A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I am going to have to disagree with you, I think the other candidates had enough time in Virginia to get enough signatures, I think the problem was they had disorganized campaigns.IMO, any certification process which makes it impossible for any candidate to appear on the ballot EXCEPT for self-financed near billionaires and a Ron Paul, whose support is a mile deep and an inch wide, is antithetical to democracy. Esp. the knife-twisting provision that write-ins are disallowed. It stinks like a pig sty. There was NO WAY that Newt, Perry, Santorum, Cain and others had a chance, with the necessary focus of their resources on Iowa. So, disenfranchising supporters of other candidates was Mitt’s intent AND result. It won’t be forgotten.
BTW, you probably won’t want to search massresistance.com. It’ll be too depressing. Mitt is not a conservative. Would any conservative nominate only NINE Republicans to the judiciary out of 36 selections? No. No matter, I still retain abundant admiration and respect for you, Ab.Rob
It doesn’t as much regarding appointees to the judiciary if they are Democrats if they are dealing with criminals in court, rather than appoint them to the higher courts.
Massresistance.com has stories about Romney going back nearly 20 years, people can change in that time. Ronald Reagan used to be pro choice, then he became pro life.