Paging GOP Legislators

I understand Eric Tanenblatt is really twisting the arms of those of you who have not yet become Romneybots.

I also understand there may be a little pressure to get you on McCain’s team from Alec, though not as much pressure as Eric is invoking.

Have faith my friends. Listen to your favorite blogger.

Even for those of you previously committed, be patient.

Hold off. Don’t commit. In fact, I have a suggestion. The Speaker of Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives has already endorsed Fred Thompson. Half the Texas Legislature has done the same. The Lt. Governor of Missouri? Ditto.

Wouldn’t it be to your advantage to come on out and endorse a guy who is not even a declared candidate? Show some faith — endorse Fred Thompson. Go to Draft Fred Thompson and let him know you want him to run.

As for the Romney campaign, were the election held today, I’d vote for him. But, were the election held with Fred on the ballot, well, do you really want to be on the official bandwagon of someone who’s stuck third in the polls at 8% and becomes 4th in the polls when Fred gets in? Pfffft.


  1. Bull Moose says:

    We have a strong and principled conservative in this race: John McCain.

    John McCain CAN win in November 2008. We’re running to win right, not just place?

    All these “politicians” who are day dreaming about a candidate that may or may not be running aren’t doing anyone any favors when it comes to WINNING in November 2008.

    Real leaders across America are backing John McCain.

    We need a principled, common sense conservative as our nominee and that candidate is John McCain.

  2. Bull Moose says:

    Well, because I’m a smart guy, I’m supporting John McCain.

    I was a McCain supporter in 2000 and I’m supporting him again now. I know that he’s the principled conservative that our country needs.

  3. joe says:

    Bull Moose,

    In 2000, I had to write-in for McCain in the Democratic primary. He isn’t even the best Democrat this year.

  4. Jace Walden says:

    Hell, I was a McCain supporter in 2000. Generally, smart guys learn from their mistakes. 😉

    Oh, and Erick, I meant no offense. It’s just, I can’t find a Romney supporter out there than can actually tell me why they’re supporting Romney without spouting off some stupid platitude like, “He’s the conservative in the race.”

    If anyone can convince me that Romney is the man, it’s you Erick.

  5. Bull Moose says:

    Romney’s not the man… Why in the world would we nominate someone like that… Do you homework and you’ll find that McCain is the most consistent reliable conservative running.

  6. Icarus says:

    Rep. Ehrhart,

    We finally agree on something.

    Here’s to the beginning of a beautiful friendship…

  7. debbie0040 says:

    Run Fred, Run!! Signed up on the Draft Fred site a few months ago and donated money.

    I really believe Thompson is the only one that can wi n for the GOP.

    As for when and it he will announce, isn’t there something about McCain-Feingold that would affect him being in first run episodes of Law and Order and an announced Presidential candidate? When will the re-runs start?

  8. Mark Rountree says:

    Run Fred Run. There. Said it again. He has the best shot of holding together our Party as we have known it since the days of Goldwater.

    (the 60’s version!)

  9. Holly says:

    Oooh, don’t forget that Fred’s the keynote speaker at the Lincoln Club Dinner, which will be aired on C-SPAN at 11:30 PM!

  10. Bull Moose says:

    Oh you poor misguided GOP folks… McCain is the principled conservative in the race.

    He’s a proven conservative leader that CAN win in 2008.

    Some GOP folks need to stop being so cute and rally around the man who can win.

  11. Bill Hagan says:

    This is a little late for Fred or Newt to get into the game.

    Mitt is a great guy but he will be hard pressed to win a national election.

    After witnessing what Rudy did in NYC prior to 9/11, I must say that he is the only one in the current group whom I would vote for.

  12. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Just last night Erick was telling me how he wanted to keep non Georgia stuff of the front page, specifically referencing the debate. Wow.

    BTW, as if right now, Mitt is the man. Newt would probably change that. But those are my top two.

  13. debbie0040 says:

    I like Newt, but he and Rudy both have zipper problems. Won’t sell well with conservative women.

  14. SugarHillDad says:

    Holly // May 4, 2007 at 11:10 pm

    Oooh, don’t forget that Fred’s the keynote speaker at the Lincoln Club Dinner, which will be aired on C-SPAN at 11:30 PM!

    Does anyone know what happened last night? Was anything said that was interesting?

  15. Holly says:

    I watched the speech, and it was very positive about the future of America. Fred did not make any indication that he was planning to run, but he did lay out his ideas on immigration and Iraq.

    The Lincoln Club has a recap of the speech on its web site, as well as links to articles in some of the local papers:

  16. stephaniemills21 says:

    Question: If Fred T does get into the race, won’t the networks have to pull every episode of Law and Order that he appears. I remember TV stations having to pull any movie with Arnold in it when he was running for Gov. in Calif. Seriously, each episode could be seen as free advertising for him.

    Might piss off a lot of L&O fans. Though, I was more of a fan of Adam Schiff anyway.

  17. Icarus says:

    I watched the speach this morning on DVR. It was subtle and understated, but still was a clear overview of Thompson’s positions.

    While it’s probably unfair to continue to compare him to the Gipper, I can’t help but to say that his combination of plain talk and optimism was pure Reagan.

    The biggest surprise to me was that he included the need for entitlement reform. He framed it as a major problem, but one that would require and receive bi-partisan solutions. He believes this would be accomplished by challenging the current older generations to do something positive for thier children and grandchildren. He, of course, used much more elegant phrasing, but it is refreshing to hear a politician use plain old talk to address real problems.

    Immigration, as Holly mentioned, will require dealing with border security first, in an Isakson style plan.

    Iraq is important, but he also challenged both sides to consider what a post-Iraq America will be like, and challenged us to reject isolationism in foreign policy and trade.

    My two favorite quotes, paraphrased:

    1) Government is too important to leave up to the government.

    2) Isn’t it amazing how our politicians are becoming so small as our problems become large?

    Overall, it was probably more subtle than many would have expected for what was billed as a “major” speech. I think he accomplished what he wanted, and I firmly believe an announcement of candidacy will soon happen.

  18. Icarus says:


    The discussions I’ve read on the topic of pulling law and order say it’s debatable whether it’s required, but would probably happen as abundance of caution. The solution appears to be to move the show to cable, which isn’t covered by the same regs.

  19. Jace Walden says:

    Brian, Ellijay Type:

    You’re a smart man, even though you did support Clark in the judicial race…but I’m over that. ANYWAY, why Mitt Romney? I know we all have our picks, but I haven’t met a Romney supporter yet who could give me a logical reason to support such an obvious phony. Maybe you can convince me why you believe he is “the man”…

  20. Misunderestimitated says:

    When he ran for Senate against Jim Cooper, there was already a scheduled showing of “Hunt for Red October” on ABC national. The local affialiates throught Tennessee gave Cooper, I think, 12 minutes to equal the time Thompson was on the air. At least thats my recollection from 13 years ago.

    That aside, Fred can truly unify the party and actually articulate the conservative version of governing. Further, he’d wipe the floor with Obama or Hillary.

  21. Donkey Kong says:

    I signed up on a few days ago. Run, Newt, Run!!

    Newt’s a straight shooter and not afraid to tackle the difficult issues.

    Fred puts me to sleep. No offense to him, I think he’s a great guy, but Newt inspires me when he talks, which is more than I can say for Mr. Thompson.

  22. dcraigwhite says:


    I do not know you personally, but I have seen your request on these boards for a reason why Mitt is both a capable and viable candidate that Conservatives can trust. I am going to do my best in the lines below to share with you why, if the election were held today, I’d vote for Gov. Romney, and why I’d be excited to do so.

    First, I believe that “change” is at the very heart of the conservative movement. As conservatives, we believe the best about people, allowing both their actions and words to serve as the “fruit” of their change. That being said, when I hear Mitt talk about a personal experience (the cloning research he speaks of) that affected his beliefs, I accept that as valid, and look to his actions since that point to confirm that a true change has taken place. You’ll often hear Mitt talk about Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, both avowed conservatives whose opinions on abortion evolved over time. While many see this as nothing more than political pandering, we have to take into account that it’s the truth, and thus carries some weight. If Reagan was capable of such a transformation, why couldn’t Romney be?

    In terms of fiscal conservatism, there is no finer candidate running. His record as Governor of Massachusetts proves it. As Governor he faced a 3 billion dollar defecit which, by the end 2005 was a 500 million dollar surplus. He balanced the state budget and was responsible for eliminating spending that would have virtually drained the Massachusetts Rainy Day Fund. Overall the state cut spending by 1.6 billion dollars, imagine what management like that could do in Washington.

    As far as the other “big” conservative issues go, Romney has always been solid. He was a major opponent of same-sex marriages in his state, even in the face of court approval. He’s also tough on immigration and a huge advocate for the strongest and most powerful military in the world. It seems to me, based on my reading, that he grasps the situation on the ground in Iraq, as well as the volitility of the region as a whole. He has a clear vision in terms of how to deal with Iran, as well as others who may seek to acquire nuclear weapons.

    Finally, as a clear communicator who loves to interact with people, Romney is extraordinary when speaking to (and mingling amongst) crowds. While I may not agree with everything he’s done (I have questions about his health care plan), I can say that I would feel safe with this man at the helm, and confident that America was headed in the right direction.

    Obviously, for me, the Mormon issue isn’t one, and I don’t think it will be for most Americans.

    Romney has a sense of optimisim and excitement when he talks about the future of America. When I hear the other guys (and girls – Hillary) talk, it’s pessimistic, sad, blame-America stuff; is that what we want in our leader? One of President Reagan’s greatest contributions to society was the renewed hope he gave Americans. It is my opinion that Mitt Romney is capable of restoring that vision, that hope, that attitude of greatness among our land.

    I hope what I’ve shared helps you to make an informed decision about who you’ll support in 2008. As a final side note though, I can say that I’d like to see the word “Thompson” on the bottom half of the sticker.


  23. Jace Walden says:


    Well said. I don’t agree with some of your assesments, particularly the “most fiscal conservative in the race” assessment, but that is a pretty good explanation. I don’t see Romney’s issue positions however, as “evolving”. I see them the same way I see John Kerry’s issue positions–“Flip-flopping”. I think both of them lick their finger and stick it into the political wind. Go back and research Romney. You’ll find as well, that he was not always an opponent of gay marriage…although, that issue isn’t important to me, it’s still a flip-flop. One of many. I appreciate your well thought out response, but I can’t support a man without core convictions. And unfortunately, that is how I see Romney.

  24. kendrial says:

    Like most people I have spoken to I am very excited about Fred. I thought that I was going to support Rudy, but if Fred commits then I am totally behind him. My only concern about Fred is his how much support he has nationally we in the south love Fred in the south, but do they in the rest of the country. After the Thurs. debate it doesn’t take much to impress me.

  25. Erick says:

    Brian from Ellijay,
    The difference is that you were asking me to post on some random MSNBC “vote for the candidate” stuff about the debate. As I said, I’m actually blogging about *Georgia* politics here. Read the first two sentences.

  26. dcraigwhite says:


    The only response I can give is this:

    Who among us all can say that we’ve never changed our minds on a given issue? Every politician has done it, all pundits have done it, as for voters, they certainly haven’t bucked the trend. I can understand your assumption that the changes were made out of politcal neccesity, but consider this; over the last 10-12 years, Romney has become more and more conservative. For this reason I used the term “evolution”, because as I said the change has been gradual.

    I was never one to call John Kerry a flip-flopper for that matter though, as I saw his progression as a polar opposite to Romney’s. As time goes by a true liberal becomes more and more liberal. Obviously, the same can be said of a conservative, and that is what I see taking place in the life of Governor Mitt Romney.


  27. Mark Rountree says:

    dcraigwhite, You wrote: “If Reagan was capable of such a transformation, why couldn’t Romney be?”

    I can’t just let that pass.

    Please don’t compare Mitt Romney’s 24-month recent conversion on so many issues to Reagan. Reagan never changed his philosophy, he changed political parties.

    Reagan emphatically and often said “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.”

    Regardless of who you support, this is failed logic.

    On Romney, I just don’t get the appeal. The original appeal seems to be ‘anybody but the other two’.

    Your logic is basically that he’s a looker who talks happy, who balanced a budget, and who opposes gay marriage.

    Every state in the country went from deficit to surplus during the same time period , thanks to the nation’s Bush-Tax-Cut-Driven economic success.

    And on gay marriage, nearly every Republican and 70% of Americans take the pro-traditional marriage position. The vast majority of Taxachussetts voters take the same position.

    That’s really not all that risky of a position for him to take.

    The recent media flap on Romney’s bio claim about being a ‘lifelong hunter’ was simply dismaying. Unless I missed something (and I am more than willing to listen to any answer), it simply was not the truth by any normal standard of truth.

    One hunting trip at age 15 and then a second (and final) hunting trip at age 58 or so does not make him a “lifelong hunter” by any reasonable stretch.

    I don’t care if he’s a hunter or not (I’m not); but it seems to give clear credence to the idea that his recent evolution is based on crass presidential politics and political handlers.

    We were all very happy with Mitt as Governor of Mass., and I think we all were. And we were all happy with Guiliani winning as Mayor of NY. But those seats a world of from running for President.

    I wanted to like Romney. I just couldn’t buy it.

    Draft Fred Thompson. Or, fellow Republicans, have a real mess on our hands.

  28. Mark Rountree says:

    Minor correction: meant to write, “But those seats are a world of difference from running for and being President”.

  29. Ben Marshall says:

    Romney is like Reed in that so many political opportunists have flocked to him that it gives you a bad feeling about him.

  30. dcraigwhite says:


    You wrote:

    “Your logic is basically that he’s a looker who talks happy, who balanced a budget, and who opposes gay marriage.”

    I would agree that this is indeed part of my logic. You see Mark, I want a leader who doesn’t blame America first all the time. I want a leader who sees what we could be, not everything we aren’t. In this sense, Romney is MOST like Reagan – he embodies hope. Call it “happy talk” or whatever you want, but the fact remains, Romney is a great communicator who inspires people with his leadership style and substance. For examples of this, note the success he’s achieved throughout his life; first in the private sector, then as the director of the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, and as Governor of Massachusetts.

    Secondly, he did balance a budget. How many of our so-called “conservative” politicians keep their campaign pledges to maintain a balanced budget once they get to Washington? Answer: FEW! We can count on Mitt to be a stalwart in the area of fiscal conservatism, and as such, I consider that an asset.

    Also, you noted he opposes gay marriage. Again, this is a strength as far as I am concerned.

    You went on to say:

    “If Reagan was capable of such a transformation, why couldn’t Romney be?”

    To this however, you answered a different question then the one you asked. My quote was in response to the issue of abortion, a transformation which took place in the lives of both Reagan and Romney. You proceeded to apply the question to Romney’s entire belief system, something I never meant to do, thus your criticism of my logic is unfounded.

    Finally I’d encourage you to find one person, any one who hasn’t changed their views on any given issue. As we grow, and learn , our views evolve to reflect this new knowledge we acquire. For some, this happens at a young age, yet for others, it may take a lifetime to see change, but the fact remains that change happens…in everyone.

    Ben, as for your comment:

    “Romney is like Reed in that so many political opportunists have flocked to him that it gives you a bad feeling about him.”

    Realize that at this stage, every viable presidential candidate’s camp is filled with many “political opportunists” seeking to get in on the ground floor. I am not sure which people you’re referring to, although I’d certainly be interested as to who they are.


  31. Jace Walden says:

    Finally I’d encourage you to find one person, any one who hasn’t changed their views on any given issue.

    Ron Paul (R-Texas).

    I challenge you to find someone who has flip-flopped more than Mitt Romney…he and Kerry and tied, so don’t say “John Kerry.”

  32. dcraigwhite says:


    I assume that means you’ll be supporting Dr. Paul for President then, yes?

    Doesn’t the fact that he changed parties show political posturing? I could understand if he left the GOP in the late 80’s to become a Libertarian, but to come back to the GOP, which since then certainly has not become more libertarian in its views, seems like nothing more than a ploy to get elected. If he holds so strongly to the libertarian views, why not run for Congress and serve as such? Just a thought.


    I like your site, I’ve found it humorous on several occasions; and the fact that some see you as a thorn in the side of the Cobb GOP makes me laugh, but you have to understand that at this stage, political opportunists from all across the spectrum are rushing to be a part of the campaign they think has the best chance to win, thus gaining a role in what could be a future organization. It’s also important to remember that much of this “support” comes unsolicited. I understand where you’re coming from in your comparison to Reed, but at this stage, I don’t think you can draw that parallel.

    Finally, I’d love to see Fred Thompson on the ticket. I’d also like to see Newt used in the administration, he is absolutely brilliant in terms of articulating the conservative message. Sometimes I wish we were more like our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic, and ran as entire tickets, I don’t think a Republican ticket would get beat.


  33. Jace Walden says:

    Changing political parties isn’t the same as changing your core convicitions. Hell, I’m currently in my third party. But what I believe in is the same. Did Paul switch to get elected? Probably, yes. But he didn’t change his ideas to get elected, he simply found what he considered to be the better venue through which to communicate them. Romney, on the other hand, decides that in order to win an election, he has to change his core convictions…He knew he’d never win the GOP nomination without winning the votes of the social authoritarians, the so-called evangelical “Christians”…so he automatically had to change to anti-gay and pro-life. His change wasn’t gradual. It was almost instantaneous.

  34. bowersville says:

    Electing Ron Paul for POTUS may be idealistically sound, but would prove as prudent as electing Jesse Ventura as Governor of Minnesota. What veto would not face a certain override?

  35. Mark Rountree says:

    DCraig, I don’t particularly think anyone in the GOP field is of the ‘blame America first crowd’. But If Mitt speaks to your heart in a unique way for some reason, then that is a good thing.

    All candidates stand for the same on traditional marriage. And state governments nearly unanimously balanced budgets during that time period.

    I think what I’m saying is that these just don’t seem to be defining points for Romney.

    I think conservatives are distrustful of the current political scene in the Republican Party for a reason: much happy talk, but not action on a wide range of issues.

    I think that’s the underlying reason so many folks want a viable nominee with a proven, stable, long-term conservative record.

    Fred Thompson simply wins these points while most others do not.

  36. dcraigwhite says:


    The only question I would pose is this:

    What makes Thompson’s “happy talk” different than any of the other blabber?

    I mean, I love Fred Thompson, but just to allow his rhetoric to supercede that of any other candidate simply doesn’t make sense. To me, (and I am just a college student) talk is cheap, action is measurable.

    As far as balancing a budget, Romney, T. Thompson, Gilmore and Huckabee are the only four Governors in the group, and Huckabee has a consistent record of raising taxes in order to fund social programs. Tommy Thompson left the residents of Wisconsin with a 3.5 billion dollar defecit when he defected to Washington to run HHS, and Gilmore was known for spending (signing whatever the legistlature sent him); he could have used the veto.

    It would seem then, that the ability to balance a budget, shrink government, and continue to provide existing social services (whether you agree with that or not) is a sticking point for Gov. Romney – one that no other candidate in this race can claim.

    I like Thompson too Mark, I’d love to see him throw his hat in, then I’d have two great candidates (better odds of choosing a winner), but I don’t think Romney can be discounted like he has been. My posts above are simply my attempt to shed light on the fact that change can occur, and because it has, Romney is indeed a viable and conservative presidential candidate.

    And Jace, your flip-flopper: John Edwards. The man served one senate term and can’t (today) rectify half of the votes he made. John Edwards is a loser, he will always be upstaged.


  37. CHelf says:

    Watch the Romney-Kennedy Senate debate. It’s on YouTube. Romney tried to out-liberal Kennedy. He swore up and down because of a deep family issue, he’d NEVER change on abortion. Look at many of his other positions. This was not some Reagan shift. This was core conviction change. This was one extreme to the other.

    Answer me this. If something deeply tragic happened to a family member and you swore that because of that, you would be staunchly supportive of something because of that tragedy, what would it take for you to transform to the diametrically opposite position? You cannot claim a religious conversion because he’s been a ‘devout Mormon’ for years prior to this.

    What causes you to go from trying to out-liberal Ted Kennedy to out-conservative Ronald Reagan? And who’s to say this overnight transformation would not recur once in office? If he flipped entire slates of issues once, what would stop him from doing so again? Can we trust someone who takes deeply held beliefs and flips conveniently before running for President? Can we trust and rely on someone who backs off and takes opposite views so easily? Do we need someone who has solid convictions? Someone who does not sell out to own personal opportunism? I’d give him a pass on one or two issues. But Extreme Makeover – Willard Edition is far fetched for me.

  38. dcraigwhite says:


    You made my point for me. Which issue did Romney try to “out-liberal” Kennedy on?


    You are right, he said he came to his beliefs based on a family member dying as a result of an illegal abortion.

    As far as other issues go, he’s been a bedrock conservative. Fiscally, a tremendous conservative, and morally, it’s been an evolution based on fact rather than emotion. As Romney has studied the issue, the science of it became too obvious for it to be an emotional issue any longer.

    Normally, as conservatives, we’re excited when people “see the light”. For some reason though, because of political preference, you and others flipantly discount Romney’s conversion.

    Finally: “Look at many of his other positions.”

    Which ones?


  39. Jace Walden says:


    No offense intended, but you can vote for someone for whatever reason you choose, even if the only reason is “because he won’t veto everything”.

    Truthfully, about 95% of the bullshit congress pushes out NEEDS to be vetoed. The problem is, our wonderful Republican “conservative” leader hasn’t got the balls to pull out the veto pen on ANYTHING. Oh yeah, he vetoed two bills. Big deal. He signed the McCain-Feingold Bill while admitting that he thought it was unconstitutional. What an idiot.

    I’ll vote for someone out of principle. Whether it’s useless or not. Paul won’t win, but at least I won’t be part of the problem by voting for him.

    If Fred Thompson runs, however, that changes everything. I’ll still vote for Paul in the primary, but if Fred wins, I would have no problem supporting him…except his vote on McCain-Feingold.


    Good point on Edwards. He is a fool.

    Mark Rountree,

    It’s been a long time. How are things going?

  40. Mark Rountree says:


    You write: “Normally, as conservatives, we’re excited when people “see the light”. For some reason though, because of political preference, you and others flipantly discount Romney’s conversion.”

    Yes, you are right about this. It is discounted, though not flippantly, because he conveniently changed his position on an issue at virtually the same moment he announced he was running for President.

    Romney has all the signs of another fake. He strikes me as our Party’s version of John Edwards: their side’s biggest fake.

  41. dcraigwhite says:


    Which issues, other than abortion, did Romney suddenly make an about face on?


  42. Icarus says:

    What makes Thompson’s “happy talk” different than any of the other blabber?

    For me, it’s like this.

    Fred Thompson speaks in that wise father/grandfather sort of way. His talk is plain and blunt, but optimistic and reassuring.

    Romney talks like the kid that always sat in the front row of class with his hand up. He might have the right answers, but he’s not impressing anyone with them.

    In short, Fred connects with his communication. Romney says the right things, but doesn’t do so in a way that conveys comfort or reassurance.

  43. CHelf says:


    Watch the video of the debate. Just write down all of the positions he takes in that debate. Compare them to what he is stating now. It’s not just abortion. Add to the fact he has already lied about his gun-rights credentials, his credibility is not that high. Running off to join the NRA as a sudden life-long member and claiming he’s a lifetime hunter when he’s only gone twice?

    Come on. Let’s be honest. The man didn’t even have the decency to pad his resume’ to the Right much earlier than right before running for President.

    You may or may not agree with his positions. The point is that he is made over to run to the right. Ask many conservatives in MA. If they are honest, most will tell you that he is truly made over. You can make claims on his fiscal policy being conservative. i can list many Democrats who have had just as fiscally matched. So we’re back to square one. What truly makes Mitt a conservative? What, and I ask this across the board, makes him fiscally and socially conservative? What in his record proves this?

  44. CHelf says:

    Seeing some weak reviews come in for Thompson’s OC speech. Not many who were there were impressed. Also to those mentioning Thompson and limitations of McCain-Feingold in the same sentence, make sure you include he was a big supporter of MF.

  45. CHelf says:

    In the 1994 debate, Mitt was adamant about not imposing his personal beliefs on anyone else. He pledged to never waiver. “I do not impose my personal beliefs on other people.”

    For gay rights he was on record to be a better friend to gay rights and even advocated support for gay scoutmasters and anyone to participate regardless of orientation. Now if I recall, that was a HUGE issue against Max Cleland. He was a Dem but the issue was there.

    At this time he swore he was an independent during the Reagan administration and made sure to distance himself from Reagan-Bush policies.

    He wanted to require companies to report ethnic and gender stats to the government to fight glass ceilings.

    Now I may have viewed this wrong but it appears that on numerous issues besides abortion and even into the private sector he advocated a liberal approach and viewpoint on a few topics. Again, that gets us back to the present. If Romney has a makeover from then to now only shortly before running for President, what makes us think he won’t have another makeover in office?

  46. Mark Rountree says:

    yikes, CHelf! If you’re ever looking for a new job in opposition research, give me a call first… ! 🙂

  47. GOPeach says:

    Romney is just too “Donny Osmond” to be president.

    He needs to go work for the IOC.
    ( International Olympic Committee)…

    Stick to snow sking or something…

Comments are closed.