Romney agreed with Perry on immigration...

[FA_Q2]

And just in case you think I'm blowing smoke, here is the poll, from Gallup a week ago.

Majority Rates Obama Same or Worse Compared With Bush

Half say Obama has been worse than Clinton

by Jeffrey M. Jones


PRINCETON, NJ -- Asked to compare Barack Obama with George W. Bush, Americans are more inclined to say Obama has been a better (43%) rather than a worse (34%) president, with 22% seeing no difference between the two. Obama compares much less favorably to Bill Clinton, with half saying Obama has been worse than Clinton and 12% saying better.

Majority Rates Obama Same or Worse Compared With Bush

Obama only gets a 50% that think he is worse than Clinton! Wow, I would have pegged that FAR higher. There is no comparison there....


BTW - what the hell is up with your img tag- it's like 30 lines long!!!

 

[FA_Q2]

PREDICTION? obama's gonna win in 2012 by default of conservatives eating their own?

Observation - you are completely nuts if that is actually what you believe. 2012 is not going to be easy and there will be no problem with the R's eating their own here. Certainly didn't stop Obama after the Hillary vs. Obama smear fest that went on in 2008. They will eat their own until there is a candidate picked and then all will jump right on the bandwagon. This campaign is extremely timid compared to the democrats last time around and I also remember the exact same sentiments from the right during that election. That turned out well for them right.....

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you realize, that you aren't really giving us any reason to vote for Perry, don't you? Let's say for the sake of argument you are absolutely correct about Mitt. Let's say he's changed his immigration policy (Not something I inherently have a problem with). The most you've done is persuade people not to vote for Mitt as well. That doesn't mean you've persuaded people to vote for Perry.

Perry is wrong on the issue. Period. I don't have a clue who I am voting for yet, but your attacks on Mitt don't make me want to vote for Perry. Makes me lean more to Newt, Santorum, or Cain right now.

 

[DaGoose]

And just in case you think I'm blowing smoke, here is the poll, from Gallup a week ago.

Majority Rates Obama Same or Worse Compared With Bush

Half say Obama has been worse than Clinton

by Jeffrey M. Jones


PRINCETON, NJ -- Asked to compare Barack Obama with George W. Bush, Americans are more inclined to say Obama has been a better (43%) rather than a worse (34%) president, with 22% seeing no difference between the two. Obama compares much less favorably to Bill Clinton, with half saying Obama has been worse than Clinton and 12% saying better.

Majority Rates Obama Same or Worse Compared With Bush

I prefer MY links.......

Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents - US News and World Report

America’s Most Popular Politician: Bill Clinton - TIME NewsFeed

And Obama does NOT have the lowest approval ratings according to historical ratings.

Presidential Approval Ratings History - Interactive Comparison Graph - WSJ.com

And given that Obama is having to clean up 8 years of Bush's mismanagement with a hostile congress it's no wonder that his ratings are sliding.

But to say that anyone longs for Bush to be POTUS again is laughable.

.

 

[Missourian]

Do you realize, that you aren't really giving us any reason to vote for Perry, don't you? Let's say for the sake of argument you are absolutely correct about Mitt. Let's say he's changed his immigration policy (Not something I inherently have a problem with). The most you've done is persuade people not to vote for Mitt as well. That doesn't mean you've persuaded people to vote for Perry.

Perry is wrong on the issue. Period. I don't have a clue who I am voting for yet, but your attacks on Mitt don't make me want to vote for Perry. Makes me lean more to Newt, Santorum, or Cain right now.

I'm not attacking Mitt, I'm presenting the facts.

Do with them what you will.

If you don't like Perry's positions, don't vote for him.

If you don't like Romney's positions, don't vote for him.

I picked the candidate that I agree with the most.

The predominantly Republican Texas Legislature overwhelmingly supported allowing the children of illegal immigrants in state tuition...the same in state tuition any American child who lived in Texas 3 years prior to enrollment was eligible to receive.

I'm 100% in favor of States Rights...if the Texas Legislature vote 181 to 4 in favor of allowing it, more power to them...it's their state.

 

[Maple]

FactCheck: [Romney] Took hard-line on illegals, but only late in term

Romney’s Iowa TV ad portrays Romney’s immigration stance as hard-line compared with Huckabee’s. It’s true that a plan Huckabee supported would have granted in-state tuition rates and eligibility for scholarships to any student who had attended an Arkansa public high school for at least three years, regardless of immigration status. It’s also true that Romney vetoed a similar bill in 2004. But Romney’s illegal immigrant bashing is of fairly recent vintage.


In 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was reluctant to veto the tuition proposal--and not at all the certain, sure-footed decision maker portrayed in the ad.

At the time, Romney said, “I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state.”


Romney wasn’t a hardliner on immigration until late in his tenure as governor. None of the specifics presented here are false, but the ad presents a black-and-white contrast that doesn’t exist in reality.

Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, “The Record” Dec 13, 2007

​

​

Give it up, after calling conservatives un-compassionate on illegal immigrants, it's over and Dick Morris has agreed, it's unfortunate, but it's the reality. Illegal immigration is a huge problem for our country and it needs to stop. Perry showed his true colors on this issue just the other night, he has not changed his position and it's the noose he wrapped around his own neck. I just hope you did not donate to his campaign as that money is gone. Go to Dick Morris. com and see for yourself, watch his video.

 

[Missourian]

And just in case you think I'm blowing smoke, here is the poll, from Gallup a week ago.

Majority Rates Obama Same or Worse Compared With Bush

Half say Obama has been worse than Clinton

by Jeffrey M. Jones


PRINCETON, NJ -- Asked to compare Barack Obama with George W. Bush, Americans are more inclined to say Obama has been a better (43%) rather than a worse (34%) president, with 22% seeing no difference between the two. Obama compares much less favorably to Bill Clinton, with half saying Obama has been worse than Clinton and 12% saying better.

Majority Rates Obama Same or Worse Compared With Bush

Obama only gets a 50% that think he is worse than Clinton! Wow, I would have pegged that FAR higher. There is no comparison there....


BTW - what the hell is up with your img tag- it's like 30 lines long!!!

It's not mine, it's Gallup's. Their site is set up so you can just copy and paste the graphs like text, but the super URL is the price you pay.

 

[Avatar4321]

Your presentation of facts seem to be rather targetted to one particular candidate who the news indicates is the biggest threat to your particular candidate.

Seems like an attack to me. But whatever.

 

[Missourian]

Your presentation of facts seem to be rather targetted to one particular candidate who the news indicates is the biggest threat to your particular candidate.

Seems like an attack to me. But whatever.

Facts are facts.

The real question should be, why are these facts not coming out in the primary debates?

Why isn't Romney being asked to justify these flip-flops?

The establishment candidate gets a pass I suppose.

 

[Care4all]

PREDICTION? obama's gonna win in 2012 by default of conservatives eating their own?

Observation - you are completely nuts if that is actually what you believe. 2012 is not going to be easy and there will be no problem with the R's eating their own here. Certainly didn't stop Obama after the Hillary vs. Obama smear fest that went on in 2008. They will eat their own until there is a candidate picked and then all will jump right on the bandwagon. This campaign is extremely timid compared to the democrats last time around and I also remember the exact same sentiments from the right during that election. That turned out well for them right.....

it did keep people from voting for him....i was an avid hillary supporter and I could NOT vote for him because i was so upset.

there were many people like me....

I did not think president Bush would win his reelection, but he did in 2004....

the same could happen in 2012....that happened in 2008 on the republican side....

with all of these ideological stances that are important to the various factions of the conservatives....some people just won't vote for perry due to his stance on immigration, some won't vote for romney due to him being a mormon or his flip flops on abortion, some won't vote bachman due to her religiosity and political mix.....some won't support gingrich due to all of his affairs etc etc etc etc.....

 

[FA_Q2]

Your presentation of facts seem to be rather targetted to one particular candidate who the news indicates is the biggest threat to your particular candidate.

Seems like an attack to me. But whatever.

Facts are facts.

The real question should be, why are these facts not coming out in the primary debates?

Why isn't Romney being asked to justify these flip-flops?

The establishment candidate gets a pass I suppose.

Most likely because they are thinking of the aftermath. It has nothing to do with the 'establishment' candidate, it has to do with the fact that the dirtier each candidate gets, the more they are going to have to deal with it in the general election. It is not a good thing for anyone on the right if the primary gets to be a mudslinging fest. That would be my guess at least. The minor candidates are not going to go in like that, they can't win anyway and the big players are likely waiting for the right time and moment as well as the right amount before going there.

Newt said it best in the Florida debate: "Well, I’m frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other" They are looking to the general as well as the primary...

 

[Missourian]

Your presentation of facts seem to be rather targetted to one particular candidate who the news indicates is the biggest threat to your particular candidate.

Seems like an attack to me. But whatever.

Facts are facts.

The real question should be, why are these facts not coming out in the primary debates?

Why isn't Romney being asked to justify these flip-flops?

The establishment candidate gets a pass I suppose.

Most likely because they are thinking of the aftermath. It has nothing to do with the 'establishment' candidate, it has to do with the fact that the dirtier each candidate gets, the more they are going to have to deal with it in the general election. It is not a good thing for anyone on the right if the primary gets to be a mudslinging fest. That would be my guess at least. The minor candidates are not going to go in like that, they can't win anyway and the big players are likely waiting for the right time and moment as well as the right amount before going there.

Newt said it best in the Florida debate: "Well, I’m frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other" They are looking to the general as well as the primary...

Unless it's Perry, Bachmann or Paul...then mud slinging is ok.

Romney, Karl Rove's pick, not so much.

Handicapping Tonight's Debate | Karl Rove | Romney | Mediaite​

 

[FA_Q2]

Facts are facts.

The real question should be, why are these facts not coming out in the primary debates?

Why isn't Romney being asked to justify these flip-flops?

The establishment candidate gets a pass I suppose.

Most likely because they are thinking of the aftermath. It has nothing to do with the 'establishment' candidate, it has to do with the fact that the dirtier each candidate gets, the more they are going to have to deal with it in the general election. It is not a good thing for anyone on the right if the primary gets to be a mudslinging fest. That would be my guess at least. The minor candidates are not going to go in like that, they can't win anyway and the big players are likely waiting for the right time and moment as well as the right amount before going there.

Newt said it best in the Florida debate: "Well, I’m frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other" They are looking to the general as well as the primary...

Unless it's Perry, Bachmann or Paul...then mud slinging is ok.

Romney, Karl Rove's pick, not so much.

Handicapping Tonight's Debate | Karl Rove | Romney | Mediaite​

What's your point? I don't see how the article relates to anything that was posted.