Redstate

Maybe I am missing something Neil, but it seeems like you are reading a lot into his statement. Not that i am an expert on free trade vs. fair trade, but he didn't even say the words Fair Trade. He said free trade "should be fair in both directions." Is that really saying that he is "opposed to lowering trade barriers and tariffs depending on what other countries do, which means that he wants to keep taxes higher on Americans who import goods?"

I've never seen any policy that looks like that from Romney, and I just don't see the same thing in this speech.

You also seem to always be saying that he is sending $20 Billion to detroit for research, but he pledged to increase research money to 20 Billion, something i think is important for energy independence and national security.

He said about this plan,

"ROMNEY: Well, let me get it quite straight here so we can be talking from the same fact base. We spend about $4 billion a year right now on energy research to try and help us become more energy -- or less energy dependent on foreign sources.

Some of that is on developing new sources of energy, some is on developing efficiencies in automobiles, in homes, appliances and so forth.

And I think over the coming years we need to increase our investment to become energy independent from about $4 billion a year to about $20 billion a year.

And that, obviously, has got to grow gradually because there are not a lot of places now that do the kind of research we need to do to get ourselves energy independent.

But that's not just to bail out the automobile industry. That's not what I have in mind. I'm not looking for a bailout at all. Instead, it's saying that where we invest, we tend to do very well.

We invest in defense technology, and we lead the world in defense products. We invest in health care technology as a nation, about $50 billion a year or more, and we lead the world in developing cures and, of course, in health care technologies.

And then we develop -- or put a lot of money into space, and that has some spinoff of various kinds, into the private sector as well.

I think we have to make a far more substantial investment in becoming energy independent. We send over a billion dollars a day to countries outside this one to buy energy from them. And it's time for us to start spending here on research so that we can free ourselves of dependence on foreign oil.

And that's, of course, going to benefit the auto industry along with many, many others. But most importantly, it's going to benefit this entire country economically, from a foreign policy standpoint, and I think it will help our environment as well as we find ways to become more energy efficient." source

Are you opposed to all government research grants? If so, are any of the candidates going to curb that kind of spending? I am just trying to understand why this particular speech got under your skin so much.

"And a special thank you to the citizens of Massachusetts: You are paying all the taxes, creating all the jobs, raising all the children. This government is yours. Thank you for letting me serve you. I love this job."

I was talking about the part where he was talking about trade, not the part where he was talking about spending government money to try to create UAW jobs, but I'll answer your question.

Yes, this kind of proposal bothers me. Government doesn't invest, it redistributes.

I won't, however, discuss other candidates in this thread because that'd be a threadjack.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Yes, this kind of proposal bothers me. Government doesn't invest, it redistributes.

It does bother me. But only because of its "slippery slope" potential.

But sometimes when you look at the alternatives, and notice that it is the duty of a President to address national security issues, and the fact that America is the world's foremost superpower because of the huge investments that have been made in research and development on matters of national security (e.g. DARPA), this particular thing, especially since it is not, in fact, putting money in car company or UAW pockets, it doesn't bother me all that much.

Now, if this were $1 billion more for research into weight loss or quitting smoking, then it would really bother me ...

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

However, as we pursue new trade agreements, I'm far less interested in just getting an agreement signed than I am in getting an agreement signed that is good for America. I promise you that any nation that unfairly manipulates its currency, steals our patents and designs, dumps unsafe products in our markets, or stifles the American goods in their market place, will face a very aggressive President across the negotiating table.

Now let me be clear, I strongly support free trade, but free trade has to be fair in both directions. And when the playing field is level, America can compete with any country in the world. And we will win.

Maybe I'm ignorant of Free Trade principles or something, but I really am not seeing where Romney repudiated Free Trade here, rather than unfair trading practices. Another thing I'm seeing is that he is rather unsubtly pointing with all fingers and toes to China.

And from what I know of the American automotive industry, the primary threat is from Japan and Europe (i.e. Germany), neither of which are traditionally considered guilty of unfairly manipulating their currency, stealing patents and designs, dumping unsafe products in American markets, or stifling American goods in their market.

And "Stifling the American goods in their marketplace" is as stupid a reason as I've ever heard to raise taxes on Americans.

He's essentially morphed into Duncan Hunter: he of the petty, vindictive trade policy that would gleefully cut off his own nose any chance he got.

HTML Help for Red Staters

.

HTML Help for Red Staters

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

Massachusetts.
137 Democrats to 19 Republicans in the State House.
35 Democrats to 5 Republicans in the State Senate.
State Media 99.7% liberal and Democratic.

Not even Reagan could have done much better in that environment.

The immigration comment wasn't the sole comment indicating Romney's support of such a plan. He was quoted as late as 2006 supporting a path to citizenship for illegals which he claimed would be unrealistic to round up and deport and inappropriate for those who worked, paid taxes, and weren't otherwise criminals. He also stated earlier this month on Fox News Sunday that he still thought it'd be reasonable to have "amnesty" for up to 20% of illegals in the U.S.

The problem here is that the entire premise of the RomneyNot brigade's article of faith that Romney fully supported McCain-Kennedy is based entirely on the false supposition that the bill that was introduced at the beginning of the process was the same bill after enduring the tender loving care of Ted Kennedy.

Partial (since they must pay fines) amnesty and a path to citizenship for 10% to 20% - exclusively those who have held down a job for years, paid taxes, committed no crimes, are not taken public benefits is somewhat reasonable.

McCain-Kennedy on the other hand granted automatic legal status "Z-visas" (which immediately entitled them to Social Security benefits because they are now "legal") to practically every single illegal immigrant in the nation, irrespective of employment history, tax paying, etc. There were loopholes purposely left in the bill so that even violent criminals would be allowed to remain in the United States while they are "appealing" their deportation.

Worse, the fines to be paid were no more than chump change, essentially making it sweet deal. Add Ted Kennedy's "Family Reunification" idiocy and not only were illegal immigrants instantaneously made legal, their families back in their home country also became legal as well.

I see no flip-flop. The initial bill was not perfect but there was a strong possibility it could have been improved and made somewhat better. The bill that came out was far from it.

He also touted his record on job/economic growth as proof he could bring jobs back to Michigan when his actual record was pointed out by economist to have been well below the nation average, and practically stagnant as more people entered the work force than jobs created.

I like Deroy Murdock as much as the next guy, but he's a Rudy man, and I would not cite him as an impartial source. And even if indeed I do, every single one of the so-called points he raised are based around two things.

[1] That there is no difference between non-broadbased service fees and taxes, which seems to be only true for RomneyNots when the subject is Romney. I know quite a few who are fully capable of distinguishing between the two, and quite a few, in other (non-Romney) circumstances, who would agree that it is fiscally conservative to ensure that the amount paid for a service actually covers the provision and administration of that service. Note that all of Murdock's points about Romney raising fees made no mention of whether or not those fee hikes were necessary to make them viable.

[2] That Romney singularly had control of the business environment in Massachusetts. Had it been that the Democrats only had a ten or twenty vote Majority in either House of the Massachusetts General Court, I'd be unimpressed with Romney's fiscal record - but the Democrats have a 137 to 19 (118!) seat majority in the Massachusetts House. Can you comprehend that? In the Senate, they have a 35 to 5 (30) vote majority. The man issued more than 800 vetoes on fiscal grounds, the vast majority of which were overturned without Democrats losing any sleep over it. That he was able to successfully balance the budget, without raising taxes in a state so far to the Left and Democratic is actually very impressive.

As to your MLK thing;

First of all, I'm not entirely convinced as to the provenance/accuracy of that 1978 story. I mean, it was thirty years ago ... and I really don't think, contrary to RomneyNot mythology, that he said it just so he could run for President in 2008 - he wasn't running for office at the time, his Dad was alive, and contrary to his detractors, George Romney was a strong advocate for Civil Rights both as a Governor and a member of Nixon's cabinet.

The authors noted that they had no proof of such marching together and the one author specifically stated that it was meant figuratively, as in Romney Sr. marched with King by participating in a march organized by King's group... not physically marching together.

Now this is very revealing, don't you think? Here you acknowledge that one could be said to have marched "with" MLK without actually physically marching with him at the exact same time, at the exact same place. It's just being "figurative."

Funny how that leeway, that understanding of context, that a verb can be used in a figurative way, somehow just doesn't seem to apply Romney, isn't it?

Look, this is pointless. At this juncture, all I tell people who have made up their minds that Romney is the anti-Christ and have proven themselves capable of deliberately reaching, misconstruing and twisting everything he says just so they can justify their predetermined conclusion is that they don't have to vote for Romney on Election Day but that they should still come out and vote for the other Republicans on the ballot.

You really don't have to sully yourself by voting for someone you so viscerally dislike or even hate. There's nothing wrong with you if you refuse to vote or if you even vote for the other person or a third party. Not liking someone is as good a reason as any to refuse to give him your vote - your vote counts just as much as someone who voted based strictly on policy.

You'll notice that I'm not arguing that the flip-flop was Romney's support of the McCain bill... just that he supported similarly lenient plans in the past and is now trying to portray himself as much tougher on immigration than ever before. His criticisms of McCain-Kennedy aren't out of line, but the word smithing he uses to demonize it seems very disingenuous given his prior and current positions.

As far as the articles of faith of people who think he's the anti-christ, you'll have to check with them.

On the economic/jobs issues, you can dismiss his poor record due to the Democratic stranglehold on the State, but that leaves him with no record whatsoever to rest on. Not sure how that's much of an improvement.

Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive on the fees/taxes issue because governors have pulled the same nonsense here in Illinois without "raising taxes" but everybody from the poor to the corporations seems to pay more to the government because of the fees, loophole closings, etc.

On both issues it doesn't help show a good record on jobs/economy. He seems better suited for commerce dep't appointment due to his private sector record than PotUS. But this is obviously just my opinion.

On the MLK issue, the figurative language of those authors doesn't justify the figurative language and literal language used to argue that he and/or his dad literally marched with MLK when the evidence to the contrary shows otherwise. If it was just debating the meaning of "saw" it wouldn't be a big deal to me. The problem is there was nothing to see, literally or figuratively because it never happened.

Regardless the MLK issue is minor in the grand scheme of things. The record/rhetoric of his past and the rhetoric today on almost every policy issue is what has many of us concerned. If he was running for a lesser office where he could prove his new and far more conservative views, I don't think anyone would be nearly as opposed. But he's jumping from a single term as governor with little to show for his conservative credentials to the top executive job in the nation.

Some might consider him the anti-Christ... I just think he's unqualified and dishonest about it. Perhaps this is a pointless discussion as you say, but I think we can discuss it with civility and objectivity.

I think we can agree the MLK issue isn't anywhere near as relevant as people make out, at best it was an honest mistake, at worst he was simply trying to pad his civil rights credentials with something that could pad them, but didn't happen quite as described.

I think we can agree that many of his current positions on jobs/economy are fairly decent and that his record in MA is more reflective of the people he had to work with. But his record in the private sector is what is really impressive, his one term as governor wasn't horrible, but not much to brag about.

I think we can agree that on immigration that he has much stronger credentials with conservatives than McCain who compromised far more than they could stand with Democrats. But I think we can also agree that what he considered reasonable for dealing with the problem before was no where near as tough as his current positions. With Fred gone he may still be the best choice on the immigration issue. I think the issue bugged me the most when he was getting credit for being the toughest when he wasn't. Perhaps that was just because I was a bit of a Fred Head? Quite possibly.

If anything it may be pointless due to the other options being Rudy and Huckabee, which you may or may not consider realistic options. But I don't think it is pointless because either of us lacks the ability to discuss the issues.

My point is that his plan was no way near as lenient as McCain-Kennedy.

On MLK, it was only one sentence in the middle of responding to a question by Tim Russert about how his Mormon religion would play in the black community given that black people were only allowed into the priesthood in 1978; "I saw my father march with Dr. Martin Luther King."

I continue to submit that the insistence that there is only one way to interpret this i.e. literally, is based on bad faith.

Other than that, I guess we should just agree to disagree.

But how would you like to give back all of the technology advances and benefits that have come out of the federally funded space agency. I am not sure the benefits can be calculated. We are light years ahead because of it.

I grew up in the 60's when we went to the Moon. We need get back to being head and shoulders above the rest. The private sector is the best but don't dismiss the role that the government can play such as they did in the space race.

How do you know the same goals wouldn't be achieved if free entrepreneurs, in a free market, were investing the money?

It's the same argument socialists do, e.g., in education:
"Oh, the illiteracy rates were so high before we got public schools. Hence, we need the state to fund the education."

I don't dismiss the role the government can (and must) play in defense, justice, etc. In the economy? No thanks.

the USSR to the Moon without federal funding this conversation is over. We benefit from advances that come from research by private companies with huge DOD contracts all the time.
Boeing, Lockheed-Martin etc. Tons of federal money is spent on research through private enterprise.

That was what Mitt was talking about.

Government research into alternative energy is a heck of a lot cheaper than carbon taxes and global warming regulations. And in today's climate, you're either getting one or the other.

Also, there's a decent argument to be made that government investment in long-shot, risky research projects with big payoffs is worthwhile, since private groups don't have enough capital to bear the risks and still be solvent. I've come around to thinking that it makes sense for the government to offer X-prizes for certain kinds of alternative energy developments and space projects. Probably there'd be health projects that would fit the bill too.

Some of the best private high-tech firms, including Microsoft and Google, have departments devoted to pure research. These departments are characterized by their long-term view, a willingness to sponsor and continue research of compelling academic interest but without apparent immediate application. In order to get the innovations they seek, they inevitably pursue a bunch of wild goose chases in the process. They understand that, and they accept it.

Our armed forces research arms (AFOSR, etc.) understand this too. Some of the most cutting-edge technology we have today goes into defense---as well it should. But in order to achieve that, it invests in basic research at the university level. Obviously the projects must justify their relevance to defense interests, but the view is long term. Innovation depends on it---even innovation in national defense.

So I am more sympathetic to many, perhaps, on the value of government-sponsored basic research. Of course, the research ought to be targeted towards the limited roles of government we conservatives favor. National defense is one of those roles, to be sure.

But alternative energy? That's the question. I have to say, my inclination is to say "yes", it is a national defense interest. I do think our national security is tied up pretty tightly right now with our consumption of energy. I'm not a big fan of the ideas of "energy independence" because of its isolationist implications. I prefer "energy flexibility" and "energy abundance". Frankly, screw conservation. What we need is an all-out search for clean, renewable sources of energy, and environmentally friendly methods of storage distribution.

Is this realistic? Well, consider this. According to the DOE's International Energy Outlook 2006 (Google it), world energy consumption in the year 2030 is projected to be 722 quadrillion BTUs. If we got all this energy from oil, we would need about 118 billion barrels per day. In contrast, the Sun delivers over 2.6 million times times this much raw energy to the planet per day. (*) So yes, I think it's realistic to assume that we humans can figure out how to harness 0.00005% of that energy for our use in an environmentally sound manner. (In contrast, plant life uses about 1% of it.) (Source: here, with some back-of-the envelope math on my part. Sorry if I get it wrong.)

The point is there is plenty of energy to be had, we simply have to figure out how to get at it. We just have to quit whining about those wasteful Americans and GIT 'ER DONE. Do the research. And let's shut up about conservation and get the government out of the way of building more refineries and nuclear plants while we wait, shall we?

HTML Help for Red Staters

before commenting. i'm just sayin' . . .

wow, I feel dumb now

goes to stick noes in corner

Martin's "brilliant" piece trounces Ben's "My Manufactured Mitt."

Ha! Well done Martin!

The truth shall set you free. Seek and you shall find.

At some point he'll probably make an obligatory stop at a gun shop and announce he's there to buy a "huntin' license".

But fear not, he'll definitely carry the South and hold the Mountain West states. I have it on good authority from many of his supporters that there's no way those states would vote for Hillary over him. Amazing how her husband was able to pick off a few of them against Bush 41 in 1992 though. How'd that happen? Maybe there really is some Blue Dog Democrats in (and running) some of those states afterall.

Amazing how her husband was able to pick off a few of them against Bush 41 in 1992 though. How'd that happen?

If I remember correctly, and chances are that Mitt may have paid me so I won't, there was a guy named Ross Perot who also ran in 1992, and I think he took something like 19% of the vote - most of it from Bush XLI.

Clinton won by plurality in every single state except his native Arkansas.

Wait a second, could Mitt have paid Ross Perot ...?

And what is the excuse for Clinton having won some of the same states in '96?

Incumbency and Bob Dole.

he had just gotten beat down in embarrassing fashion in 1994.

If we had nominated any candidate up to the job, Slick would have been toast in 1996.

So you're right, Bob Dole didn't win over the I's and Blue Dog Democrats in those states, and as a result he lost them and the election. Clinton was able to cobble together enough regular Democrats and the black vote to pick off enough of those states to win.

All the more reason not to nominate someone with dubious Conservative street cred and a penchant for trying to play nice by compromising with liberals to get elected.

Clinton again only won by a plurality - though much larger than in 1992. Most of the Southern states he won i.e. Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. he won by the skin of his teeth.

But, most importantly; Bob Dole ran a campaign as lackluster as his name.

Perot wouldn't have had any votes to pick off in the Southern and Mountain West states if Bush 41 had successfully shored up the Conservative Blue Dog Democrats and right leaning I's there.

Those would be the ones who handed Reagan his victories in those states in 80 and 84.

You see Martin, there just aren't enough regular Republicans to win in a lot of these states (see Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, etc.).

GOP candidates at every level in states like these, including the Presidential level, have to rely on enough Independents and Blue Dog Democrats to vote for our candidates in order to win. If those people sit it out because they perceive the choice is between a RINO and a liberal Democrat, well then the alliance of the black vote and the regular Democrat vote can trump the regular Republican vote, causing the Republican to lose the state.

The only reason Perot mattered in 1992 or 1996 is that Bush 41 and Dole didn't protect their right flank on gun control, federal spending, and other such issues. That left them exposed to a populist candidate who was able to exploit the sense of frustration many of them felt in Bush 41 and Dole.

It wasn't "Read my lips: no new programs."

HTML Help for Red Staters

I stand corrected. The tax issue was the dominant one. Even Tricky Bill was campaigning on a middle class tax cut, and Bush 41 had very little credibility on the issue to call him a liar at that point.

Perot just happened to use spending and balancing the budget as the wedge to pry a lot of the old right leaning I's and Blue Dogs away from voting for Bush 41.

HTML Help for Red Staters

but had we nominated a candidate in 1996 who could have credibly filled the Perot voter's concerns, and who didn't come off as just another D.C. insider, then the Perot campaign wouldn't have had much legitimacy in the first place that cycle.

Other than the cult of personality and suspicions about a Republican being a RINO, Perot shouldn't have had any base of support in 1996. Especially after it was clear he was a factor in bringing Clinton to power in the first place in 92. We should have had a candidate who could have diffused the little maniac by taking away all of the concerns his campaign brought up in 92.

I recall the same fellow proclaiming that he was going to clean up Beacon Hill and grow the Republican party in MA. Both of those things...he didn't turn out so good on. Mitt tends to set goals which he won't meet. This has all the marks of one of them.

I don't know about you ... but I tend to like people who dream big and risk failure rather than those who refuse to even try for fear of it.

I have a feeling that if he had not said these things, you would probably be complaining about it as well.

In 2004, the MA GOP fielded the largest slate of candidates in years. Romney campaigned all over the state for them. Unfortunately, it was a Presidential year, with a son of Massachusetts on the ballot.

this process has been a light hazing at best.

If he wins the nomination and goes head-to-head against Clinton Inc., and the Soros Smear Machine, then you'll see him get demonized.

Come to think of it, I'd rather not see that. Mostly for the good of the party, but also because I don't want to see the emotional reaction of some of his hypersensitive followers. Some of you guys blow a gasket over people calling him a flip-flopper, hate to see how you'd react over a really unfair attack.

Romney has had the longest run of this "hazing" process ... from the moment he announced.

The reason may be that he has been a constant Tier 1 presence since the campaign began, unlike Rudy, who has faded recently, Huckabee, who shot up in November, or McCain, who recently came to life from being out of contention just a few short months ago.

Seeing him hyperbolically accused of flipping seven times on abortion, or massresistance.org talking points deployed against him every other day for a whole year gets on even the sanest Romneybot's nerves after a while.

but then it might be instructive to ask why this man raises the ire of so many within his own party in the first place? Is there no legitimacy to any of our points?

We've all had to hear a steady drumbeat from the left wing kooks, the MSM, and pop-culture about how horrible Bush is for the last 8 years. I've had to grit my teeth and deal with it, while piping up and correcting the record whenever and whereever appropriate.

Mitt hasn't won a lot of us over. Deal with it.

What does it matter how long someone has signed up to post on here? You're at least the third Romneybot to try to call rank on me over when I started posting on this site. I read this site for awhile now as a lurker, and used to be a regular poster on Townhall before it became Romney online campaign HQ the last few months.

Sheeesh! You'd think attracting new people with something to contribute to the debate would be a good thing for any website. Perhaps if I was a Romney sycophant it wouldn't be an issue with some of you guys though.

... but then it might be instructive to ask why this man raises the ire of so many within his own party in the first place? Is there no legitimacy to any of our points?

Beyond repeating "flip-flop", over and over and over again, and then repeating conspiracy theories of how he's going to repeal the ban on Partial Birth Abortion when he gets into office, and rewriting history to make it seem like he was governing Texas, not Massachusetts ... yeah, you just might have a point that has not been rehashed throughout the past year.

And that, by the way, is the reason why I noted that you're new here - most here know very well that I don't need to pull rank to get a point across.

Look to the people who weren't sure if this was sarcasm or not. You can't make a statement about Mitt that is so over the top there won't be some people that believe it. This blog is probably being quoted as I write!

Has anyone asked Mitt if he saw America put a man on the moon? If he says yes, it can only mean he is a demon who is no more troubled by a walk in space than he is by quitting his gazillion dollar job to save the olympics, just so he tempt the atheletes with performance enhancing drugs.

HTML Help for Red Staters

HTML Help for Red Staters

but he came across so serious! Could I have my hat back please???

HTML Help for Red Staters

in a sarcasm meter. There are a lot more subtle works than this one you're going to have to deal with if you hang around here long. I wouldn't want you to have to a) look like an idiot or b) have to ask too many more times.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

It looked more like something cut and pasted directly from the shrieking freaks at Kos.

My personal choice would have been a Thompson/Romney ticket, and I don't particularly like Mike Huckabee, but I also believe that every single one of the Republican candidates is a decent human being. I may find Huckabee misguided and dishonest, or McCain just misguided, but I would never assume to see darkness in their souls or rip into their families for being "too perfect." If, as the good book says, "by their fruits ye shall know them," then Romney's family is a good indicator of his decency as a person.
I think there's a big disconnect between people like me and people who seethe at Mitt Romney. I don't care about his pandering, because he is a businessman, coming from a world where adaptability and marketing are hugely important. Plus, I myself have changed my positions quite a few times in the presence of new information.
At this point, all I care about is competence; I don't care about ideological purity, especially since conservative ideology is seldom agreed upon by conservatives. I also don't care about the "sit down and have a beer with" factor. I can't imagine ever wanting to hang out with Mitt Romney- he's just not my tribe. The questions are, does he know how to execute, how to make tough decisions in the face of fierce opposition, and is he willing to hold the government to private sector performance standards? The fact that he doesn't warm my heart personally doesn't matter one bit.

I don't think Martin's a bad guy; he just needs to breathe into a paper bag for a bit, and maybe go for a jog.

It's called satire or sarcasm. He's not bashing Romney. He's bashing Romney bashers.

Insert key, open the mind.

Now I feel dumb; I guess I've seen too much of the real thing. Thanks for the heads up.

Martin is a Romney supporter (as far as i can tell).

You know that satire is done well when it's hard to tell if it's real or not.

"And a special thank you to the citizens of Massachusetts: You are paying all the taxes, creating all the jobs, raising all the children. This government is yours. Thank you for letting me serve you. I love this job."

"And a special thank you to the citizens...You are paying all the taxes, creating all the jobs, raising all the children. This government is yours. Thank you for letting me serve you. I love this job." Mitt Romney

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Asa, I know you mean well, but dig just a little deeper next time.

you know satire is the only way we can immediately find more Romneybots to initiate into our club.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

.

HTML Help for Red Staters

If You Liked George Bush's "New Tone", You're Gonna LOOOOVE John McCain's "Bipartisanship" ...

You know anytime you want to follow the white rabbit we're all down here awaiting your return ;) <3 Romney's bots.