January 5, 2008
REP. TOM TANCREDO AND SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Manchester, NH – Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be joined by national and local leaders at a press conference to emphasize the need to end illegal immigration. They will discuss their own personal perspectives and challenges with illegal immigration and contrast Governor Romney’s record and proposals to end illegal immigration with that of other candidates.
Where: Romney for President New Hampshire Headquarters
359 Elm Street
Manchester, NH
When: Saturday, January 5
1:30 p.m.
Who: Rep. Tom Tancredo
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Rockingham County Sheriff Dan Linehan
Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams
Bay Buchanan
Demos Chrissof
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42008.com/2008/01/05/immigration-press-conferance/trackback/
GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Recent Posts
Biographies
Categories
Archives
Featured Archives
Race 4 2008 Interviews
Search
Blogroll
Newswire
Facebook
Site Syndication
RightRoots
Main
Meta Data
Design and Hosting By
January 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Time to rally the forces that defeated the immigration bill this summer to put Romney over the top in New Hampshire!
January 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Hopefully Sheriff Joe will see fit to arrest Willard on the spot for hiring illegal immigrants on his own properties!
January 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
How long until Huckabee rolls out his buddy Jim Gilchrist to bolster his immigration plan?
http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=5482
I’d like to see Chuck Norris take this guy out
January 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Romney’s getting desperate! Dispatching Tancredo? He wouldn’t be doing this if he wasn’t really worried about losing on Tuesday.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
All of the Romboosters that see this are probably thinking “Oh Boy! Tancredo! That will get McCain!”
It’s just not going to happen. For months and months we’ve heard “To know Romney is to love him”. Well Iowa voters just proved that that is bullshit. 75 % of Iowan caucus goers, each one of them no doubt subjected to dozens of ads decided they didn’t want the man to be president. People DO know Romney now. And they don’t like what he is selling. J-Mac beats him on Tuesday.
And then Romney is over.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Adam,
The only people that didn’t love Romney in Iowa were the Evangelicals Huck turned out.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Jason,
If people LOVED Romney then those millions ought to have been able to get new voters out. Huck did it. Obama did it. Romney should have been able to do it too, considering the resources spent.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
And by the way, how well did the immigration card work out for Romney on Thursday Night? Tancredo should go home and wallow in his misery, and kick himself for selling his soul.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Adam,
Whatever, keep spinning. Huck won, and it was a good night for him, thanks to the pastoral network. I know you hatred Romney, but truthfully, I never really cared.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Tanc, please provide us with an explanation of Mitt’s (r)evolution on this issue that could potentially account for all of Mitt’s changing positions:
In 2006, Romney said “those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.”
January 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Jason,
It’s not spin. It’s irrefutable. Obama got tens of thousands of new supporters. Huckabee got tens of thousands of new supporters. One would think that for tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of pandering and spending time in Flyover Country - Mitt would have been able to do something like that.
I guess it’s a good thing for me then that I never sought your approval for disliking Dear Leader.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
MarkG,
They don’t think they need to. They just think they need to spend oodles of cash making ads saying that McCain was trying to give the illegals free social security.
Well they can go ahead and think it will work. But they’ve tried this before and where has it gotten them? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am
MarkG - That is the same position that Romney has now. That illegals should follow the law and begin a path to citizenship (the current laws on the book that all legal immigrants follow). These would include getting legal status through getting appropriate green cards, renewing expired visas, and going back to their home country and applying for citizenship.
Granted there have been some changes in tone and position (as we have seen with every other candidate). What is absolutely amazing, though, is how the Romnots parse every word that Mitt says, combing his statements for any hint of inconsistency. They would not do this for any other candidate.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:34 am
McCain will NEVER get my vote with his stance on illegal immigration. Living 20 miles from the border in San Diego county, I see first hand, on my own property, the devastation that’s caused in this country because of it. Rapes of kids at early morning bus stops; death of my friend from a vanload of 25 illegals speeding without headlights at night, crossing double yellow lines; my property stollen, including bikes right out from under my kids (”I need your bike amigo….”), a knife stuck in my dog when barking at the illegal immigrant tresspassers…. And McCain wants these people to have amnesty??? Hell no. I’ll take Romney’s immigration solution. YES to legal immigration, NO TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. GET LOST MCCAIN - YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE!!!
January 5th, 2008 at 10:35 am
After outspending Huckabee by an outrageous margin, your man Mitt found that the voters of Iowa, in the end, could not be bought. Nor could they be fooled by a man who oozes insincerity from every pore.
After all the wasted money, and after all the weeks of relentless Huckabee bashing by people like you, your man doesn’t simply get beaten, he gets hammered, crushed. It was like a fight between the schoolyard bully and a 98 pound weakling that ends with the bully suffering a hellacious beat down. Of course the flaw in that analogy is that it is really Romney who is the weakling—a moral weakling, that is. After 7 years of Bush, Americans are used to being lied to and taken for fools. But it seems that they can’t stomach smarmy insincerity; given that this is the stock in trade of the Romney candidacy, therein lies the problem for the plastic man from Massachusetts.
You Romney folks are right about at least one thing, however. Huckabee is indeed a flawed candidate; if nominated it’s hard for me to believe that he has a chance in hell of winning the general election. Most Americans are far too open minded for the over-the-top super-Christianity that seemed to play well with the self-styled moralists in Iowa. But in your frantic search for Huckabee’s flaws as a candidate, the thing that you folks continue to ignore is Romney’s obvious flaws as a human. The ethical and moral lapses, combined with his peculiar penchant for just plain lying, all the while portraying himself as the wholesome candidate of truth, justice and the American way…well in the end even the Republicans who continue to deny themselves the truth about the Bush Administration could not be fooled by Mitt.
So now it’s on to New Hampshire where Mitt is already backpedaling furiously in an attempt to lower expectations. What’s clear, however, is that if the people of New Hampshire see Romney as clearly as Iowans did, all your frantic attempts to discredit Huckabee and McCain will be fruitless. It’s about Mitt now; people don’t trust him, they don’t believe him, they don’t like him. No amount of Huckabee and McCain bashing by the frantic legions of Romney supporters will obscure these simple facts…Mitt’s moral and ethical dwarfism will, in the end, doom him. Evidence, it seems, that primary voters are not as stupid as you and Mitt take them for. The system works!
Have a nice day
Phil
January 5th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Kim,
But Romney thought McCain’s bill was “a good idea”. I didn’t like the bill either but Romney is not the great defender of the rule of law on immigration that he now piously claims to be.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Oh….and MarkG (comment #2)…..make sure you check the immigration status of all the Mcdonald’s employees next time you go get your BigMac, hypocrite….
January 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
GO PHIL!
January 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Thanks Adam….I’ll take my chances with Mitt’s plan, over McCain’s history. I believe Mitt will do what he says. And I believe McCain will do what he’s done in the past. Obviously Tancredo, who’s big issue is immigration, believes the same.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Well that’s your call Kim. I believe I won’t crash into a bus on my way to the post office today but I wear my seat belt and look ahead just in case.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Just in case anyone missed it before - here’s chapter and verse of McCain VOTING TO GIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS - May 18, 2006
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
Reference: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S54787
Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP3985:
Vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00130
So McCain - do you care to give us a little ’straight talk’ on this here vote? Or do you know what’s best for us given your many many years in Washington fixing things?
January 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Phil, Phil, Phil….. you know darn well that the ONLY reason Huck won Iowa was because of religious bigotry and his subtle whisper campaign, as well as his out and out “Pastor Push” from the pulpit. Makes me laugh when you talk about ’smarmy insincerity…” that would be your man the Huckaboob. The TRUE “Christian Candidate” talking about choking someone, knocking in their teeth, and suggesting they go commit suicide in a bathtub. This is a man you’re proud of????? Personally, I think it’s despicable. But let’s call it what it is here: Your man won on Religious Bigotry; plain and simple. Not issues.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:43 am
#16 Surely you don’t think the origional draft of the McCain bill was the same as the one he tried to slide past us. And an off the cuff comment is hardly an endorsement.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:43 am
You bet it’s my call Adam…. and millions like me. Nobody out here wants McCain. He’s a proven amnesty pusher. Pass.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Hunter will drop out during the debate and support Romney to defeat McCain. Can you imagine a anti-illigal immigration rally for Romney with hunter and tancredo? That would seal the deal.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Steve #13: Mitt said illegal aliens who are here, paying taxes, and not taking government benefits should now apply for citizenship AS IF they were in their home countries. The “as if” says that they are not in their home countries, but here instead.
This is exactly the general idea promoted in the latest immigration reform bill. It was decried as “amnesty.” Mitt Romney, therefore, supports amnesty.
Thank you for helping us see Mitt’s real, true position on the issue.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
McCain is on the record VOTING TO GIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS - May 18, 2006
McCain can try to spin this however he wants and send his surrogates out there to lie and twist and distort the record, but it is there and plain for all to see.
Listening to McCain defend his position is laughable.
Consider a kid who steals a candy bar from the convenience store while out running shopping errands with his parents. Once he gets home he gets busted by his parents who assert that he stole it from the convenience store - the kid’s defense ‘No, I didn’t steal this from Wal-Mart and for you to accuse me of doing so is a dispicable tactic - I’m a kid afterall and you need not question my actions.” Really…
My post w/the links to this vote is awaiting moderation and should show up shortly if any McCain supporters want to have a substantive discussion on the issues.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Shame on you so called “christians” who came out and voted for Mike Huckabee - I am a Christian and am greatly offended that you are using religion to determine the next leader of our country - You and Mike Huckabee are the ones who give Christianity a bad name and make people want to remove religion from the public forum. - and if you have any doubt - God knows hippocracy and sees what you are doing and he does not consider it “his work” .”his work” is love and caring for all of his children and his work involves setting an example for others to see and follow- an example of honesty, respect and goodness. Your actions speak of hate and deceit and arrogance. I hope God puts our prayers for Mitt Romney at the top of his listening list today. After all- this election is in HIS hands and thankfully not in yours or Mike Huckabee’s.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Kim #17: I don’t care if the McD workers are here legally or not. And Mitt equally did not care if his gardeners were here legally or not — the main thing was for them to do a good job at a good price. He kept them working for a decade because he was pleased with their performance If he had been concerned with illegal immigration, he could have demanded that his lawn-care contractor contractually agree to vet his employees to make sure no illegals were employed.
While governor of MA, Mitt also didn’t care that the government that he was apparently too incompetent to lead employed hundreds of illegal immigrants using made-up or stolen SocSec numbers.
Mitt has only been concerned with illegal immigration for about 18 months or less.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am
FCOH,
Not interested. Romney thought McCain’s bill was a “good idea”. Then when the public turned against it, McCain stood on principle and Romney did what he always does - he flip-flopped.
No Romney supporter can ever effectively argue that Romney championed the cause of getting tough on illegal immigration before Romney realized it was politically expedient to do so.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Go Kim go. Thanks for telling it like it is. We all know the truth. I will vote for any Republican candidate but Huckabee. He surged on appealing to religious identity and bigotry and even Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above him on many conservative issues. Heck, Clinton is to the right of Huckabee on important issues. And when you make Clinton look good….? If Huckabee is the Republican nominee in the end, the Democrat will get my vote. Huckabee is a disaster waiting to happen.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Adam - thanks for proving my point. name calling and distorting records is a winning strategy - much better than discussing the issues.
And for the record, Massachusettes is the only state in the nation where the Governor is invited to write immigration laws, debate the merits of those laws, and VOTE on those laws. You are right, Mitt Romney has a clear voting record in Washington on this topic.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am
32 - I meant ‘national immigration laws’ in that post
January 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
FCOH,
What are you talking about? What did you win? To win an election you have to convince people. You and your guy haven’t done that.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I want to know where Romney was on the issue before the McCain bill was being debated in the senate? Where was Romney a leader on securing the border? What was Romney’s claim to being a hard-liner on the issue?
January 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Adam “What are you talking about?”
I’m talking about McCain’s RECORD of supporting social security benefits for illegal immigrants. (I’ll break this up in 2 posts to avoid post moderation)
Just in case anyone missed it before - here’s chapter and verse of McCain VOTING TO GIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS - May 18, 2006
McCain voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
Reference: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S54787
Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP3985:
January 5th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Well, that’s a resounding “chirp, chirp” to your question #34, Adam.
Slick Willard would probably say that, as a fellow Bay-Stater, he supported the non-JMac side of McCain/Kennedy. But now he’s paying flattering homage to the other MA senator by being against the whole thing after being for it.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:21 am
#25 In that same timeframe Mitt was emphasizing that there would be ‘no special pathway’ and that they had to wait in line like everyone else applying. So quit your lieing and distorting, or familiarize yourself with facts. When one presents statements out of context in order to distort anothers positions, that is lieing in my Christian religion. , obviously not yours.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I’m sick and tired of Romney going after every other candidate with his mountains of cash as if he is so authoritative on any given subject, but in reality - he just sucks. He doesn’t have deep rooted convictions on anything at all. He’s like play-doh.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
New NH poll from Rasmussen
McCain 31
Romney 26
Paul(!) 14
Huck 11
Giuliani 8
Thompson 5
McCain leads by 3.2 in the RCP average.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Adam “What are you talking about?�
I’m talking about McCain’s RECORD of supporting social security benefits for illegal immigrants. (I’ll break this up in 2 posts to avoid post moderation)
Just in case anyone missed it before - here’s chapter and verse of McCain VOTING TO GIVE ILLEGAL ALIENS SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS - May 18, 2006
McCain voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
January 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
McCain voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
Reference: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S54787
January 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I don’t have time to parse through all of that anyway. Look, bills are debated in congress. Amendments are added to them. Some are voted in strategic ways to diffuse support for other amendments.
All I know is that YOUR guy said that McCain’s bill was a good idea. Romney was never out front talking about how we needed to get tough on illegal immigration until after the McCain bill was debated, the public reacted and Romney thought he could ride the momentum of the issue to victory and bash McCain.
My primary point isn’t to defend the McCain position on this. I thought he was too liberal on immigration. But he stood on principle for a long time until he realized that the support wasn’t there. It didn’t do McCain any good to go against the grain of the GOP. Would Romney ever do that? On ANY ISSUE EVER?
Romney is a pandering opportunist with no core.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
#36 ILGuy: Ah, so you’d prefer we remember Mitt’s double-speak rather than deciding for him which side of the issue he prefers? You think we should buy a pig in a poke and then just wait and see what we actually get?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Markg and Adam - “dumb & dumber”
Give it a rest - Huck & McCain have been flipping on imagration cause they know they can’t win with their real positions pon imagration. Count the Delagates on Weds, and see who has the most.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Adam -
By the way “MY GOOD FRIEND”, McCains imagration ideas are BS. He is the one flip flopping and is the “PANDERING OPPORTUNIST WITH NO CORE”
January 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Adam - (#43)
Typical ‘inside baseball’ answer that America is tired of. Get stuff done, or get out of the way.
Rewarding a career Washington insider who has time after time been the lap dog of the liberal agenda is not in my view the best path forward for the GOP.
Sure, McCain’s got a temper and was a POW, but these two items a POTUS do not make.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Kim, (14) Romney needs to get you at one of those press conferences or make a commercial.
I live in Northern California and I had NO IDEA it was that bad.
Illegal immigration is a big thing for me, but what you shared just solidified my conviction.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Adam,
Your claims about Romney are so far-fetched they’re not believable.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Shawnie,
If they weren’t believable, your guy would be winning. Romney’s problem is that too man people think like me.
The Truth,
Way to go. Ad hominem attacks make you look like the smartest guy in the room. Keep it up!
January 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Adam -
And your attacks are???????????????????????????????
January 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“And your attacks are???????????????????????????????”
Not on you, but rather on a politician. Don’t misunderstand. I can take being called dumb from people that so badly underestimated the public’s ability to recognize a con artist, but that you take criticism of Romney so personally might leave others scratching their heads as to why.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I love it. Huckabee has a populr actor in tow who plays a sheriff on TV (Walker - Texas Ranger), but Romney is backed by the real toughest sheriff in America.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
#50
“If they weren’t believable, your guy would be winning. Romney’s problem is that too man people think like me.”
Sounds like a narcissistic cause and effect complex.
Second in the first evangelical state isn’t winning, but it isn’t losing either. And he didn’t come in second because people believe your silly comments.
Romney is down by only five delegates at this point. Wyoming may make that up for him.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Whoops ADAM,
Huck got 17 delegates out of Iowa, Romney 12. Wyoming just gave Romney 4 more. Huck zero. Now Romney is down by one delegate and the day is not over. How valid will your comments be, ADAM, when Romney has more delegates than Huck? That is what wins the National Convention - number of delegates. Apparently most people DON’T think like you. Thank Heavens.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Adam -
I find it almost funny that you talk about “the public’s ability to recognize a con artist” when you are backing a man that is almost identical to Bill Clinton. Why is it that Huck is not using God talk in NH? Con-artist???
January 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Shawnie,
I’m sure Romney is “pleased as punch”. But WY doesn’t mean squat. I hope you aren’t seriously thinking about great boost Romney is going to get after picking up a few delegates in Mormonland in a contest where the regular folks don’t get a say.
I am glad that you are coming around the idea that delegates matter though. Rudy supporters have been saying that for months.
Oh - and second IS LOSING. Especially millions of dollars later when the RomSquad told everyone for months that the IA+NH wins would propel the guy to victory.
The Truth,
I’m not a Huckabee guy.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Latest delegate tally: Romney 22, Huck 20 — Romney is now in the lead for delegates. He is in first place nationally.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
McCain is touting the endorsement by Joe Lieberman all over the place…in case you all forgot, Joe was the VP nominee with Gore in 2000. Joe is a liberal (a moderate at best) who’s only redeeming quality (in a conservative’s eyes) is his support of the troop surge in Iraq. McCain lost in SC in 2000 cause he’s a liberal, only place he won was NH and that was because of independants.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Adam
Sounds like you’ve got a little “Mormon” problem.
Who are you supporting?
McCain - 3 delegates
Thompson - 3
and even Paul with 2 is beating Giuliani
I agree second is lossing but unless you are a Huck fan your Candidate is an even bigger losser. WY does mean “squat” it has more delagates than NH.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
To add to jaaron (if I may)
Think of the problems a McCain/Lieberman ticket would cause the Republican party. And don’t think that isn’t McCains plan/
January 5th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The Truth,
I am a Giuliani guy and McCain is my #2.
A Mormon problem? I just pointed out that WY is Mormonland - and it is, compared with the number of Mormons nationally. Sounds like you have a “persecution” problem.
Wyoming doesn’t mean “squat” but touting Romney’s win in the state isn’t a story. Giuliani is going to win New York’s delegates. So what? WY would be a story if regular people got to go out and vote.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Wyoming has 14 delegates. Nothing to sneeze at AND has twice as many Catholics as Mormons and has more Evangelicals than LDS Christians (Mormons). LDS Christians are not the majority religion wise. So another nonsensical comment. Oh and with all you sneers about Romney. How many delegates does your favorite have?
January 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The furious attacks against Romney are generally made by furious people who know he’s a very dangerous candidate.
Frankly, only Romney and Thompson carry the conservative banner to its fullest extent. Fred Thompson, while not out, has certainly not helped his campaign with his less than stellar showing. That said, he’s a very strong conservative and that won votes. Romney is an energetic leader with a history of competence. The fact of the matter is that Romney finished with pretty much exactly what the polls said he would finish with. A lower evangelical turnout or a more informed electorate (come on, the Iowans said illegal immigration was the most important issue to them and then went on to say that they saw Huckabee as best on the issue–Huck has some redeeming traits, but that’s not one of them).
As for Wyoming being Mormon land, it’s population is 12.5% Mormon. If Huckabee faced a state with a 12.5% Evangelical population, he’d be absolutely toast because the man IS NOT a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. The man even said in an interview that the Republican Party was just a body through which to gain office for crying out loud.
Giuliani? Not great, but fine. McCain? Not going there.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
http://www.pollster.com/08-NY-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Giuliani clearly has New York now. But his trend is markedly downward. Giuliani also used to be first nationally. Look at Huck’s trend….we’ve seen that before.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
“Not interested. Romney thought McCain’s bill was a “good ideaâ€?. Then when the public turned against it, McCain stood on principle and Romney did what he always does - he flip-flopped.”
No, you’re just a dishonest crook who won’t post Romney’s entire opinion of the bill.
Romney said that he saw elements that he liked out of several immigration bills. In the sentence you (did not) quote, Romney was referring to McCain’s bill, George Bush’s proposals, and a competing bill by Senator Cornyn (TX) (a bill illegal immigrant opponents could likely support). He specifically said that he did not endorse any one bill and that he was still weighing the bills and had not reached any conclusions just yet.
So there you have it: blantant dishonesty from another Romney hater. Who would have thought? The man says he endorses nothing and is still formulating his methodology and you accuse him of flip-flopping. Complete lack of character on your part. Grwoing up might be a good option.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Adam
I don’t have a “persecutionâ€? problem, I just don’t like people discounting a candidate based on mis-information and predjudic.
especially when it is based on something that should have no place in an election. If you are a Giuliani guy you should be able to apreciate that because if Huck goes into Floroida with a head of steam your guy will get all kinds of BS.
I will tell you this though, there are only three candidates I will vote for: Romney, Giuliani or Thompson. The others running for the Rep Nomination are really liberals.
And lastly, WY does mean 12-14 delegates so it does mean squat. But it doesn’t mean anything to the media
January 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
And McCain is touting the Lieberman endorsement because he’s going after independents. He doesn’t even care about the Republican vote, as he knows he can win without them. All he has to do is defeant Romney, and John Kerry’s first-pick for a Vice Presidential candidate will have the Republican nomination.
Romney is the only viable conservative left in this race unless Thompson somehow revives himself.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Awfully convenient, CMartel2.
He also called the McCain approach “very different than amnesty” and now in typical Romney fashion is attempting (probably to no avail) to bash McCain over the head with it.
I’m still waiting for Romney supporters to give me a good answer to (35).
I want to know where Romney was on the issue before the McCain bill was being debated in the senate. Where was Romney a leader on securing the border? What was Romney’s claim to being a hard-liner on the issue?
The Truth,
“I don’t have a “persecutionâ€? problem, I just don’t like people discounting a candidate based on mis-information and predjudic.
especially when it is based on something that should have no place in an election”
Really? Because it sounds like you have a persecution problem. What misinformation? What prejudice? It was asserted that WY population is 12.5 percent Mormon and I’ll assume for the sake of argument that the number is correct. I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say that most of that Mormon population is Republican, probably largely so. So of the Republicans in WY, perhaps 20 percent are Mormon. I don’t think I need to do integral calculus to show that when you start off with 20 percent in the tank for you, it can bias the results. That’s the sole reason I called WY “Mormonland” and was dismissive of Shawnie’s claims that the results were meaningful.
And I’m no more “prejudiced’ for pointing this out than Romney supporters are for saying that the Evangelicals tilted the state of Iowa to Huckabee.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Adam. Some facts: There are about 13 million Mo’s in the world. About 5.5 million Mo’s in the US. Averages are probably that 50% are active LDS. Of those 2.5 to 3 million, how many are children and of non-voting age??? Yeah…. Mormons reproduce. So, I’d say, of voting age, there are about a million Mo’s that can vote. Mo’s are heavy into the constitution; there are probably a good chunk voting for Ron Pual. And there are a good chunk who are Dems - gonna vote Obama or HIll. So….Adam my friend, do a little math homework. You probably have about 1 million Mormons voters spread out between two parties, and several candidates. The only place that the Mormon Card is going to work for your analysis would be Utah. Your arrogance and idiocy in calling Wyoming “Mormonland” is also laughable…. I’m sure Wyomingans would back me on this one. Me thinkest thou art a bit paranoid…..
January 5th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Adam,
You are the one with the persecution problem. That is your chief dynamic. Often wagging your finger and writing contentious prose. Pot stirring with crazy statements appears to be a pastime of yours.
The problem with your stats are there are more Evangelicals than Mormons, and twice as many Catholics. Mormons are not 100% Republican and do not all vote for the same candidate. Most of my friends don’t pay a lot of attention to the primaries. Utah’s LDS Christian governor endorsed McCain. One of my dearest friends is voting Thompson… You’re making blanket assumptions that don’t hold water.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
And Shawnie….yes, the illegal immigration stuff down here is horrible…. By the time illegals get to your neck of the woods, or the middle states, they’re already established. In my area (San Diego), it’s a major ordeal. For that reason I could NEVER EVER support John McCain. I live on a major corridor of illegal immigration and human trafficking. There are deaths ALL THE TIME. People have no clue how bad it is, I don’t think….. It is a HUGE thing for Southern California and is our biggest issue with political candidates.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Adam
That math degree really helps.
What does it (religion) really have to do with anything? Giuliani wins NY because of a majority of Catholics?
On the other hand (for your information) there are large numbers of Mormons for Ron Paul.
The point is religion has no place in the election.
Your contention that Romney agreed with McCain’s amnesty bill is just fabricated lies.
Have you noticed that most of the candidates and their followers (like you) are going after Romney?
I’ll tell you why, because they all know that unless they stop Romney none of them have a chance.
Like I said before, if Giuliani Thompson or Romney are on the ticket I will vote for any of them.
If it is Huck or McCain I will let the Dem’s win just to help the Republican party see the error of their ways.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Kim,
Your math is what needs tutoring. 12.5 % is 12.5 %. For all of that stuff you just spewed forth, the rest of the population has plenty of members that are children and not of voting age too.
And I’m hardly paranoid. No one cares about Wyoming.
Shawnie,
Sure seems like they hold water on this site anyway. It’s just coincidence that the vast majority of Romney backers here on R42008 are Mormon, right? That’s fine, but why the insisting that it isn’t so?
January 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“Have you noticed that most of the candidates and their followers (like you) are going after Romney?”
Yeah. Could it be that it’s because Romney held the positions that he now attacks other candidates for very recently? Giuliani was in the lead for a while. The other candidates didn’t have venomous hatred for him.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Adam
I’ve tried to be patient with you but your lies and mis-information is getting laughable.
You don’t have a Mormon problem but that is your favorite thing to post about
Just keep counting those delegates, just use real math.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Heh heh
ARG NH Primary
McCain 39
Romney 25
Huck 14
Giuliani 7
Paul 6
Fred 1
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html
January 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
McCain leads Romney on InTrade 82-15
January 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Adam
ARG NH Primary
Heh Heh:
Which would keep Romney with the most delegates nationwide.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
adam
you just keep hoping.
why if you are a giuliani guy are you cheering mccain when your boy is at 7?
January 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Do NH polls include Libertarians? Doesn’t NH have the largest Libertarian population or percentage?
January 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Absolutely Shawnie. You’re right. The other candidates are finished now before 97 % of the delegates are decided. What on earth was I thinking? Go Romney Go!
January 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
The Truth,
Because as much as I like Giuliani, I can’t stand Romney. It’s a personal thing. Clearly you don’t agree but it seems to me that the guy would sell his soul to be president even if he has to lie, cheat, steal or kill.
McCain was always my number 2. Aside from immigration he’s got a pretty conservative record. ACU gives him an 83. That is acceptable to the rank and file. And on immigration, he’ll change. And no doubt you’ll all cheer him for doing so, right? If it’s good enough for all of you for Romney to shift on so much, McCain can move right on immigration without any problems.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Hey Adam - Romney just secured 10 of the 12 delagates in WY. Giuliani 0 -McCain 0-Huck 0.
Do your math on this one:
if McCain or Giuliani gets every single NH delagate (which isn’t possible) Romney would still have more than twice as many.
Better get your calculator for this one
January 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The Truth,
SO WHAT? Does that change ANYTHING at all? Does that save Romney from defeat in NH after he bet the entire farm on IA and NH? Does that give him momentum? Does that help him nationally? Will it give him a boost in MI that he’ll need since current polling suggests he’ll lose NH?
The answers to all of those questions is a resounding “NO!”
January 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Adam
Immigration is not McCains only liberal problem there are many.
If Romney would “sell his soul to be president even if he has to lie, cheat, steal or kill” all he had to do was join Hucks church.
All the candidates have some problems, most are better than any Dem except McCain and the Huck.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Adam -
Can you show me one poll that ARG was even within 10 points of being right? they are the worst.
WY does change something.
Romney 28
Huck 20
McCain 3
Rudy 1
looks like something to me.
Lets see if you will even show up on this site on Weds.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Oh I’ll be here, Truth. Count on it.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
that will be nice
January 5th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Yep - for one of us. Provided you are able to get out of bed that morning.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I’ll be having lunch before you drink your second bloody mary.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Well go out and stock up on the decaffeinated sparkling apple cider now because your guy is going down.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Concord Monitor NH Poll just released. McCain up by six.
McCain 35
Romney 29
Huck 13
Rudy 8
Paul 7
Fred 3
http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblog/monitor_post_iowa_poll_mccain_6_obama_1
January 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Accually Adam my good friend, I’m a Jack Daniels man myself. but it does sound like you have a problem with those that may not like to partake of the fire water.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Adam
Actually CNN is keeping tabs on the delegate count and they make a big deal out of it, it will get press, whomever has the most delegates….
January 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
According to Wikipedia there are 11% Mormons in Wyoming. But does Adam believe in Wikipedia?
I have nothing against McCain. He served in the military. That counts for something. But the main issues before us are economy & immigration. Can somebosy tell me with a straight face McCain is the best candidate to address those issues? I have more faith in someone like Romney who is the only candidate running to actually have run a business successfully. If he applies the same skills to running the biggest business in the world (federal budget is larger than anything else in the world, country or corporation.
The fact that McCain voted against Bush taxcuts tells me he does not understand dynamics of the economy. US Treasury has collected MORE revenues after every taxcut tried by JFK, Reagan & Bush 43.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Ajay has it right - It’s 2 things in California: the economy and illegal immigration. Anyone who thinks McCain has friends here should pull their head out. Thanks for the military service McCain, sorry about Hanoi Hilton, but you don’t get my vote based on that my friend…. You WON’T get it based on your ACTIONS regarding illegal immigration. And Adam…..seriously Bud, you really think McCain is going to change on illegal immigration???? I am laughing my head off…. Are you sure you haven’t started your bubbly just a little too soon????
January 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
ADAM
Jan. 2 Greta Van Sustern interviewed (immigration) TOM TANCREDO. Tom said he looked at the records of the viable candidates. Everyones record was wanting except Mitt Romney’s as Gov of MA. Tom left out one of the three items but indicated he found Romney vetoed drivers lic for illegals and rejected and vetoed scholarships for children of illegal aliens (Both Huckabee’s favored bills in Arkansas). The third I’ll mention was seeking then getting authority for MA State police to pursue and arrest illegal aliens.
Tom noted that Mitt’s RECORD existed before the illegal immigration bill supported by JOHN MCCAIN, Pres. Bush and mostly liberals in congress tried to shove the bill through congress under our citizenry’s noses became popular to support.
Sounds like Adam graduated from the Ed Rollins “fooling-the-people-as-much-of-the-time-as-possible” School of Political Ethics.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:50 am
JonH - way to stick it to Adam…. I really was getting tired of his pompous ignorant arrogance….