Mitt Romney running for president

racerx_is_alive · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:11 pm

lahimatoa wrote:

link below wrote:

Khatami, speaking to reporters after a meeting with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, said, "We say that America is at the top of the list of countries which are endangering world peace and security and we hope that one day they come to their senses," adding he thought a change in U.S. policy was very unlikely.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote:

"As America claims to be fighting terrorism, it implements policies that cause the intensification of terrorism and institutionalized violence," Khatami said at the Islamic Society of North America's 43rd annual convention.

ABC news wrote:

in interviews with CNN and USA Today, Khatami faulted Bush on several counts: He refused, for example, to back off a previous comparison between the American leader and Osama bin Laden. He also said the U.S. was partly to blame for the turmoil in the Middle East.

"As a result of such wrong policies, such unilateral, violent policies, that is the voice of logic has decreased and voice of terror and attractiveness of terror unfortunately among youth has increased," CNN quoted him as saying in an interview.

Ummm, is this the worst he has done? I was all on the keep-the-terrorist-mongering-murderer-outta-here-bandwagon until I read these quotes, and I now I'm starting to wonder what the big deal is. Americans say this kind of crap all the time. Republicans have shared some of these same ideas (albeit with toned-down words). Being a critic of US foreign policy is par for the course for most Americans and even more of the rest of the world, and not really very offensive.

EDIT: From the original Fox "News" link:

Quote:

The Republican chief executive, a potential candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, said Mohammed Khatami oversaw torture and the murder of dissidents, as well as Iran's secret nuclear program, while in office from 1997 to 2005.

"State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney said in a statement.

...

— Describing the terrorist group Hezbollah, involved in the recent Israel-Lebanon border war, as a "shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world."

— Endorsing the call of the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to seek the annihilation of Israel.

— Refusing to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.

I agree with that. The stuff you linked to above makes it sound like he's your run-of-the-mill democratic candidate.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:20 pm

Quote:

Under reformist Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, elected in 1997, some believed Iran and Israel would work to improve relations. While at first Khatami's election did not seem to change anything—he called Israel an "illegal state" and a "parasite," [6] signs of small moderation did appear. For example, Khatami has said that Jews should be "safe in Iran" and that all religious minorities should be protected , as always has been.[7]. In January 2004, he spoke to an Israeli reporter who asked him on what grounds Iran would recognize Israel. This was believed to be the first time he had spoken publicly with an Israeli [8].

At the funeral of Pope John Paul II in April 2005, Khatami was seated close to Israeli President Moshe Katsav. Katsav said that he shook Khatami's hand and the two had a brief conversation about Iran (Katsav was born in Iran). However, Khatami denied this [9].

Said in a message to Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah that “Hezbollah is like a shining sun which warms up all oppressed Muslims, especially those in Palestine and Lebanon”

Wikipedia

So no, he's not as outspoken as Ahmadinejad, but he's no friend of Israel or the US.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:04 pm

Agreed, those first quotes you published showed Khatami as a mostly level-headed critic of the US (except for the ridiculous Bush = Bin Laden thing), thought they did suggest that he's not really a "friend" of the US, as WHF was saying. Comparatively, he was the most friendly to the US in Iranian government, but he wasn't really a friend.

The wikipedia quote and the ones racerx put up actually give some good reason that Romney could be justified in withholding Massachusetts money. I hear that the Iranian public really doesn't care if Israel is there or not, so if an Iranian politician is calling for the destruction of Israel, it can't be written off like in Arab states where they could be saying that just because their people will get mad if they don't.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:31 pm

lahimatoa wrote:

I know it's fun to imagine you're that much smarter than the governor of a US State, but sometimes that's not entirely true.

Don't dare presume anything about me. I'm going to ask you not to make snide remarks like this to me again, or I'm going straight to the mods.

Okay, in hindsight, Khatami may not have been a "friend" exactly. That was my bad. But there was far more scope for friendship with him than with his successor.

So, these quotes you've posted prove that Khatami is a critic of Israeli and American policy, and he that he was afraid of upsetting Hezbollah and conservatives. Thank you. I already knew that. Even if that doesn't make him a friend of the US, does it make him an enemy?

racerx_is_alive wrote:

EDIT: From the original Fox "News" link:

Quote:

The Republican chief executive, a potential candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, said Mohammed Khatami oversaw torture and the murder of dissidents, as well as Iran's secret nuclear program, while in office from 1997 to 2005.

"State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney said in a statement.

...

— Describing the terrorist group Hezbollah, involved in the recent Israel-Lebanon border war, as a "shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world."

— Endorsing the call of the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to seek the annihilation of Israel.

— Refusing to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.

I agree with that. The stuff you linked to above makes it sound like he's your run-of-the-mill democratic candidate.

[/quote]

Now here's exactly what I was trying to find more info on today. I've started with the Wiki. And there's some contradiction between what Fox/Romney says, and the word of the Wiki and other sources. Par example........

Fox article wrote:

Mohammed Khatami oversaw torture and the murder of dissidents

Wikipedia wrote:

Highlights of important crises (related to his domestic reform plans) during his presidency include:

* The serial murders of Iranian political dissidents by rogue elements in the Intelligence Ministry.

Link to Wiki >>>

Note rogue elements.

Fox wrote:

Refusing to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.

Louis J. Freeh, former director of the FBI, wrote:

In their [the Saudi's] only bungled attempt to support the FBI, a letter from the president intended for Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, asking for "help" on the Khobar case, was sent to the Omanis, who had direct access to Mr. Khatami. This was done without advising either the FBI or the Saudis who were exposed in the letter as providing help to the Americans. We only found out about the letter because it was misdelivered to the Spiritual Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who then publicly denounced the U.S.

Full link>>>

So if we believe Freeh, that was down to Saudi incompetence.

Quote:

— Describing the terrorist group Hezbollah, involved in the recent Israel-Lebanon border war, as a "shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world."

As regards his comments about Israel being a parasite and all that - I've yet to look into that properly (I've got places to go now!). His Wiki page says nothing of that though. But you know, I'd wonder if denoucing Israel as an evil state is quite the same thing as giving actual funding and other support to terrorist groups.

In the case of the first scenerio, I'd be inclined to dismiss it as diplomacy-speak. Something to keep in the favour of the conservatives and Hezbollah......... who wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in his head if they didn't like him, may I add. They already killed his Culture Minister and other members of his party.

In the case of the second - if Khatami indeed supports Hezbollah in a concrete way - it's then that I'd agree with Romney.

Umm...... I've not found any good info on that today. I'll have a look tomorrow, and will post anything I find.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:46 pm

Quote:

I'm going to ask you not to make snide remarks like this to me again, or I'm going straight to the mods.

Assuming the mods haven't already read my post and decided my remarks were not "snide".

And Iran continued to fund Hezbollah during Khatami's reign. If that's not full-fledged support, I don't know what it.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:57 pm

lahimatoa wrote:

Quote:

I'm going to ask you not to make snide remarks like this to me again, or I'm going straight to the mods.

Assuming the mods haven't already read my post and decided my remarks were not "snide".

I don't care. If you're ever snide with me again, I will complain to the mods. There are civilised ways of saying you disagree with someone, you know.

Quote:

And Iran continued to fund Hezbollah during Khatami's reign. If that's not full-fledged support, I don't know what it.

Okay, here's the difficulty I have. Khatami was pretty much impotent in the face of the Supreme Council. They rejected most of his reforms, including the famous twin bills, and rogue elements connected to them killed off some of his colleagues - click.

So who can really tell how much he was involved with Hezbollah? Don't get me wrong, he might have had full involvement. But..... ugh..... as I say, I have lots of resource to do before I can say anything for definate. First thing I'll be doing is tracing Romney's sources of info on Khatami.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:36 pm

lahimatoa wrote:

Quote:

I'm going to ask you not to make snide remarks like this to me again, or I'm going straight to the mods.

Assuming the mods haven't already read my post and decided my remarks were not "snide".

Actually, that DID seem like you were taking a pot shot at her. I was hoping it'd blow over, though.

Come on people, let's keep this civil (please?!?!)

Now for my two cents, even if this guy isn't a hate-monger, Romney may still be in the right. Khatami is going to have a ton of security, provided at our expense, by the feds.
Does the state of Massachusetts provide beefed up security for all guest speakers at Harvard? If yes, then I think that Romney's wrong here. If not, then I don't see why he should bend over backwards and break with what's been standard.
Either way, you'd think the Iranians would take care of Khatami. I know we'd never send someone into Iran without a crap load of security (and/or a platoon of Marines).

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:41 am

lahimatoa wrote:

I know it's fun to imagine you're that much smarter than the governor of a US State, but sometimes that's not entirely true.

Ugh, grow up Lahi.

To answer your question Sree, Campus security and Cambridge Police usually handle VIPs at Harvard and MIT.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:55 am

Beyond the Grave wrote:

lahimatoa wrote:

I know it's fun to imagine you're that much smarter than the governor of a US State, but sometimes that's not entirely true.

To answer your question Sree, Campus security and Cambridge Police usually handle VIPs at Harvard and MIT.

Then that's what should happen in this case.

ramrod · **Posted:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:58 am

StrongRad wrote:

Beyond the Grave wrote:

To answer your question Sree, Campus security and Cambridge Police usually handle VIPs at Harvard and MIT.

Then that's what should happen in this case.

Yeah, but this might need more than just campus sercurity. With all that's going on, campus sercurity and the local police would not be enough.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:45 am

StrongRad wrote:

Now for my two cents, even if this guy isn't a hate-monger, Romney may still be in the right. Khatami is going to have a ton of security, provided at our expense, by the feds.
Does the state of Massachusetts provide beefed up security for all guest speakers at Harvard? If yes, then I think that Romney's wrong here. If not, then I don't see why he should bend over backwards and break with what's been standard.
Either way, you'd think the Iranians would take care of Khatami. I know we'd never send someone into Iran without a crap load of security (and/or a platoon of Marines).

Well, that's certainly true. Khatami is bringing his own security anyway, and as far as the reports go, hasn't asked for any support from Romney. So that issue is probably just a storm in a teacup. Though I was more concerned about the claims that Romney made about Khatami, and from where he got his info. Speaking of which........

Okay, as promised, I've come back with my report on Khatami's personal concrete support of Hezbollah. Umm..... and I've found nothing. Nada. I've even gone through books I've got on Iran, and still nothing. If anyone's found something that I've missed, post it here plz.

I've found this much. It doesn't prove anything though, other than the fact that he sees Hezbollah as freedom fighters.

(NOTE: When I say personal concrete support, I mean personal concrete support. I know well the relationship between Hezbollah and Khatami's superiors and members of his gov, so don't bother pointing that out.)

-------

However, I have found some more contradictions and skews between some claims made in Romney's press statement and the Supreme Word of Wiki, and other sources.

Romney's press release wrote:

During the period of time he was in office, from 1997 to 2005, Khatami presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program.

Wikipedia wrote:

On August 14, 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a prominent Iranian dissident, revealed the existence of two unknown nuclear sites, a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground) and a heavy water facility in Arak.

Though it is often claimed that Iran had "concealed" its enrichment programme from the IAEA "in violation of the NPT" until it was "caught cheating" in 2002, the fact is that Iran was not obliged to inform the Agency about those facilities at the time since according to Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA in force at the time, "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it." In fact, it was not even required to inform the IAEA of their existence until then, a point conceded by Britain at the March 2003 Board of Governors meeting. This `six months' clause was a standard part of all IAEA safeguards agreements. Nonetheless, Iran allowed intrusive inspections of the facilities by the IAEA pursuant to the Additional Protocol, and the IAEA concluded that the facilities were not related to any secret nuclear weapons programme.(Iran and the invention of a nuclear crisis by Siddharth Varadarajan, http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/09/21/st ... 231000.htm)

On November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary and temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment programme (enrichment is not a violation of the NPT) after pressure from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany acting on behalf of the European Union (EU) (known in this context as the EU-3). The measure was said at the time to be a confidence-building measure, to continue for some reasonable period of time, six months being mentioned as a reference. On November 24, Iran sought to amend the terms of its agreement with the EU to exclude a handful of the equipment from this deal for research work. This request was dropped four days later.

Link to Wiki>>>

So if the IAEA had no problem with the sites, why does Romney?

Romney's press release wrote:

Currently, the Iranian Government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is snubbing the international community’s request to cease nuclear weapons production.

And what's that got to do with Khatami, exactly?

Romney's press release wrote:

In the recent conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Khatami described the terrorist group Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.”

That's true. No argument that that's verbal support, but as for concrete support.......?

Romney's press release wrote:

Khatami has endorsed Ahmadinejad’s call for the annihilation of Israel.

I'm stumped. I've found nothing that either backs this claim or discredits it. Well, other than what Khatami has said to Time - but he says he'd fully support the existance of Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Again, if anyone's got anything more substantial that I've missed, post it here.

(Sidenote: I'm pretty sure that these two men are on less than friendly terms - why would one back the other on anything?)

Romney's press release wrote:

During Khatami’s presidency, Iran refused to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel. In his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of Iranian students, journalists, and others who spoke out for freedom and democracy.

I've addressed these in an earlier post.

Romney's press release wrote:

Khatami relaxed freedom of speech laws giving democracy reformers a false sense of security only to engage in one of the largest crackdowns in the country’s history.

Khatami tried to enforce free speech. And it was the Guardian Council and the conservatives within his government who cracked down on it. He was pretty much powerless to stop them...... click.

Romney's press release wrote:

In Khatami’s Iran, there was no religious tolerance. According to the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom, Iran was one of the worst offenders of religious persecutions. Minorities, such as Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics and others, have suffered.

Wikipedia wrote:

The central feature of the country’s Islamic republican system is rule by a "religious jurisconsult." The Supreme Leader of Islamic Republic controls the most important levers of power; he is chosen by a group of 83 religious scholars. All acts of the Majles (legislative body) must be reviewed for conformity with Islamic law and principles by the Council of Guardians, which is composed of six clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader and six Muslim jurists (legal scholars) nominated by the Head of the Judiciary and elected by parliament.

Full article >>>

That whole issue is decidedly more complicated. But whether or not Khatami would have supported the oppression of non-Muslims, he was pretty much powerless to do anything about it, due to Iran's (corrupt) theocratic system. If you're going to blame someone for that, you'd need to blame the Supreme Leader - Ayatollah Khamenei.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:52 pm

This Khatami thing is interesting.
Khatami was asked, point blank, whether or not he supported the elimination of Israel. He said no, then did the "but for the past 50 years, a nation called Palestine has not been allowed to exist".
I caught myself saying "take it up with the UN"..

Regardless of what people think of him, he can sure write fast.. Seriously, this guy could be a court stenographer, without that shorthand machine.

Anyways, this thread is WAAAAAAAAAAY off topic now, so I'm-a toastpaint it.
If anyone wants to continue this discussion, please make a new thread.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:29 pm

If Romney is trying to get the enviromental vote this isn't going to help.

racerx_is_alive · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:35 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

If Romney is trying to get the enviromental vote this isn't going to help.

Environmental vote? He's not counting on that, he's republican.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:16 pm

racerx_is_alive wrote:

Beyond the Grave wrote:

If Romney is trying to get the enviromental vote this isn't going to help.

Environmental vote? He's not counting on that, he's republican.

If you are smart, you play on both sides of the street.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:35 pm

In today's world of bitter partisan politics, playing both sides of the street means both sides end up hating you.

ramrod · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:12 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

racerx_is_alive wrote:

Beyond the Grave wrote:

If Romney is trying to get the enviromental vote this isn't going to help.

Environmental vote? He's not counting on that, he's republican.

If you are smart, you play on both sides of the street.

It worked for Joe Lieberman.

Oh wait....

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:16 pm

ramrod wrote:

It worked for Joe Lieberman.

Oh wait....

It worked for Clinton.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:51 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

ramrod wrote:

It worked for Joe Lieberman.

Oh wait....

It worked for Clinton.

It's not called "playing both sides of the street", it's called not being a partisan jerk.

I think there's something to be learned there. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone in DC will care to learn.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:03 am

Romney raises $6.5 million for his campaign.

That is not chump change, people.

Romney is running the right of McCain and Guiliani philosophically, and behind them in the polls. Sam Brownback and others have considered running on the right also but with Romney setting the bar so high most of those who want to run on the right will realize that they can't compete with that and won't throw their hat in the ring.

Romney is also now ahead of McCain and Guiliani in one department, at least temporarily, as McCain has only raised 2 million and Guiliani 800K.

Whatever Romney's faults may or may not be, one thing is for sure; he is one incredible strategist.

Mike D · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:55 am

Romney's candidacy interests me. If he wins the GOP nomination, what will that mean for the party's traditional ties to evangelical Christianity? This thread has largely made light of the differences between Romney's faith and that of "mainstream" American Christianity, but in reality the gap is substantial.

For instance, to this day the Southern Baptist Convention classifies the LDS church as a cult and manifestly non-Christian. (Seeing as the SBC is the largest and most influencial Prostestant organization in the country this is a significant fact.) While Romney is trying to paint himself as in step with conservative Christian views, the essential doctrinal differences are still going to stand out.

This wouldn't be an issue in the general election; if Romney gets the GOP nomination fundamentalist Christians would likely support him over whomever the Democrats field. It's the Republican primaries that are going to be Romney's real hurdle...I can envision Romney winding up on the short end of some ugly tactics next year.

Mike

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:38 pm

Dag. And d'ja know something......... I can't see many serious policy flaws or even character flaws in him that call into question his potential competency for the job.

I need a chemical shower now.

Mike D wrote:

Romney's candidacy interests me. If he wins the GOP nomination, what will that mean for the party's traditional ties to evangelical Christianity? This thread has largely made light of the differences between Romney's faith and that of "mainstream" American Christianity, but in reality the gap is substantial.

No joking. Some of the religious tension surrounding Mormonism that I've seen just on this forum alone is enough to surprise me.

Of course, whether or not the fundementalists think he's a cultist, they're still very likely to be won over by his policies. He'd certainly be the lesser of two evils when compared to Guiliani. But then the likes of Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee already have the fundementalist base covered with their own pro-life-pro-family trumpetting.......... so, yeah, it's all up in the air.

But it may be worth for Romney to seek support from the pro-economy sects, maybe moreso than the Christian ones. I don't know what he's doing on that score though, but I say that's a good avenue for him.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:47 pm

Why the need for a chemical shower? Do you feel gross about liking him because he's Republican or because he's Mormon?

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:37 pm

Nah, nothing like that. Just a joke.

Though his policies make him the kind of politican that us old-school socialists instinctively hate. Plus, I immediately distrust anyone who looks too clean-cut and polished - but that's a personal quirk.

Other than that, he could make for a very competent president.

But I'd be most interested to see what his foreign policy is. I've not seen much on that yet. (Actually, I'd love to know if he's thought about Northern Ireland at all. Clinton did some good work in his term, but the situation has been slipping into the mire of late. Though, Northern Ireland does tend to be more a Democrat issue, so we'll see.)

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:22 pm

A letter written by a group called Evangelicals For Mitt.

Looks like he has at least some support from this kind of people.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:31 pm

lahimatoa wrote:

A letter written by a group called Evangelicals For Mitt.

Looks like he has at least some support from this kind of people.

Yeah, but I guarantee that if Mitt runs he will find out how much hatred there still is in this country towards Mormons. Especially in the South where the LDS is viewed as heretical.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:51 pm

Hmm. You seem familiar with the amount of hatred directed at Mormons, BTG. Why don't you help me understand it?

What's the source of all this vitriol?

StrongRad · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:56 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

lahimatoa wrote:

A letter written by a group called Evangelicals For Mitt.

Looks like he has at least some support from this kind of people.

Yeah, but I guarantee that if Mitt runs he will find out how much hatred there still is in this country towards Mormons. Especially in the South where the LDS is viewed as heretical.

You know, it's funny, I've never heard the LDS called a cult or heretics, and I've pretty much gone to "Southern Baptist" affiliated churches all of my life. Of course, unlike the LDS, you can go to different Southern Baptist churches and get totally different messages about the same topic. (It was pointed out in the Mormon thread that most LDS churches are pretty much in line with one another, and that certainly cannot be said about the churches I attend).

My honest opinion is that, when faced with a choice of a Christian who may not believe quite the way they do, and someone who they associate with "secularization of America", most "faith" voters will pick the Christian.

In the "Bible Belt" South, Catholics seem to be less favorably viewed than Mormons. Of course, that's just my own experience.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:49 pm

lahimatoa wrote:

A letter written by a group called Evangelicals For Mitt.

Looks like he has at least some support from this kind of people.

A sideissue, but why is there nothing in this letter about his position on health care, schools, social equality, adequate taxation or foreign policy? Are these issues not a concern for these people? Or do they expect other people to worry about that stuff for them?

racerx_is_alive · **Posted:** Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:21 pm

What's Her Face wrote:

A sideissue, but why is there nothing in this letter about his position on health care, schools, social equality, adequate taxation or foreign policy? Are these issues not a concern for these people? Or do they expect other people to worry about that stuff for them?

I guess these are their highest priority issues. Maybe they care about those other issues, but to them, they are secondary. They are only going to start looking at secondary issues if there are multiple candidates that are equally qualified or all candidates are equally unqualified on their primary issues.

Personally, I agree with some of his decisions that they list in that document, and I disagree with a few of them as well. However, none of those are in my personal "top priority" queue.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Mitt Romney running for president

Who is online