Redstate

the letter, but the Democrats who started the whole thing have now been identified.

Some familiar names;
" You will note that the following Senators voted for the bill, and thus for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy."

* Biden (D-DE), Yea
* Byrd (D-WV), Yea
* Daschle (D-SD), Yea
* Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
* Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
* Kerry (D-MA), Yea
* Leahy (D-VT), Yea
* Reid (D-NV), Yea

gagar

I thought the term, "on a roll" meant that a wide support with many followers. Just checking on what that term meant.

Of course, the Senate is a bit like herding cats, so it might be rather hard to get to be "on a roll".

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

And how large is the print?

Seriously, why would you not vote for Sam Brownback? Is it the Tancredo thaang?

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

If you had a choice between the Clintoon thing and Sam Brownback, who would you choose? As of the most recent Rasmussen poll it's 46% to 41% (nearly within the margin or error) in favor of Hillary. Who would you vote for?

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

He's actually your Senator.

Sheesh, don't just call these in.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Since he's in favor of literally all of that (except for deporting every "criminal immigrant invader," which is a pipe dream and I think you know it), and has voted for all of it, I presume that you'd actually be in favor of Brownback, if you had his record straight. Right?

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

he doesn't want to do a thing about the invaders. Just let 'em stay, little tap on the wrist for them ($2000 fine? Chump change. A $20,000 fine and I'd think about it) and let them become citizens. He doesn't, unless he's changed his tune, want to fine businesses or jail the employers. I've written him, received his reply, and was completely unsatisfied with his pandering response.

Is not as important as what he has actually voted for, to wit, sections 406 and 701(m)(1) of this.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Did I just not wait long enough?

Was it a bill that passed, or one that failed to pass? We all know that Senators are notorious for voting for something before they vote against it, usually so they can stake out a position on both sides of the issue.

It's easy to vote for a bill you know will not pass.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

I just tried it in FF on XP, and it worked fine for me. It did take a couple seconds to load.

That's McCain-Kennedy, which was formerly known as the Secure America Orderly Immigration (SAOI) Act.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

My high-speed cable provider must be a little tired tonight.

So it is an "introduced" bill, not a "passed" one. How do we know my first suspicion wasn't correct? I don't put much stock in voting positions made on unlikely bills.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

This is the version that was voted out of committee, and Brownback's "yea" vote on that is, like I said, what ticked a lot of people off. As I recall, the bill was allowed to die a procedural death when it became clear that neither this nor the House version could cobble together a sufficient number of votes to pass both chambers, and thus we got absolutely nothing in the way of passed legislation, which is where we remain today.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

For the reference of those who may not know, Brownback's vote for this bill is the basis for his excoriation by the more zealous opponents of illegal immigration. This despite the fact htat he's voted for a fence, for increased personnel on the border, for increased enforcement funding, for harsher penalties for employers, etc.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

for those of us who no longer eat and breathe political news and aren't in Kansas any more.

BTW, Senator Reid reminded us that Senators are allowed to change their minds. Shouldn't the same apply to former Governors? (^o^)

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

There's just the fact that Romney has apparently changed his mind about everything, somewhat conveniently all within the last 2 years, which causes some raised eyebrows. Since it's just in time for him to run for President. Which I'm sure is a total coincidence.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

for me too (in the primary). He combines insufficient action on illegal immigration and border security with the ability to deter many swing voters with his disproportionate focus on abortion and gay marriage.

Like Brownback and many on this site, I oppose the federal government (judiciary or Congress) coming down in favor of abortion or gay marriage.

But I don't want the federal government deciding those issues the other way, either. I'd like to repeal Roe v. Wade / Planned Parenthood v. Casey and let the people of each State decide abortion policy. Same with gay marriage / civil unions.

(I would support a constitutional amendment or statute that forecloses the use of the Full Faith & Credit Clause to require states to recognize same-sex "marriages" or civil unions from other states.)

--------

Putting aside the constitutional issues, Brownback would be a bad move electorally. I think our ticket would be likelier to lose if we adopt Brownback's disproportionate focus on these issues. For better or worse, America is not Kansas, and the general electorate is not the Republican Party (I wish!).

--------

Finally, Brownback's grandstanding killed the deal we had to fill the 5 federal-court vacancies in Michigan last year (2 on the 6th circuit and 3 on the Western District of MI). This shows a lack of judgment and a willingness to put his own ambitions ahead of the good of the country.

Now we face a Democrat-majority Senate, which may now refuse to let Bush fill the 6th Circuit vacancies at all. If Hillary or Obama-bin-Laden get to fill these vacancies and tip our circuit to the Left, it will be in good part due to Brownback.

--------

I support Tom Tancredo. When he drops out of the race, I don't know who I'll support. Maybe Fred Thompson, depending what he SPECIFICALLY proposes to do to reduce illegal immigration, reduce domestic spending, and increase the strength of our military.

You can certainly make a case that Sam Brownback couldn't win the general election, but do you really think that Tom Tancredo could?

Electability is fine and good, but I'll take a Brownback or a Tancredo any day over The Three RINOs (Rudy McRomney).

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Leon has already spoken to the immigration issue, so I`ll address your other points.

For starters, you seem to imply that a President Brownback would nominate justices who would make abortion and marriage policy. There is every reason to think that he would nominate those who would return those issues to the people and no support for the argument that he would do otherwise.

As to electability, Rasmussen has him trailing the junior Senator from New York by just five points, which is especially impressive due to the imbalance in name recognition. As Brownback becomes better known, that will tighten, not widen.
http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Up...

As to the hold he placed on a nominee, it is perfectly legitimate to question whether a nominee would be biased based upon personal relationships. Obviously simply having gay friends should not disqualify someone from service on the bench. At the same time, it`s a hot-button issue that is continually coming before the courts, and ensuring that judicial nominees are unbiased is part of the responsibility of the Senate.

I guess you're voting for Hillary Clinton then?

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

but a candidate with inspiring principles and a boring personality seems better than the other way around.

Only that the first one cannot get elected and the second one should not.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself. What the heck are "boring principles," anyway?

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

a huge minus.

Should it be that way? No, but I think it is what we have.

That said my choice in the primary will not be based on who is the best speaker or who is most charismatic.

Right now I am just not super happy with any of the candidates.

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Wow, have you even listened to Sam Brownback? The words, I mean. Forget about the MSM.

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Man oh man. McPain is a total RINO, not unlike Rudy and Flipper Romney. I hope you're a Brownbacker. It's time to support a real conservative for once!

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

From where I stand, Brownback is the RINO - way too far on one side of the party to be a 'real' republican.

...the party-line votes, the ACU scores, the CfG scores, the fight to close the government in 1994...

Oh, I get it. It's because he's on-board with the Party Platform on social issues.

Yup. The very definition of a RINO.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Hey, if people can throw out the term RINO for one side of the party, don't complain when it gets used on the other. A party is not defined by one fringe, but by the center of those who identify with the party. Brownbacks out there on the fringe, so he's as much a RINO as people like McCain.

I'd rather the term not be used at all - I think it's hurtful and not helpful - but as long as people are going to use it, I'm going to use it right back.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

This chapter must have fallen out.

Have any evidence behind that "is a fraud" charge, by the way?

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Flipper is good enough for you? Fellow conservatives, please wake up! Thank G-d for Leon, he knows what he's talking about.

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Leon's also being paid, IIRC.

And Romney's not the only one who used to be pro-choice. Ask your candidate about his magical conversion during his 1994 primary before you start casting stones.
__________________________________________
First State Politics

Otherwise we can start talking about a lot more conversions on the part of your guy (I know it's shocking that there are some issues on which he has not already "converted," but support for a minimum wage hike has been pretty consistent in his career), and pretty much accepting the words of what other people say about him as true. We cool with that?

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I understand you're doing your job, but to say that SB never made a statement that revealed he was pro-choice is in direct conflict with the New Republic, which said:

"I'd heard from Tim Golba, a former president of Kansans for Life, who'd met with Brownback in 1994 to discuss a possible primary endorsement. According to Golba, it quickly became clear that there was little to discuss. Brownback was not only unfamiliar with the anti-abortion lexicon, he had a habit of dropping the hints used by politicians on the other side. "I think you'll find me more in line with the view of Nancy Kassebaum," he told Golba, who still grumbles at the mention of the famously moderate Kansas senator."

__________________________________________
First State Politics

First, being in direct conflict with TNR wouldn't exactly cause me to lose sleep.

Second, it wouldn't even put me in conflict with TNR, since they didn't report Senator Brownback saying such a thing. What they reported is that Tim Golba claimed that he said such a thing. Again, this is nothing more than taking the word of what other people (his political opponents) say about him as being true. As I demonstrated in that link, if that's the standard that we're going to apply to all candidates, then a whole lot of people have a whole lot to answer for.

There are literally no statements, videos, transcripts, votes, or any other item of public record which were actually made by Senator Brownback in which he indicated to anyone that he was anything resembling pro-choice. Just like the same thing can be said of Mitt Romney and opposition to raising the minimum wage. All you have is other people saying it about him. It just doesn't fly. If you want to come back to me with some original source material, I'll listen, but the reality is that unlike Mitt, Brownback doesn't have a zillion YouTubes and directly attributed quotes in which he burnishes his pro-choice creds; in fact, he has zero.

And, for the record, Senator Brownback immediately disputed the veracity of Golba's recollections on this point. Mike Hendricks, the former KC Star reporter who found the sources who questioned his creds, recently had this to say:

One other thing hasn't changed.

Even in 1996, Brownback claimed that he never was for abortion rights. He merely had done a bad job of explaining where he stood, he said at the time.

"I'm pro-life," he told me then. "This has been my position from day one."

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

For the record, I don't think Leon's being paid. I don't agree with his candidate but I give him credit for going to the mat for his man and working for free to get him elected. His passion for Brownback makes me wish I liked his guy (but I don't.)

So, support for guest worker programs and a path to citizenship (which is not the same thing as "amnesty") automatically makes somone a "fake conservative," eh? Coming from a Mitt supporter, that just literally made me laugh out loud.

Especially since, as I just pointed out, Mitt himself supported the same thing as late as... last year. At the exact same time Brownback did.

Time to learn to read the books with words, buddy.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Romney just did an interview saying he favored enforcement only and sending illegals home.

Brownback voted for the Kennedy amnesty bill, the worst bill to ever pass the senate. That makes him unfit for office period.

Where he said, at the time that McCain-Kennedy was being debated, that he supported it, and that those who were opposing it were "making a big mistake"? You caught how he said that he supported a path for citizenship? Less than a year ago? You know how to click links, right?

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I'm going to go ahead and repost the link so there's no way you can miss it.

::CLICK HERE::

For your further edification:

::CLICK HERE::

(Hit Ctrl-F, then type in Romney, hit enter, and see what happens!)

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

of the first link. He lost some appeal on Page 2.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Leon,

Do you always take the word of the Washington Post as the gospel truth? Haven't you learned yet to mistrust these little cherry-picked quotes?

What is the actual Romney quote? What did he actually say? What is the full context?

It's an AP story that's carried in the WaPo for whatever that's worth, and the "Made a Big Mistake" was presented as a direct quote. SFAIK, Mitt has never claimed that he was misquoted. His words were also picked up in the Lowell Sun (a little closer to home), and have been reprinted several times since then. If he didn't say it, you'd think he'd have said so by now.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

If any major candidate took the time to rebut every single falsehood published about him, he would have no time to get his message out.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling

Is it actually your contention that Romney did not say these things? Despite their being reported in several news sources and not contradicted by Romney himself?

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I simply asked you what the full quote was, not just the four words that the AP quoted. What was it's complete context?

Leon, let me try to explain it to you. You are attempting to hurt the reputation of Mitt Romney. Fine, that is your job as a paid Brownback supporter. I certainly do not begrudge of of that. But your entire premise here is based upon four words that an AP writer claims Romney said in a given context.

The question is, are you so eager to promote the cause of your own candidate that you are unwilling to actually check the facts and make sure that Romney actually said those words and in that context? You know as well as I that reporters cherry pick quotes out of context all the time. Maureen Dowd does it so well, the technique is now called Dowdifying.

If you are not inclined or interested in getting the solid facts before you trash someone, what does that say about you? What does that say about the candidate you represent?

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling

He's been quoted in an AP article as saying that those opposing the President's plan were "making a big mistake" which jibes with the much longer quote (contained in a significant number of sources) about how he doesn't support mass deportation and thinks that immigrants should be put on a path to citizenship. In such an instance, the chance that he was significantly misquoted is pretty well next to nothing. And if he is misquoted, this article has been making some pretty significant rounds, he needs to come out and clear it up; it's not my responsibility to prove the genuineness of everything that's been reported in a major news outlet.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

While I agree that the MSM does sometimes make mistakes and misquote, the fact that hundreds or even thousands of stories come across the wire before a significant distortion is found means that it's still acceptable practice to accept something that is reported in a major news organization like the AP as truth, if evidence of its falsehood is not forthcoming. A YouTube of Mitt talking out of both sides of his mouth is not always going to be available (although, handily, it often is), and that's not "being lazy" or "not doing my research," that's "the limitation of the information that's available."

If there's a specific person like Maureen Dowd or Dana Milbank who's had a long track record of dishonest reporting, then it's one thing to look at everything they write with a more jaundiced eye. But to say that it's insufficient to rely on the AP when (1) Mitt himself has not disputed it, and (2) it's consistent with everything else he'd said prior to that point, is pretty ridiculous.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I guess I could not be a very good political operative. I would have difficulty trashing someone's reputation without making sure of my facts first.

I guess that is why you are what you are. The best of luck to you.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling

I'm sure that whenever you read that [Person X] has said [Statement X] in an AP article, you don't believe it's true until you call them and make sure they really said it, right? Even when it jibes with everything else they've said on the subject? And that makes you a better person than me, for sure.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

In fact, you really want to sincerely apologize for that last bit.

You really want to.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Moe,

I will be happy to apologize, but I honestly don't see what I did wrong. Would you please be more explicit as to what the exact nature of the infraction was? I don't like making the same mistake twice.

Would you mind emailing me on where you think I blew it?

mar K.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling

You were pushing the politeness envelope, and your last post broke through.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am getting tired of wading through the after-effects of everybody else's canines.

So... everybody chill, 'kay?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Reading Moe's posts, reading your reply, and reading the above, I see where I crossed the line. I am sorry.

It is ironic, is it not, that in a post where I extoll my superior (?!?) caution and discretion, I end up slamming you. So much for my caution and discretion. Mirrors are seldom very flattering.

Oh well, live and learn.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Mitt Romney has always said that he does not support mass deportations of illegals - where is he now saying this?

The quote about, "...registering illegals and starting them on a path to citizenship as they would from their own country." Mitt was asked about this recently and said that he does not believe that any advantage should be given to illegals who are currently in this country. They should have the same path to citizenship as someone currently in Bolivia (In other words no amnesty). Again, where is the contradiction?

The other quote in this article talks about Romney saying that he does not believe that illegals should be denied all services. Obviously, this would include things like emergency medical treatment. Is their a candidate out there with a position that extreme? I don't believe even Tom Tancreado is saying that illegals who need emergency medical treatment should be allowed to die on the sidewalk.

As far as the rest of the meaning of that statement it is clearly ambiguous and one that tells little about the candidate.

If one looks at one of Mitt's first acts as governor (in 2003 - his 1st year) - working to eliminate bilingual education and pushing English immersion, one can see a position on immigration that is thoroughly consistent.

Just as one can see from Mitt's actions fighting against the State Supreme Judicial Court on same sex marriage (also in 2003 - his 1st year as governor), that Mitt is a true social conservative.

This immigration article is the latest in a series of attacks from the left to get conservatives to dismiss one of the best GOP candidates for President. It ranks up there with several of the following hits that actually are weak attempts to show contradictions in policy-

- Being in favor of non-discrimination of gays = can't argue for same sex marriage ban.

- once called Bush tax cuts a federal issue, something he was not going to comment on (this despite the fact that he was quoted as supporting them several other times) = Mitt is untrustable in regard to taxes, even though he has a strong record in regard to opposing tax hikes and pushing for tax cuts. Make out of it what you will in regards to his signing the Norquist tax pledge in 2007 and not signing it in 2002 (it does not take away from his strong anti-tax record).

- previous statements in favor of some campaign reform (ie vague financing limits, PAC regulations or elimination) = can't criticize McCain-Feingold as biased against Republicans and questionable in terms of constitutionality (ie, its effect on third party political ads). This despite the fact that Mitt Romney had not ever spoken out in favor of this core change in the bill - the restrictions on third party political ads.

- That a guy with a 'B' rating from the NRA as governor was somehow previously anti-gun. He has not changed his views on the assault weapons ban - the same position as that held by President Bush. His tone is a little different then in 2002 for obvious reasons.

Obviously, Mitt Romney has had some changes in policy (as almost all other politicians). However, the attacks on him have gone way overboard.

Most of the “flip-flopping” charges seem to be deliberate distortions by supporters of Brownback and the other also rans or just sheer laziness on the part of people who don’t bother to look at the full context.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

NOT amnesty? Are these invaders being put at the back of the line to citizenship? Are (or will) they getting all the benefits of citizenship with a light tap on the wrist for breaking the law as their first acts on entering the US?

Anyone who is here illegally should, ideally, be deported or, at a minimum, be permanently denied citizenship and ALL government benefits, including Social Security, welfare, food stamps, disability and school for their kids. If we're not willing to do that, then we need to stop throwing so much money at countries whose citizens are invading America and use that money to shore up our borders & deport those who are here.

Tancredo in '08!

Just about everyone in the world currently has a 'path to citizenship' in the US through the normal legal process of applying for citizenship. It is important that we not give advantages to those already here that have come illegally, as was done in the 1980s.

Please drop the RINO talk - I feel the same way about Brownback.

Brownback has a 95% lifetime record from the American Conservative Union, scored a 98 from the Club for Growth, and 100% lifetime score from National Right to Life, I'm not sure why you would label him a RINO...

He's out there on the fringe of the party.

Because he's too Republican, he's "Republican in Name Only"?

Impeccable logic, as always.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Why do people on the fringe get to define the name? Wouldn't it be more accurate to take the stands of people who call themselves 'Republican' and let the center of those define the term?

Reported by Robert Novak. The guy who exposed the non-covert Valerie Wilson.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Novak says "reportedly," which means someone else reported it. My Man Mitt has 'reportedly' debunked the claims.
__________________________________________
First State Politics

My Man Mitt claimed that Novak was off by a factor of 10, so I guess that means that Romney only dumped $30k into CPAC. That's great that he has attempted to correct the record, but I haven't seen any evidence to support his counter-claim. Maybe it's been posted since yesterday. Let me check....

Nope. Nothing. Weird. Here's where he makes the counter-claim anyway: Evans and Novak Step in it Again!

Another problem with the post is that [Rowland] Evans could not have possibly stepped in anything as he passed away in 2001. So until I see the evidence, well, I'll withhold my judgement. :-P

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Brownback was the one that made the charge. Where is his evidence? Or are you saying that Romney is guilty until he proves his innocence?

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling

Up from .5%!!!! ;)

I'm so thrilled that The Three RINOs are right at the top of the list. It's great for my party and my country. /sarc

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

Has not been to New Hampshire yet. That will be changing very, very soon.

This would be the part where you'd be advised that you've already made this exact same point at least four times already in this very same thread, and that you need to move on to bigger and better things.

But really, I'm content to just let you go on making a real fool out of yourself.

Brownback backed by the "left-wing media"? Honestly. Best laugh I've had yet tody.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

You're aware that Romney used illegal immigrants to landscape his personal residence, right?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/01/illeg...

I particularly like the line about how Romney would give the workers the occasional "buenos dias."

Romney hired a landscaping company who had used illegal immigrants. That's not the same as Romney himself hiring illegal immigrants. I'm sure that's I've eaten at a restaurant that had some illegals working for them (and if you've eaten at any restaurant in the last 10 years you have too), same difference.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Voting for the "Democrats just to spite him" will really help the conservative cause. /sarc

If you really can't stoop to vote for Sam Brownback, why not vote third party or write in your own candidate? Voting Democrat isn't going to help you get what you want.

Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!

that Hunter is against free trade, right?

Ummm so am I. Free trade leads to globalization and weakens nationalism. It seels our national industries out to the lower business. Sure it is good economics but it is not worth a loss in sovereignty.

We need to move inward as a country in an effort to secure our national identity.

Hunter is the strongest canidate.

While I'm glad Brownback agrees with my sentiments on the issue, I have to wonder at his priorities.

This issue would die if he'd leave it alone- which would be best for all concerned.

Instead of focusing on the issues that are most pressing Brownback goes of on this issue again, allowing him to be painted as an extremist in the media, which he does not need- and what does it gain him?

We already know he's dependable on this issue. Gen. Pace isn't being helped by it, he'd be better off if everyone just let it drop. It's more of the that "shoot yourself in the foot for the principle of the thing" stuff that Brownback has always been susceptible to.

It just reinforces the impression that he's too much of an amateur to successfully deal with the MSM.

Nor does it address the biggest concern about him- why was he openly opposed to the surge- even before it was implemented?