Redstate

only the qualities or positions you like. When you elect McCain you get the whole package, including the philandering adulterere who abandoned a faithful wife for lust and political ambition.

This isn't just an opinion. He actually did something that despicable. Shall we just give him a pass on that and pretend it didn't happen, or worse that it doesn't matter?

Have you asked your wife how she feels about it? (assuming you haven't abandoned her like the man you so admire.)

Character matters.

home and soul? Bain Capital is formidable indeed if it has developed such a device.

War is very disruptive of marriage, something recognized in our culture at least since "The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit".
Or maybe the Iliad and the Odyssey.

When Rudy was running, certain fevered moralists also targeted him as the philandering adulterer, while simultaneously hinting that his sole achievement as Mayor was attending gay porn events. In drag. Then they dredged up pictures of Fred and his "trophy" wife.

They are a pain in the @$$.

The Romneybots are doing their man no favors with this garbage.

"The Romneybots are doing their man no favors with this garbage."

They also seem to be particularly vicious lately too.

This kind of stuff loses Mitt more votes than it will gain him.

Romney and his sycophants need to start contemplating how their desperate 11th hour attempts to smear McCain are going to affect Romney's viability in the party for future elections.

The personal stuff has no place in the primaries.

As is clearly evident on this site, no two people have exactly the same priorities.

If Mr. Taggart you believe that you hold the sole right to define "Republican" then you will find yourself in very sparse company. The Republican Party stands for many things - in a two party system each side has to encompass many issues. Not every person feels the same about every issue. Some people are very intent on economics. Some on social issues. Some are even narrower - focusing on a single issue or bill (immigration). All of these people are going to find a home in one of the two parties in any given election.

If you insist on creating the most narrow possible definition for "Republican" - you will effectively tell most people to go find their home with the Democrats.

Oh, and as for giving people a "pass" - Newt Gingrich left a wife and kids. If I remember correctly she was ill at the time too. In fact, Newt's on his third wife. Was Newt a lesser public servant for it? YOU don't get to pick and choose. If you're going to take issue with McCain's personal life, you, again, will find few who can live up to your standard.

We don't care for that kind of attack on our community members around here.

If you apologize to Adam via the contact form, maybe you can get reinstated.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I am tired of the death wish conservatives who would rather let the dhimmies do a carter X 10 style damage to the nation, while waiting for the purity of suffering to refine our standards.

a consideration in the person who the Republicans choose as the standard bearer for the Party?

Or, are you just saying that it winning is a higher priority, and morals should be trumped by political expediency?

Is that what you teach your children?

Are you confusing public policy with personal morals?

His account no longer works though, so rest easy.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

But the Party is not just an organization, it is a set of principles and values that we believe in. Take that away, and what difference does it make if we still call it the Republican Party. It will have abandoned its core principles for political expediency, just like it's new standard bearer, John McCain.

If we do that, the Party will no longer have the ability to hold the coalition together, and we will lose in a landslide.

They change - every four years as a matter of fact. We don't have the same platform we did when the Party was founded back in the 1850s. Every cycle we create a new platform, we emphasize different aspects of the Party and we set out certain beliefs.

What exactly is your issue? And at what point did having one wife per lifetime become some sort of prerequisite for membership in the Party? Newt has had 3. Reagan had 2. We've seen several members of Congress have affairs. Last time I checked the organized faiths, except the Catholic Church, recognize divorce and permit remarriage. You would hold marriage to a higher standard then even most clergy would.

Seriously, you and your fellow MDS pals are going to do more harm to the Party and the Movement than John McCain could ever do.

Romney has been campaigning heavily for a year. He has been on the airwaves constantly. He has been selling himself to Republican primary voters with more advertising than I've ever seen. And yet he hasn't gotten the conservative coalition to rally around him. He hasn't even managed to claim a majority of the "conservative" vote in any state yet. He may win the demographic, but there are more conservatives who are voting for other candidates than are voting for Romney.

If Romney were so terrific he'd already have this thing locked up. Instead, the foreign policy wing of the party went to McCain - the evangelicals were so unimpressed that they virtually went out and created a whole new candidate to satisfy themselves. In Florida, Romney didn't even win amongst people who said the economy was their most important issue. Who are these people that will rally to him?

And I don't dispute his numbers will rise. But his numbers are in the 30s and he is well behind. That's going to require a lot of rising, and I don't see it. McCain's numbers have risen. Maybe they will fall, I don't know. But looking at historical head-to-head data, Romney's numbers have been static for months. He's still in the 30s even after massive ad buys in many states.

And if you think a man that worked in venture capital is "squeaky clean" you've obviously never bothered to look past appearances. To think that there is nothing hiding behind the well-scripted and very regimented facade is foolilsh ignorance. There will be dirt - there will be mud - and the media folks will find it. At least with McCain it's all out there. Most people already know Cindy is his second wife - they know he left his first wife - it's almost as "out there" as Rudy's tumultuous personal life.

An angel Mitt is not - nor do we require that from those who serve. If we did we'd have never picked Bush - look at his history. If you can't get over what people did 25 years ago, you got more problems than John McCain as the Republican nominee.

"Romney on the other hand, does not have any skelletons in the closet, he is squeaky clean, highly qualified, and his numbers will only rise as the country gets to know him and the conservative coalition rallies around him."

The country has gotten to know him. Too well at this point. He'd been better off if we hadn't gotten to know him, then maybe his latest positions would not be seen as political shapeshifting maybe would have been taken at face-value.

The conservative coalition has had over a year to rally around him. We didn't. We couldn't even rally around Fred to win a single primary.

Romney has won caucuses in Wyoming and Nevada, and a primary in his home state of Michigan. Big deal. Without using his own money he would have been out of this thing after New Hampshire.