Romney's National Review Endorsement Quid Pro Quo??

[LoungeMachine]

Mitt Romney Buys More Support

Mitt Romney today garnered the support of the right-wing magazine National Review. Romney has donated thousands of dollars in order to support various right-wing causes. In March the NY Times reported that Romney and allied organizations had paid thousands of to The National Review and various Republican causes.




�Mr. Romney gave $5,000 to help sponsor the anniversary dinner celebrating National Review's Web site last October at a Washington steakhouse. Another group called Evangelicals for Mitt also gave $5,000�The magazine and its Web site have written favorably of Mr. Romney.�

http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/188928.asp

[LoungeMachine]

We really do need election reform in this country.


BOTH sides have made me sick.


And don't even get me started on the caging of voters, or the privatization of voting prefereed by the RNC.

There has to be a better way...

[Deklon]

Come on now Mr Lounge. Do you honestly think that $5,000 would be enough to buy the endorsement of the National Review? Are you that naive?
The National Review makes it's money by having conservatives buy their magazine. Did you ever think that maybe the conservative editors of the magazine actually believe that Romney is a solid conservative who has a good chance to win the nomination and thus would benefit from their support or is everything a conspiracy/corruption theory to you?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon
Come on now Mr Lounge. Do you honestly think that $5,000 would be enough to buy the endorsement of the National Review? Are you that naive?
The National Review makes it's money by having conservatives buy their magazine. Did you ever think that maybe the conservative editors of the magazine actually believe that Romney is a solid conservative who has a good chance to win the nomination and thus would benefit from their support or is everything a conspiracy/corruption theory to you?

LMMFAO @ Solid Conservative



And yes, everything today that has to do with elections is a corruption conspiracy to me.

From caging, to Diebold, Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004

Kennedy stole the 1960 election too, if that helps you.

And I'm sure Black Flag will pile on the "Lounge is Naive" bandwagon shortly.


We're talking about an election cycle that so far has put forth a wet behind the ears senator from Illinois, another Clinton, the most corrupt and inept politician [Giuliani] tp come down the pike in years, another lame actor, and a flip-flopping carpetbagger that you now laughingly call a "true conservative"

:D


Meanwhile the truly experienced and legit candidates are mere window dressing because of MONEY.

By the way, did you happen to notice the QUESTION MARK in the thread title, mensa?

But by all means, tell me more about this "true conservative" Romney

:D

[Deklon]

Um...ok.

Romney is against free tuition for illegal aliens.
Romney is for finding AND deporting illegal aliens.
Romney is pro-life (spare me the "he used to be pro-choice").
Romney is pro-business and his record shows it clearly.
Romney does not believe higher taxes is the solution to problems.
Romney is for more power to states and less federal mandates.
Romney believes the foundation of the family and the breakdown thereof is tremendously important.
Romney miantained his consevative record while governing the most liberal state in the country.
Romney believes that the separation of church and state does not equate to the separation of God and country
Romney is for school choice.
Romney is for mandatory sentencing.

As far as I can remember and tell, he has been firm on all of these issues except abortion for his entire career. Yep, he is a true conservative.

And as far as which candidates the "election cycle has put forth", can you name anyone who's not currently involved in politics that would be a better choice than who is running?

[Nitro Express]

I'll say one thing about Mitt Romney. The Salt Lake City Olympic games were such a mess and full of corruption, they weren't going to happen. They brought Mitt in to fix the mess and he saved the Olympics and did a great job managing them.

I don't agree with him on his Iraq strategy and his company Bain Capital has sold US defense technology to the Chinese. Plus he's too cozy with the Bush family.

I want the next president to be economically educated but far from the typical Wall Street mentality and the Bush family.

[Nitro Express]

Mitt is very capable of being a good president but I wonder where his loyalties lay. People his age usually know where they stand on the abortion issue and most good Mormons are pro-life. Mitt seems like a flip flopper to me and quite cheesey and fake.

What is he going to change his mind on if he gets into the Oval Office? I would rather vote for someone who knows who they are.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon
Um...ok.

As far as I can remember and tell,

Romney has flip-flopped on:

Abortion

Gay Marriage

Stem Cell Research

Immigration

Shall I go on?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Mitt is very capable of being a good president .

Compared to the last 7 years, yeah I agree.

As far as Hucklebery, Julie Annie, Thompson, Tancredo, Paul, he's the best in the bunch which aint saying much.

McCain of 2000 would be a better choice, but he sold out this time...

But back to the topic, the system is fucked.

Other than public financed campaigns, lobby reform, and requiring any FCC Licensee to air FREE time to all candidates equally, I dont know the answer.

But we'll see how right or wrong Deklon is, wont we?

Because as of right now, Mittens aint exactly getting the "true conservative" support now, is he? :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

Kennedy stole the 1960 election too, if that helps you.

Actually, he didn't. Mike Malloy cleared up that Republican myth on his show last night.

Even assuming there was some "shady dealings" in the Chicago precincts, it turns out JFK would have won the electoral vote without Illinois anyway.

So, if I had a time machine, I would gladly give the 'Pukes Illinois in 1960, in exchange for Florida in 2000.

[LoungeMachine]

I actually was referring to Virginia as well as Illinois.

But I want to see what Mike was talking about....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon



And as far as which candidates the "election cycle has put forth", can you name anyone who's not currently involved in politics that would be a better choice than who is running?

Why the fuck would they have to be "not involved in politics"

Moronic framing aside.....

Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich on the Dem side are more worthy of front runner status than Shrillary/Obama

And McCain and Paul on the repuke side...


But as far as those NOT running.

Gore
Kerry
Kerrey
Hagel
Dean
Clark
Powell

To name a few......


But you go on and root for your real conservative Mittens.
:D

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
Actually, he didn't. Mike Malloy cleared up that Republican myth on his show last night.

LMAO

Well, that seals it, then.

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Compared to the last 7 years, yeah I agree.

As far as Hucklebery, Julie Annie, Thompson, Tancredo, Paul, he's the best in the bunch which aint saying much.

McCain of 2000 would be a better choice, but he sold out this time...

But back to the topic, the system is fucked.

Other than public financed campaigns, lobby reform, and requiring any FCC Licensee to air FREE time to all candidates equally, I dont know the answer.

But we'll see how right or wrong Deklon is, wont we?

Because as of right now, Mittens aint exactly getting the "true conservative" support now, is he? :D

Mittens needs lot's of evangelical Christian votes and those people don't trust Mormons; so he's basically a man with no hands in a jacking-off contest.