complicated challenges - and he has been extremely successful at everything he has been able to do. Show me another candidate who sailed through Harvard business AND law schools, was successful in instigating state-wide health insurance coverage that worked, and has the record for success that Romney has with everything he's done. I have no doubt that he would move this country in the right direction. That he would solve major problems in this country like immigration reform, military increases, etc. He's the only one with a plan!

Which is too bad, actually. If Romney did support a time table for withdrawal, I'd be much more inclined to support him.

I don't care about his policy changes... I do care about decreasing foreign military spending. Which, for all his business success, Romney doesn't seem to realize.

mee,

Have you considered the possibility that, with all of his research, travel, and experience, it is you who is not realizing something? I personally invite you to read his website and see if you learn anything new.

it is you who is not realizing something?

I'm not impressed with someone who has traveled to Iraq and saw only want he wanted and expected to see.

I am impressed by a candidate who gets the most donations from military members... you know people who are actually fighting and not just site-seeing. I think we know the candidate which I am refering to.

mee

Supporting a time table withdraw and telling the month/day/hour/secounds that our enemies are ready like Obama and Hillary did on TV in their last debate?

If are you playing chess do you thell the oponent how to move his Rock to beat you?

When I pick a candidate based on my conscience I don't come up with Romney. Romney may be brilliant but that doesn't mean he has any concept of how the 99.9% of the people in this country he never encounters (like those who ride mass transit every day) feel or the challenges they face day in and day out. We have had 7 years of the son of privilege in the White House and I personally think it has done more damage to the country than any administration in my lifetime. I know there is a difference between Romney and Bush, but there is also one glaring similarity - they both come from privilege and are not in tune with the vast majority of the population. I don't take away from Romney that he made lots of money, but that's not the point, and if he grew up in some of the neighborhoods we don't like to find ourselves in late at night he may have grown up to be the smartest one in the street gang.

On the one hand many on the right speak about this Nanny-State crap referring to the Democrats, yet are willing to put into office a person who is completely out of touch with the vast majority of us and trust he will somehow run the country in a way that will benefit us. I wonder, do you really buy into his tax cut promises? If you do, then how do you plan to pay for the wars? Medical expenses for seniors? And don't just say cut expenses, because we all want to do that.

The simple and hard truth is that since Reagan began cutting taxes the national debt has increased every year (except you know when) and now threatens our ability to keep the promises made to seniors and the rest of us. If you don't need SS, good for you, but many of us have been paying into the fund for 30 years and are now looking at Republican candidates who want to cut benefits so they can maintain tax cuts for the those who don't need social security rather than repaying what has been borrowed from the trust fund (like that name - "trust" fund). That is ripping me off so the wealthiest need not pay for the wars we are fighting as they always have throughout our history. I guess the current generation of wealthy Americans are special? They deserve to have the wars fought and paid for with my Social Security benefits? How can this be justified? How can you support a candidate who thinks this is fair? How can he think it is fair? Because he has absolutely no idea what it is like to be one of the 99% of working Americans who are actually looking to Social Security to help them retire.

If you want to continue along the path of a very divided country elect Mitt Romney because that's what you will get.

Romney has said over and over that he will not cut social security benefits for those who have been paying into it and who are counting on it. Over. and. over. I suggest you listen to him and not just assume that he agrees with everything that Bush says. Yes, he wants to streamline entitlements. Yes, it is 60-70% of our national budget. That is the place that has got to change if we are to relieve our national debt and balance the budget. But he's not planning on using those savings to fund the war. He is planning on making changes for the better - to cut wasteful spending. Maybe he will cut deals with insurance agencies. He doesn't see these things like you and me. He has the education, experience, and skills to see that there are things that can be done that won't affect our bottom line.

I don't think he will divide the country at all. McCain has cut the Rep. party like a knife! He will alienate many more when in power. People may think he's a good in-betweener, but just wait until he's disagreed with. He's gonna bet burly and if you think Bush was bad about caring what the people wanted, wait until McCain is in power.

Mr. polecolaw.

Oh, please. Does Gore and Kerry ring the bell and now the clan of Kennedy on TV endorsing Obama?

Lisaed - @13.13

Don't get too comfortable. Bush's current budget calling for a $200 billion reduction in Medicare benefits is only the very first step.

determined - I'm sorry but I don't get your point.

M-T-P So what exactly is going to get cut? Is he planning to reduce the military? Is he planning to cut health care spending? Welfare is only a small part of the total so that will not do it. Interest alone is approaching $500 billion a year, and you can't cut that. If he wins I will be very interested in exactly how he squeezes blood from a rock in order to get more tax cuts without breaking promises to those who have paid in for so many years. I will believe that Romney has a magic bullet when I see it. Until then he's just like every other politician saying what people want to hear.

The bottom line is that to pass for a "true conservative" today means eliminating as many transfer payments as possible and cutting taxes, even at the expense of promises broken to generations of Americans. It is the undoing of the Great Society we so proudly achieved in the 1960s as we replace tolerance and caring with intolerance and greed. I is truly very sad.

@ determined :

If are you playing chess do you thell the oponent how to move his Rock to beat you?

You're assuming that I care whether or not we "win."

Especially when we're playing a game I don't think we can win, losing troops unnecessarily for a cause I don't believe in, to resolve a problem that I don't think we can fix.

So, in this case, I don't consider withdrawing from the game board a "loss."

Poleclaw 13.15

From Romney's website:

Bring Fiscal Discipline And Strong Management To Washington

Establish Strict Spending Limits. Veto domestic nondefense discretionary appropriations that increase spending by more than inflation minus one percent.

Conduct Stem-To-Stern Review. Re-examine and evaluate all federal spending programs to identify waste, duplication, and inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

Reform Entitlements. In a forthright and bipartisan manner, as President, Governor Romney will work with Congress to address the looming budget crisis caused by increasing entitlement spending.

Institute The Line-Item Veto. Give the President the same power held by most state governors, to veto individual elements of a spending bill and strip out unnecessary spending.

Give President Flexibility. Authorize the Executive Branch to spend up to 25 percent less than Congress appropriates for a given project or agency.

Restore Supermajority Requirement. Impose congressional rule requiring a three-fifths (60%) supermajority to pass any law that would raise taxes.

Not having full access and not having authority to get things figured out, he obviously doesn't have a specific plan for the entitlement reforms. Though he has stressed sevearl times that social security benefits for those who have been paying in and who are relying on it for retirement will not be changed or touched.

Does this answer your question? He also talks about cutting the pork barrel projects, as McCain talks about incessantly, but that will really help very little. More of a plan is needed and entitlements reform (which is more than social security) really does need to be looked at when it is 70% of our national budget.

mee,

Politicians lie because one game is when they are out of the WH and another when they are in.

You missed. my point.

Obama and Hillary are missleading the families of our troops that they are going to get home our men and women in the uniform. At the same time both are giving timetable to our enemies on TV in their debate, all rotten baloney.

This is what I meant in my previous post to you..

I agree with you about Obama and Clinton... and that's why I'm not voting for either one of them.

I don't think I understand your point about time tables then. I support a time table, if it's a short one. I don't want to be in iraq for the next 100 years. I don't want to be there fore the next 100 weeks. I could live with the next 100 days, I think.

How is telling insurgents that we're leaving going to hurt our troops?

If we leave Iraq, our people won't be there to hurt. Beef up boarder security like hell, of course. But, otherwise, I don't see what you're so afraid of.

M-T-P
Thanks for the effort, I really do appreciate it. But I'm still not biting.

Reforming entitlements is code for reducing benefits. We have a health care issue facing us, and that is an issue, but I will bet you that he includes SS as part of any "reform" (read benefit cut). SS is in surplus and expected to stay that way for a long time, and it is funded through payroll deductions, not income taxes. The looming crises is caused by two things: increasing expenses for health care and decreasing tax revenue through tax cuts. Notice how he only mentions one side of the issue - expenses.

Giving the President a line item veto is a power grab, and I don't like it. Why amend the constitution for this guy? Why require a super majority to raise taxes? Why not to cut them, too? How about a referendum to increase any benefits to congressional representatives? Why slant the game in one direction and not the other? I'm already uncomfortable when someone campaigns on changing the rules in his favor rather than working within the rules we have for so long. Creepy.

It's funny, but when I read these words I get a different understanding of what they mean. Here's another example: lets not reduce SS benefits for people who have paid in and rely on it. What does that mean? Does that mean if I forgoe consumption today (unlike most) and save for retirement that I give up my SS even though i have paid in all these years because i may retire with some cash saved up? What does "those who rely on it" mean? Is there some income threshold involved? Rely on it when, now? Within the next 10 years? For a party that always complains about incentives for people to work it sounds like this would be one big incentive not to.

WARNING - RANT
By the way, entitlements are only 70% of the budget if you include payroll deductions and related distributions from SS and Medicare and Medicaid (which has nothing to do with payroll deductions). Income taxes are the minorty in that pool of funds that gets moved around. In fact, SS had a surplus in 2006 (most recent year i did) of about $187 billion that congress immediately borrowed. So it is not "income taxes" that pays for the majority of these programs, it is payroll deductions that pays for SS and Medicare Part A. Parts B & D are funded through general revenue and premiums paid by insureds. The reason this is suddenly a crises is because health care expenses are now about to overtake payroll deductions for Part A and any deficit must be covered from general revenue - i.e. income taxes. This is why the Republicans have gotten on the health care reform bandwagon. Can't raise taxes, better cut health care benefits to seniors (just like Bush is proposing in his current budget). Here are the numbers from the 2006 budget:

Outgoing:
All medical payments including medicare, medicaid, and even discretionary health ($56 B):
$583 billion.
All SS payments:
$544 billion
Total:
$1,127 billion
Incoming:
Payroll deduction, premiums, & interest on medicare fund:
$226 billion
Payroll deductions, taxes on benefits, and interest on SS fund:
$732 billion
Total:
$958 billion
Difference between out and in funded through general revenue (income taxes):
$169 BILLION, OR 10.07% OF INCOME TAXES, which is just under the medicaid portion of health expenses. If you seperate out Medicaid there was no net funding to these programs from income taxes (hey, if the government can use this accounting so can I).

I bet when most people hear that entitlements are 70% of the budget they think it represents 70% of their income taxes. Nope! Closer to 10%. You would think a person as brilliant as Romney would find it easy to make that point clear to people.

bet when most people hear that entitlements are 70% of the budget they think it represents 70% of their income taxes. Nope! Closer to 10%. You would think a person as brilliant as Romney would find it easy to make that point clear to people

Don't have time to respond to everything right now but will say this - I was never under the impression that entitlements were 70% of taxes. He never gave me that impression. It's 70% of national budget. And I'll say one more time, he says he won't tough social security. And since he's the only one who's said that, and since he is the only one with an actual plan for healthcare that makes any sense (see OK's article on how much is a person worth), I tend to beleive he is the best choice and not just avoiding the issue because he knows an answer would kill his campaign as I suspect McCain is feeling.

Also, I am no fiscal expert, but Romney turned around business after business, the Olympics and a state. I believe he can get the job done as he says he will.

Romney isn't the only one. None of the candidates explain any of this. I think they want to keep their sales pitch options open for when they need it. Obama has talked about SS being in trouble. Hillary is the only one who has said it needs to be looked at but she hasn't been calling it bankrupt or in serious trouble like many of the others on both sides.

Looks like Romney's having a tough night - sorry.

*sigh*

Thanks. I'm so bummed.

meg,

I am in my second cup of chamomile tea.

Anyway, hopes only die with the death and three friends died in less than 48 hrs.

Romney will win the next time in 2012.

I agree. Either that or he will have to come in and save the US when whoever is elected messes up so bad that they are impeached...

Tyranny?

do you know what's to live in one?

Maybe you are prisoner of your own thoughts and person.

That you can post Tyranny just alone is freedom.

I'm not calling bush a dictator so much as refereeing to his obscene misuse of power in the last 7 years... his administrations partisan actions (2 of many incidents being the scooter libby incident or the firing of federal lawyers) has damaged the US government.

Obama is the only candidate who can unite? Give me a break. He accepted endorsements from Kennedy and moveon.org. He is not what he professes to be.

Yes, he is adept at deception. We can only hope the sensible moderate base recognizes it in time.

'roads:

Why? So they can elect some quasi-fascist right-winger of the sort you think is "moderate?"

You channeling Eric again?

skitodd

Inmoral that the big talkers and columnist were "pardoned" by Fitzgeral.

Tell me how bad you will be feeling when all the US Attorneys are going to be fired on 1/21/09 by orders of Clinton II like her husband did, she already was quoted.

how about you supply the link for that piece of news determined0a1....

(if its a rush, bill-o or ann i will consider it satire...)

The partisan politics of this administration have been UNMATCHED BY ANY other admin... yes i'm including nixon and yes i'm including bill...

Seems that you haven't listen the way that McCain talk to us conservatives, it's like marching orders, well, it's not like that. I have to respect my President, any denomination. Therefore, I can live that I did not give him my vote.

McCain is a lose cannon. Humble is not found in his dictionary.

lisa,

We know the next time when a candidate anchors his burundongo in a State what means. Thanks Rudy. We are learning.......

Saving our Republic from another local Arkansas that is envidious of Mitt Romney's capabilities and money?

We can cry together! I've been TTT and, get this, actually cooking! What an influence you've had on me. ;)

*sigh*

Well, I guess I've got some research to do on the Dem. side...

Vote for me - I won't cut your ss benefits!
:-)
P

Megan

I tried today to boil the potsticker(s) in chicken broth in the slow cooker. This is a wonderful recipe for having a crowd.

I had 6 demitase cups and two pancakes stuffed with blueberris.

My TTTs are very mild and creative.

And productive... :)

Unfortunately the only ones who get any attention these days are those who mold their positions to the "conservative" agenda during the campaign. Same thing on the other side too. Those who really stand by their convictions regardless of party agenda never make it past the primaries with the one possible exception this year of Obama who can say his positions have not changed in substance. I think this one reason he is gaining momentum.

Time for another party.

Sure polecolaw, McCain is showing himself more with Lieberman.

I'm not sure we disagree. The point I am making is that if McCain ran on his true platform he would never get as far as he has. I think he has had to pander to get here, and that makes a lot of politicians look like - panderers - because they are. But they often have to be if they want party approval and backing because the party platforms have become rigid in some respects. If McCain said today that the tax cuts were wrong in a time of war, for example, the Republican party would do everything in its power to keep him from getting the nomination. So now he is an avid supporter of tax cuts period. Although he may not be appealing to true conservatives, he has molded his platform enough for the party to accept him.

Candidates who stick by their own personal convictions whether or not they conform to the party platform get drowned out. Kucinich, Paul, etc. My point about Obama is that on the key party issues he has not had to change his position to fit right in. He is a real Democrat's Democrat based on the current platforms.

McCain today expressed that we (conservatives) have to stop and and embrace him.

Well, well, Senator, not that fast. I don't belong to your crew or be a subordinate that has to be dismissed and vote for you because we all have to support our Party. No. You should prepared your path and clean after yourself.

We lost the House, We lost the US Senate because politicians like you are very arrogant and thought that we are living in the '90s when we did not check and voted for a straight ticket. No.

If the GOP decides that you are the nominee, good luck to them and their future. Right now I have the bill for the renewal of our membership, the bill is in the round file.

And......don't think that a nice speech tomorrow trying to convince the party that you are the right man for the job is going to make my day.

Do you think that if am I the President can't perform the job? I will have a lot of people that will do the job for me and I just have to write/tell them: "Please handle"

It's time for you to go back and continue your business as a dictator in your office and Arizonans.

You are not getting any medal from me.

McCain with his "CALM DOWN" is not going to force me to hold my nose to the point to have a respiratory arrest and vote for him. I have still one more option.

Just in.

Romney is dropping from the political campaign.

Congratulations to the Dems for their new President. We deserve it.

And I hope that one lesson that the debutants and aspiring to be our President is if they don't have the money or the interest, DON'T INTERFERE with our business.

What Fred Thompson and Giuliani did was not plausuble.

I have to admire the guts of Huckabee and Ron Paul.

I can't be with the decision of the GOP that we have to elect McCain.

That McCain had been conservative and a hawk about spending, well, that's his job.

Governor Romney - your chance is in 2012.

Yep-I think you're right. Even if it means voting AGAINST someone, it would still be a vote.

lisa,

I said before.

I am not for winning as much as principle.

Romney is young and he can make another run and......our own conservatives did not endorse him ON TIME.

Therefore, so be it. I will let McCain to write his own check and not with my help. He will be accountable for every move like Obama or Hillary.