National Review Endorses Mitt Romney; DNC Endorses Huckabee, Viewing Him As "Easy Kill" In General Election

Surprising? A bit. I really don't know how much pull NR has though. From my comments and emails, I gather NR is viewed very suspiciously by a large swath of the conservative electorate, which views them as meddlesome yuppie RINOs.

Meanwhile, also from Drudge, Democrats have been instructed to avoid all criticism of Huckabee, viewing him as an "easy kill" in the general election.

I agree. For once the Democrats and I are on the same page.

Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal.
The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party's nomination.
The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source.
Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the "glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it."
In the last three weeks since Huckabee's surge kicked in, the DNC hasn't released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy.
The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd.
...
In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left.
"He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill," mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.

So, what? We're letting the Democratic Party and the MSM and some single-issue voters yearning for only a candidate who shares their faith to decide this thing, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 05:24 PM

Comments

1 Does anyone know a single person outside the government business who actually supports Romney?

Not, like, "I could vote for him", but real support.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 05:31 PM (2z2WN)

2 The only exciting candidate is Hillary.

Not exciting in a positive way, but exciting nonetheless.

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at December 11, 2007 05:33 PM (Lz6uE)

3 Well, Ann Coulter...if she's considered "outside the government business." I'm not really sure what that means.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 11, 2007 05:35 PM (1Ug6U)

4 Not a pundit, Beltway person, fundraiser, bundler, or any of that.

You know, a voter.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 05:38 PM (2z2WN)

5 Ann Coulter's not thrilled with Romney. She's a reliable Republican vote, but not an enthusiastic one, given the candidates.

Posted by: Kensington at December 11, 2007 05:41 PM (kFwRi)

6 Romney: A profile for Rushmore!

I give that to his campaign free of charge.

Posted by: ricpic at December 11, 2007 05:42 PM (gN5X2)

7 Does anyone know a single person outside the government business who actually supports Romney?

Yes, a few. I'm growing more fond of him as a consensus candidate, but I wouldn't call it full support.

Posted by: Slublog at December 11, 2007 05:50 PM (R8+nJ)

You know, if you shut your eyes and listen really close, you can make out K-Lo squeeling like a 14 year old David Cassidy fan.

And, frankly, that scares me.

Posted by: Jack M. at December 11, 2007 05:50 PM (b96e6)

9 Nope, all I hear is Hugh Hewitt.

Posted by: Slublog at December 11, 2007 05:52 PM (R8+nJ)

10 I knew a girl named K-Lo
I guess u could say she was a Mitt fiend
I met her in a hotel lobby
Masturbating with a magazine

Posted by: Amish at December 11, 2007 05:53 PM (LHwbh)

If Huck's got a glass jaw it'll be broken before any Dem can take a whack.

Hopefully.

Posted by: Eleven at December 11, 2007 05:55 PM (7DB+a)

12 Does anyone know a single person outside the government business who actually supports Romney?

Yes, Myself.

Posted by: Mark in Spokane at December 11, 2007 05:59 PM (T++Q8)

^{You know, if you shut your eyes and listen really close, you can make out K-Lo squeeling like a 14 year old David Cassidy fan.}

^{And, frankly, that scares me.}

You know, if you close your eyes and listen really close, you shouldn't hear the screams of a 14 year old boy. May I suggest some help.

Unless it's all coming from your basement, which is cool.

Posted by: TheEJS at December 11, 2007 05:59 PM (KINJc)

Um, so does this mean the Democrats retroactively approve of using Willie Horton?

Posted by: Dirk at December 11, 2007 06:00 PM (AJx67)

As a regular voter, I can tell you I would vote for him in a hearbeat rather than any democrat out there. As a church-goin', gun-totin' conservative I have ZERO problems voting for Mitt (or Giuliani or Fred) over Hillary or Obama. Huckabee will bring decades of ruin to the conservative movement and the dems know this.

The outcome of this election is about more than the specific man occupying the White House -- it will shape this country's future for years. If you want the dems running everything, and I mean EVERYTHING for the next 20 to 30 years, than pull for Huckabee. He will lose his ass in the general election, we will get creamed in the House and Senate, and every aging Supreme will now be able to retire knowing that Hillary/Obama will fill there seats with judges more radical than they.

Posted by: Ken at December 11, 2007 06:01 PM (NLnyS)

I always thought 'Mitt Romney' was a way to order a Bratwurst.

"Eine bratwurst mitt romney..."

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 11, 2007 06:03 PM (UeP9e)

Amish,

LOL..I really miss your name jokes.

Somethign like "Purple Amish" would've worked.

Posted by: Jack M. at December 11, 2007 06:04 PM (b96e6)

18
So, if Ace votes for Hillary! will he be forced to surrender his title and crown of best conservative blogger of 2007?

Posted by: aoshq janitorial, escort, & matchmaker service at December 11, 2007 06:06 PM (11Mw1)

19 Let me be explicit, then: Romney is the Republican John Kerry, a self-funding patrician with fancy hair whose base is astroturf and whom no one believes in as anything but a collection of convenient policy positions. Of course, that was enough to get Kerry the nomination (the establishment loves this sort of candidate), but it did prevent his victory.

I'd vote for Mitt, but the only way he could win is if the Dems blow it.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 06:07 PM (2z2WN)

20 No, because Hillary will be the conservative candidate in a Hillary/Huckabee race.

Posted by: ace at December 11, 2007 06:09 PM (SXBHu)

So, if Ace votes for Hillary! will he be forced to surrender his title and crown of best conservative blogger of 2007?

No...in that event I stage a Palace Coup and declare myself the best conservative blogger.

I mean, it's either that or have it default down to Gabe...CHOOSE WISELY!

Posted by: Jack M. at December 11, 2007 06:11 PM (b96e6)

Wow. That's pretty depressing - the NRO endorsement, I mean.

If Fred or Hunter weren't in the race, I could forgive it... Romney probably would be the most conservative candidate available then. But -with- them available, they're showing that they've got other priorities than conservative policy, and that's a sad thing.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at December 11, 2007 06:11 PM (/FDfc)

23 About what I'd expect from those bunch of yuppie RINOs. heh.

Don't forget about Derb's endorsement of of Ron Paul. Didn't see that one coming.... haha

Posted by: brak at December 11, 2007 06:14 PM (dWjrP)

24 Funny thing is, they've either put it in at the worst possible time (Huckster sucking up all the oxygen), or it's a desperation salvo aimed at the Huckster.

The latter seems unnecessary, as he's bound to implode sooner or later.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 06:14 PM (2z2WN)

25 I'd vote for Mitt if it comes down to it. In fact I'd vote for them all except Huck and Rue Paul if I had to.

Posted by: Mr Minority at December 11, 2007 06:15 PM (rV8wK)

26 "Romney is the Republican John Kerry, a self-funding patrician with fancy hair whose base is astroturf............."

Uh, no. There's a slight (actually huge) difference. If you look at each man's accomplishments, you will see one man has accomplished a great deal in his life, and has actually fixed/improved/succeeded at pretty much everything he has attempted. He has made his money the old fashioned way -- by earning it.

The other gentleman (ahem) essentially made his fortune by sleeping with and marrying extremely wealthy women/widows. He has accomplished nothing in his decades-long career in the senate.

Tell me again how they are similar?

Posted by: Ken at December 11, 2007 06:16 PM (NLnyS)

No, because Hillary will be the conservative candidate in a Hillary/Huckabee race.

Dude... exactly what conservative measures has Hillary pushed?

I don't like Huckster either, but damn- let's not go pretending that she's a Blue Dog.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 11, 2007 06:17 PM (plsiE)

28 That illusive "shot from below" oil painting cover of theirs has no effect on me. That only works with hamburgers and nudies.

Posted by: Joanie at December 11, 2007 06:19 PM (Yyy1m)

29 "There's a slight (actually huge) difference. If you look at each man's accomplishments, you will see one man has accomplished a great deal in his life, and has actually fixed/improved/succeeded at pretty much everything he has attempted. He has made his money the old fashioned way -- by earning it."

You're looking at them as men, and potential Presidents.

I'm looking at them as candidates.

However they got there, they've got similar campaigns, and similar weaknesses (of perception and manner, not substance).

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 06:22 PM (2z2WN)

30 Teh Fred's base of strict federalists is almost as small as Ron Paul's base.

Posted by: Dirk at December 11, 2007 06:24 PM (AJx67)

31 They make a pretty good case for Romney and I concede it's not that hard, especially in this field. They do breeze by some of Mitt's changing positions and his seeming desire to be the perfect conservative. Personally, I'd have preferred if he held onto one or two of his more liberal positions. At least it would show some genuineness and willing to stand on principle.

I'd like to be on Fred's bandwagon but despite what the Fredheads say, presentation and effort matters. The guy is who he is, let's not pretend there is some grand plan or media conspiracy to hide some ultra dynamic version of the guy.

Plus, he hasn't been an executive.8 years in the Senate, an acting career and some lobbying isn't all that impressive a resume. I'd say it's about the same as Hillary's in terms of experience.

I've reconciled myself to reluctantly voting for whichever candidate survives. Except of course for Huck. Fuck him.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 11, 2007 06:26 PM (hlYel)

Tell me again how they are similar?

Both change political positions more frequently than some change socks.

Both silver spooners who got where they are because of it.

Both were groomed from childhood to be President.

Both children of politicians.

Both were elected in liberal Massachussets.

Both have nice hair, deliver smooth speeches of little substance.

Both are gun-grabbers.

Both lack appreciation of the Constitution.

Both are big government types.

As to succeeding at whatever he did- his single term as governor was mediocre. His unpopularity- partially because he was absent so much- was such that his Lieutenant Governor got slaughtered in the following election. He also failed in his first campaign attempt, blowing an early lead against Kennedy to lose... only to run for governor soon after.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 11, 2007 06:26 PM (plsiE)

33 If we could transplant Romney's hair onto The Fred, we'd have Reagan.

Fromney in a landslide!

Posted by: JayC at December 11, 2007 06:31 PM (H5zz/)

Hollowpoint, a democrat couldn't have said it better. Even with all their experience with misinformation and lies.

Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2007 06:32 PM (m2CN7)

Why do you guys continue to portray Fred as some kind of true conservative savior? He is a solid Republican but his record does not support the label you guys are trying to give him. He was a John McCain partner in crime during his Senate tenure, he sponsored no conservative legislation, he voted No on Clinton's obstruction charge, he screwed the republicans as chairman of the campaign finance investigation which was a failure, he was a member of the Republican majority that has been raked over the coals by conservatives for being pansies and his main career has been as a lobbyist where he took clients regardless of whether it was for or against conservative causes.

Posted by: polynikes at December 11, 2007 06:35 PM (m2CN7)

36 "I've reconciled myself to reluctantly voting for whichever candidate survives. Except of course for Huck. Fuck him."

Exactly. Hate Romney all you want, but the alternatives, including Huckabee, are exponentially worse.

Posted by: Ken at December 11, 2007 06:36 PM (NLnyS)

37 "but the alternatives,"

Should have added "on the other side of the aisle" to that.........

Posted by: Ken at December 11, 2007 06:39 PM (NLnyS)

38 "Hate Romney all you want, but the alternatives, including Huckabee, are exponentially worse."

Let's put it that way: when this is your best argument for a guy, he's not gonna win the general.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 06:39 PM (2z2WN)

39 I wonder whether it's truly possible to "swiftboat" Romney.

Posted by: someone2 at December 11, 2007 06:43 PM (V28mD)

40 As to succeeding at whatever he did- his single term as governor was mediocre. His unpopularity- partially because he was absent so much- was such that his Lieutenant Governor got slaughtered in the following election.

Nonsense. Kerry Healey lost on her own, because she was a terrible candidate. And I'd hardly call his single term "mediocre." He helped balance Mass's budget, got rid of the entrenched hacks in the UMass system, and beat back the libs on gay marriage to name a few things.

Posted by: Slublog at December 11, 2007 06:44 PM (rMoNQ)

41 Exactly. Hate Romney all you want, but the alternatives, including Huckabee, are exponentially worse.

Oy, and thus enters Messr Kerry into the nomination. Do you have to die first to get cryogenically frozen? Cuz I'm thinking I want to wake up in another eighty years. Sit this shit out.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at December 11, 2007 06:48 PM (IGbxn)

42 He did finally get Matt Amarillo fired also. if it wasn't for that universal health care bill that passed on his watch (regardless of how much he may or may not have had to do with it), I'd probably rate him higher than I do now.

Posted by: someone2 at December 11, 2007 06:49 PM (V28mD)

43 I'll vote for Rudy, Mitt, hell even Fred if for some oddball reason he makes it all the way, but no Democrat (in this particular race) will ever get my vote. And that includes Huckabee. There is a reason the dems are giving him a free pass for the moment.

Posted by: Ken at December 11, 2007 06:50 PM (NLnyS)

44 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 11, 2007 06:26 PM (plsiE)

Both change political positions more frequently than some change socks.

I changed my position on abortion too but I don't think Rommeny voted for it after he voted against.

Both silver spooners who got where they are because of it.

Yo, Rommey was in Business, were you have to prove everything by the bottom line, no one give you anything.

Both have nice hair, deliver smooth speeches of little substance.

If you think waffles delivers a smooth speech you are truly delusional.

Posted by: Mark in Spokane at December 11, 2007 06:57 PM (T++Q8)

45 I'm easily voting Romney over huckabee, giuliani. mccain

Posted by: Susan at December 11, 2007 06:58 PM (IM7BZ)

46 "From my comments and emails, I gather NR is viewed very suspiciously by a large swath of the conservative electorate, which views them as meddlesome yuppie RINOs."

Ace, you're wrong. Run a blog poll, you'll find out you're wrong.

Also, you're wrong about NR, period. RINOs? You *do* know what the word means, right? Exactly how many RINO positions has NR taken? They've opposed McCain's campaign finance stuff, Chuck Hagel's and Lincoln Chafee's "look at me!" crap, Harriet Miers, the immigration amnesty/travesty, etc. etc. etc.

I know you don't like Romney all that much. Me neither. But I see why NR chose him. I disagree with their choice, and I think it's the wrong one for both NR and the conservative movement as a whole.

That said, to call NR viewed suspiciously by conservatives-- *which* conservatives, Ace? Paleo-conservatives? Ron Paulbots?

C'mon, Ace. You don't like K-Lo, but *nobody* likes K-Lo. NR is as close to a conservative standard-bearer as they come, even now, and *nowhere near* RINO.

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at December 11, 2007 07:03 PM (6I1bV)

47 Exactly. Hate Romney all you want, but the alternatives, including Huckabee, are exponentially worse. Let me be explicit: I would sooner cast my vote for a Democrat than for a sack of shit like Romney.

Posted by: BC at December 11, 2007 07:06 PM (sAB0u)

48 "I would sooner cast my vote for a Democrat than for a sack of shit like Romney."

Er, why?

Curious -- I don't see much ick factor (beyond the "he's gonna lose" element).

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 07:13 PM (2z2WN)

Dave, who's your pick?

And follow-up question: NR specifically said they considered both overall conservativism and electability. Who's your pick based on those two criteria?

Posted by: Sobek at December 11, 2007 07:20 PM (6GK9U)

50 I would sooner cast my vote for a Democrat than for a sack of shit like Romney.

As I am sure will most of your fellow Democrats.

Come on people, Romney's not even remotely a perfect conservative but let's not put him in the Hukabee camp.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 11, 2007 07:26 PM (hlYel)

51 What, Hugh Hewitt's sanctimonious cheerleading douchebaggery isn't reason enough?

Posted by: BC at December 11, 2007 07:27 PM (sAB0u)

52 What, Hugh Hewitt's sanctimonious cheerleading douchebaggery isn't reason enough?

No, it's not. And if that's actually a determining factor for you, then well...that's really stupid.

Posted by: Slublog at December 11, 2007 07:28 PM (rMoNQ)

53 "What, Hugh Hewitt's sanctimonious cheerleading douchebaggery isn't reason enough?"

Actually, that's a good point.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 07:33 PM (2z2WN)

I don't know that I can quantify NRO as a whole. Their endorsement is interesting but not significant to me.

I can say that I like Jonah Goldberg, although he used to be funnier. And I really like Mark Steyn and Krikorian.

Other then that...they mostly all garner varying levels of suspicion from me on a pundit-by-pundit basis.

Also, none of them are hot chicks.

Points deducted for the sausage fest.

Posted by: Entropy at December 11, 2007 07:33 PM (HgAV0)

55 The reason I would sooner vote for a Democrat than Romney is, simply stated, that a Democrat will at least be honest about his/her intent to fuck the country over. Romney, on the other hand, since Day One has clearly and obviously been a say-anything-to-get-elected asswipe, who will lie out his ass and then fuck the country over anyway.

Posted by: BC at December 11, 2007 07:34 PM (sAB0u)

56 "a self-funding patrician with fancy hair whose base is astroturf and whom no one believes in as anything but a collection of convenient policy positions."

someone,

Mitt's accomplishments in his personal, public, and business life make him the most qualified candidate. The only complaints I hear in your comments are based on very skewed views of the facts. You might ought to re-examine Mitt's record of accomplishments and then ask yourself if it is really that plausible that NO ONE believes in. I'd submit that more people believe in him than believe in fred.

Posted by: csdeven at December 11, 2007 07:35 PM (M5cP1)

Also, while I know little to nothing about WFB, he is suspect (via association) of being an anachronism because he has some really douchey friends.

Like that "REAL conservatives drink beefeaters and wear saucy pants" douche.

What a douche.

Posted by: Entropy at December 11, 2007 07:35 PM (HgAV0)

58 Its gotta be Romney or Fred, if its Rudy or Huck, it could break the coalition.

Posted by: sinistar at December 11, 2007 07:36 PM (P17op)

59 "What, Hugh Hewitt's sanctimonious cheerleading douchebaggery isn't reason enough?"

Whatever happens with this election, at least the paulbots will go back to their moms' basements after it is over.

Posted by: Ken at December 11, 2007 07:38 PM (NLnyS)

60 As for NR, although they do defend strong conservative positions, they have this element of "snobby nose-in-the-air east coast blue blood inside-the-beltway" "true" conservative style that is a turn-off for a lot of conservatives, I'd imagine. I'm no social con, but when I had a subscription, I couldn't help but think "what a bunch of fey douchebags" when reading that magazine, Goldberg and Steyn's columns excepted.

Posted by: brak at December 11, 2007 07:40 PM (dWjrP)

Based on the format of the National Review article, they rank the candidates:

1. Romney

2. Fred Thompson

3. McCain

4. Huckabee/Giuliani (both unacceptable)

Fred is second, it seems, not because the NR editors don't think he's electable, but because they don't think he'll be elected (nominated). There's a difference. I wish NR had considered electability (as they said they would) rather than trying to predict the future.

I'm with Fred in '08.

Posted by: Boko Fittleworth at December 11, 2007 07:40 PM (jE3NH)

62 All I know is I'm getting pretty damned tired of having to vote for the "lesser of evils" all the freaking time. Enough already - this is the best the GOP can do? No wonder the dimms are rubbing their hands together contemplating a non-vetoable (is that a word?) majority in both houses, another in the WH, and at least 2 SC justices. And if Hillary wins - may God help us - I'd bet they'd both be females from her law school.

Posted by: Bruce at December 11, 2007 07:43 PM (2q+Ss)

63 csdeven, your reputation as a troll precedes you. Here you've also shown yourself illiterate. Get lost.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 07:44 PM (2z2WN)

64 But Huckabee's got mad immigration skills.

Would Jim Gilchrist endorse him if he didn't?

Posted by: Seattle Slough at December 11, 2007 07:45 PM (H5l9d)

65 NR a RINO mag? Not hardly.

I like NR. It's a straightforward small-government, 2nd Amendment supporting, pro-war, pro-military mag. Strict on immigration. Against nanny-statism.

In my humble opinion, it's very close to earning being Burkean-conservative in its worldview. With a big dash of Chesterton thrown in.

I like it a lot. I even like K-Lo, who is being unjustly traduced in this blog.

So different from the old NR that I remember, back in the 60s. Before WFB was able to fully recast it in his image, impose his will on its writers, it was a paleo-conservative rag, with more than a hint of a European royalist sensibility. It was isolationist and some accused it, with good reason, of being functionally Catholic-Fascist, in the mold of the Spanish Falange. And, certainly as long as Joseph Sobran and Pat Buchanan were on board, it had anti-Semitic cast as well. WFB worked long and hard to purge it of the aforesaid elements, and eventually succeeded.

I think it's the best true-blue conservative organ currently in publication--especially now that Mark Steyn is writing for them. Again, by conservative, I mean in the Burkean sense, which is the kind of conservative I am. Okay, yes, I know: it has Derbyshire. But he's the crazy semi-alcoholic Englishman in the attic. Every family has someone like him (not necessarily English) lurking about.

I'll vote for Romney. And for Rudy. Even McCain or Fred if it comes to that.

But I'd love to see Lieberman brought in as the VP candidate.

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at December 11, 2007 07:48 PM (G5QER)

66 Hey BC, I'm curious as to your statement that Romney will "fuck the country over." 'Splain to all of us how, in your esteemed opinion, Romney would do as you say. Is he going to confiscate all of our guns? Mandate abortions for all girls beginning at age 10? Raise taxes for all? Universal health care? What exactly does he have planned for the US of A if he is elected?

Posted by: Ken at December 11, 2007 07:49 PM (NLnyS)

67 Romney, on the other hand, since Day One has clearly and obviously been a say-anything-to-get-elected asswipe, who will lie out his ass and then fuck the country over anyway.

BC...are you privy to some secret documents laying out this plan? Perhaps you can read Mitt's mind? Do tell how you know this.

Suppose Mitt is nominated and elected. What's the first thing he wants? Like all Presidents it's a second term. He won't get that by pissing off Republicans in general and conservatives in particular.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 11, 2007 07:50 PM (hlYel)

68 I even like K-Lo, who is being unjustly traduced in this blog.

No you don't. No one does but you are gentleman for standing up for her.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 11, 2007 07:52 PM (hlYel)

69 About NR, I can't take them seriously after they started going all goofy on the war, one after another.

I really like Frum, though. And, of course, Steyn, but he's sort of a visitor, not a fixture.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 07:53 PM (2z2WN)

70 I mean, I understand why they went goofy on the war -- they have Beltwayitis, and among their peer group it was impossible to claim we could still win the war. (Well, 12 months ago, anyway.) It's the same reason they can't let themselves say Fred can still win the nomination.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 07:54 PM (2z2WN)

Oh, also, Crunchy Cons.

WTF?

They smoking some of Huckleberry's pot?

Very suspect, that whole thing, from the start.

Bonus points for Jonah Goldberg for calling that shit out and hitting it spot on.

It was like a way for Republicans living in Manhattan to be conservative without feeling alienated at the cocktail party.

Posted by: Entropy at December 11, 2007 07:58 PM (HgAV0)

72 Bruce,

Yeah, we're all tired of it, but until a real conservative can get some traction, we will always have to settle for the lesser. The goal, IMO, is to get the best candidate nominated from the choices we have.

Posted by: csdeven at December 11, 2007 08:01 PM (M5cP1)

And also, pretend like they'd rather be living in Saskatchewan just because they have a window box garden even though they clearly could only survive in Manhattan.

I buy farm produce and drink unpasteurized milk! I'm a rugged frontiersman! Eek, a spider!

Posted by: Entropy at December 11, 2007 08:01 PM (HgAV0)

74 someone,

Awwww, wadda madder wittle baby? Did the mean old csdeven bitch slap you on another forum?

Posted by: csdeven at December 11, 2007 08:04 PM (M5cP1)

Can someone explain why Hunter is unelectable? I need that explained to me. My suspicion is that he's considered too pro-troop/defense and too pro-America and too on top of things on most practical issues. Maybe conservatives have a strange sense of sportsmanship where we rule out our strongest contender to even out the field. Hope this doesn't bite us in the ass.

"I can tell you I would vote for him in a hearbeat rather than any democrat out there. As a church-goin', gun-totin' conservative I have ZERO problems voting for Mitt (or Giuliani or Fred) over Hillary or Obama. Huckabee will bring decades of ruin to the conservative movement ..."

Agree with you Ken. While I resent the conservative engines that cast off my first choice, I've signed on to Romney. I liked his latest speeches. Think he's our best electable conservative candidate.

I'm as non-insider as it gets.

Posted by: Mainstreet at December 11, 2007 08:04 PM (XWJh5)

76 I actually like Romney just fine and NR's reasoning isn't terrible here. As always, I've got a strong preference for Fred or Duncan Hunter, but Romney isn't a bad choice. Still baffles me that Fred hasn't gotten the traction I'd have expected... still pulling for the guy though.

I kind of feel the opposite of a lot of people here -- many of the candidates are acceptable to me, but I'm most concerned that they'll all have trouble beating the Dem nominee.

Posted by: Joe at December 11, 2007 08:07 PM (LdNrH)

77 Like that "REAL conservatives drink beefeaters and wear saucy pants" douche. Yeah, who the fuck was that guy? About a year ago I was trying to remember his name and for the life of me i couldnt think of it. NRO is a bit too blue blooded for my taste. Theyre 'Playboy' to AoSHQs Hustler. or maybe 'Screw.' Hugh Hewitts site would would just be a pictorial of the chicks from 'two girls one cup' with a loaf of Wonderbread.

Posted by: Amish at December 11, 2007 08:09 PM (LHwbh)

78 I see Hunter as unelectable only because he can't get any traction. But that only works this time around. Hunter seems to be a guy to watch for in the future. Perhaps a stint in the Romney administration will prep him for a future GOP hopeful? Mitt's VP maybe?

Posted by: csdeven at December 11, 2007 08:09 PM (M5cP1)

79 <i>'Splain to all of us how, in your esteemed opinion, Romney would do as you say.</i>

Universal healthcare; Supreme Court nominees that make Harriet Meiers look like Antonin Scalia; political weathervanery vis-a-vis the war; and his signature on any gun control bill that ends up on his desk, in the name of "reasonable restrictions". Just for starters.

<i>BC...are you privy to some secret documents laying out this plan?</i>

It's not a "plan". It's who he is. He's an ambitious crapweasel who'll sell out any conservative principles he's presently mouthing given reason and opportunity.

Posted by: BC at December 11, 2007 08:10 PM (sAB0u)

Nonsense. Kerry Healey lost on her own, because she was a terrible candidate. And I'd hardly call his single term "mediocre." He helped balance Mass's budget, got rid of the entrenched hacks in the UMass system, and beat back the libs on gay marriage to name a few things.

And yet the fact the Romney had such a low approval rating when he left office was cited as part of the reason she got trounced.

Don't forget that the balanced budget came on the back of an increase in capital gains taxes passed just before he took office, and $750 million in tax and fee increases.

And beat back the libs on gay marriage? The ink wasn't even dry on the judge's ruling before he ordered clerks to issue gay marriage licenses.

I'm not suggesting he was a bad governor, but he certainly wasn't a remarkable one; he most likely wouldn't have gotten re-elected had he run again. Mediocre fits.

FWIW, I did hope he'd beat Kennedy when he ran for Senate; had he done so and proved himself a conservative, I might be backing him now. However, there's just not much "there" there in terms of a conservative record... or any kind of record for that matter.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 11, 2007 08:12 PM (plsiE)

81 Romney is unelectable (there are enough anti-Mormon bigots out there), but I could see Huckabee causing a real headache for the Dems in a general election. One of their bedrocks is liberal Christians (you know who I'm talking about) and Huckabee could get some major traction with these types...as he's basically one of them.

Posted by: Jason at December 11, 2007 08:12 PM (Xw7o1)

82 "Did the mean old csdeven bitch slap you on another forum?"

LOL. Dude, who the fuck do you think you are?

You're a one-man crew of stirring up anti-Mitt sentiment. If anyone took you seriously you'd be worse for your mancrush than B+.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 08:15 PM (2z2WN)

83 "One of their bedrocks is liberal Christians (you know who I'm talking about) and Huckabee could get some major traction with these types...as he's basically one of them."

You mean black voters?

You're forgetting the REASON for Huckster's possible traction among Dems... He's a Democrat!

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 08:16 PM (2z2WN)

84 "Dude, who the fuck do you think you are?"

Someone who has your number. Go cry to yer momma you sissy.

Posted by: csdeven at December 11, 2007 08:27 PM (M5cP1)

85 Fred > Mitt > *

I can stomach a Romney presidency more than anyone save for Fred. I wouldn't be happy about it, but Mitt seems a solid B- in my book.

-J

Posted by: Josh at December 11, 2007 08:29 PM (AqHma)

86 "Universal healthcare; Supreme Court nominees that make Harriet Meiers look like Antonin Scalia; political weathervanery vis-a-vis the war; and his signature on any gun control bill that ends up on his desk, in the name of "reasonable restrictions". Just for starters."

Universal health care provided by a free market system. That is a step in the right direction.

He has promised to nominate strict constructional justices. H has always kept his campaign promises.

You'll have to provide a link to his changing position on the war.

Yeah, he did support the AWB. That doesn't mean he will take our guns from us. Do you not believe in reasonable restrictions on weapon ownership?

Posted by: csdeven at December 11, 2007 08:32 PM (M5cP1)

87 My main test for a Republican candidate: Would you trust him to cover your back on a hobo hunt?

All of the current front runners fail miserably.

Posted by: Tinian at December 11, 2007 08:33 PM (1Mq7K)

88 Hey Someone, I support Romney for a lot of reasons. The guy has proven business and executive experience, tremendous communication skills and an enviable family life. He's not going to raise your taxes, cave to terrorists, appoint liberal judges, legalize gay marriage, sell-out to enviromental nazis, grow the nanny-state cancer, pardon criminals, hide an intern under his desk, destroy the military by allowing gays, make a complete ass of himself in front of our children, allies, enemies (thank Bill Clinton for that one). What's not to like? I could support any top tier Republican really because I know the democratic nominee will be on the opposite side of the above issues but I think Romney has the leadership ability to not only get elected but be an effective President.

Posted by: Nozzle at December 11, 2007 08:34 PM (+rOvD)

89 "What's not to like?"

The fact that he'd lose?

Otherwise, yeah, he's acceptable.

Posted by: someone at December 11, 2007 08:36 PM (2z2WN)

90 Romney would beat Hillary. Three factors: a more credible 'change' candidate, better on illegal immigration, compelling personal contrast to the Billary soap opera.

Posted by: JB at December 11, 2007 08:41 PM (y93Nb)

91 "You mean black voters?"

No I was referring to Episcopalians, but I could see him doing well with Black Baptists as well.

And there is no way in hell Romney would beat Hillary...put down the joint. Hell, half the Republican base wouldn't vote for Romney on account of his religion. These are the same one's who are currently pimping Huckabee.

Posted by: Jason at December 11, 2007 08:44 PM (Xw7o1)

92 'No Clinton-Bush Dynasty' is an easily understood narrative that will resonate powerfully with the undecideds - especially considering a personally attractive alternative. Some bigots will sit out, but '50% of the base' is an indefensible assertion. No poll or survey even remotely supports such numbers.

Posted by: JB at December 11, 2007 08:56 PM (y93Nb)

93 I like some things about Romney and will vote for him in the general if he's the nominee. However, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Mitt if he had actually ran for reelection in Mass and won.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that his political career would be over if he did run again though, because he would have lost.

Posted by: BB at December 11, 2007 09:01 PM (l2nDx)

94 Universal health care provided by a free market system. That is a step in the right direction.

Using the coercive power of the state to force people to carry healthcare insurance is a free market solution, and "a step in the right direction"? Only if your starting position is with your head up your ass.

He has promised to nominate strict constructional justices. H has always kept his campaign promises.

Dude, there are entire websites devoted to all the campaign promises Romney made prior to his stint as MA governor that he reneged on.

You'll have to provide a link to his changing position on the war.

I have every confidence that as much of a flip-flopper he's been, a flip-flop on the war is not only not beyond him, but likely.

Yeah, he did support the AWB. That doesn't mean he will take our guns from us.

"Romney: At Least He Won't Confiscate Our Guns". Now there is a compelling reason to vote for the guy.

Do you not believe in reasonable restrictions on weapon ownership?

No. I believe "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". Romney apparently believes that "shall not be infringed" means "shall be infringed whenever politically convenient and/or the gun-grabbers get their panties in a wad about a particularly scary-looking category of firearms".

Posted by: BC at December 11, 2007 09:04 PM (sAB0u)

"Supreme Court nominees that make Harriet Meiers look like Antonin Scalia"

I don't know of any evidence to support that.

But I will say, the nominating process is very difficult. Nixon got four picks, and only one solid conservative (Bill Rehnquist). Ford got one pick, best described as a borderline-senile moderate (Stevens). Reagan got three picks, and only one was a solid conservative (Scalia). Bush I got two picks, and one was a hard-core liberal (Souter) while the other was conservative (Thomas). Bush II, bless his little moron brain, is the only Republican President in the past fifty years to get 100% on his picks -- um, after a little help from the base.

And can you imagine trying to nominate a proven conservative right now? With one vote away from overturning Roe, and a Dem majority in the Senate?

Posted by: Sobek at December 11, 2007 09:06 PM (6GK9U)

96 Romney's position on guns is no worse than W.'s in 2000. The man may be ambitious, but he isn't stupid. I'm just as comfortable knowing he won't gun-grab out of political necessity than out of conviction. Guns have become the 4th rail of US politics.

Posted by: JB at December 11, 2007 09:12 PM (y93Nb)

97 The NR I subscribed to would never get behind a blow-dried shape-shifter.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at December 11, 2007 09:17 PM (SihRw)

98 Remember, Jonah Goldberg went to great lengths to remind us all what a wonderful person Front Page Frankie Foer is.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 11, 2007 09:22 PM (yIy7z)

99 What the heck did Mormons ever do to anyone? I'm beginning to suspect they're hated because they're such first rate examples of living well by living right -- like the Jews.

Posted by: ricpic at December 11, 2007 09:52 PM (gN5X2)

100 My brother is a former NYC firefight, retired after his lungs were basically destroyed on 9/11.

He also worked the cleanup detail afterwards. One day, he and his fellow firefighters brought a body out of "The Pit" as they called it, and loaded it on "The Bus," the dedicated ambulance transporting the dead to the nearest morgue. When they got there, the door opened, and the first man reaching for the handle of the stretcher was Rudy Giuliani. This was after the speeches, after the photo ops, and as far I know, it was never publicized. He didn't have to be there, and he got nothing out of it politically.

Which of our other candidates can say that, Dem or GOP?

If the man wants to wear a dress, I'll help him pick the shoes.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 11, 2007 09:53 PM (yIy7z)

101 "former NYC firefighter."

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 11, 2007 09:54 PM (yIy7z)

102

Mitt or Fred or else we're dead.

And anyone who didn't think the MSM and the DNC are working hand- in-glove shilling for the Huckster, please turn in your PoliSci credentials.

Thanks go to idiot Frank Rich, as usual overplaying that little conspiracy .

Posted by: jjshaka at December 11, 2007 10:16 PM (KQYKo)

103 Hey Steve, what the heck is conservative about Lieberman? Sheesh!

Posted by: ricpic at December 11, 2007 10:25 PM (gN5X2)

104 Gotta thank Steve, Dave, Someone, and Rittenhouse for their opinions of NR. I need to find an issue and look at it. Just based on the stuff they send me in the mail they seem less RINO and more far left Time magazine grade socialist-commie-liberals. Someone in their circulation department needs to get whacked upside the head with a clue-bat if it really is a somewhat conservative publication.

Posted by: John Galt at December 11, 2007 11:30 PM (F5RrO)

105 Eh, NR started shilling for Romney over a year ago, at least in the Corner. That's why I stopped reading it, it got so gross. Romney may be sorta OK, but he won't beat Hillary. He's way too vanilla and nice, and if it's a debate between Mittcare and Hillarycare, voter turnout will produce a Hillary victory.

Posted by: funky chicken at December 12, 2007 12:12 AM (I+jPP)

106 Funny, that's how I view almost every one of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 12, 2007 12:32 AM (hfyfI)

107 BC,

Using the coercive power of the state to force people to carry healthcare insurance is a free market solution, and "a step in the right direction"? Only if your starting position is with your head up your ass.

You're one of those types that want it all fixed "right now!" aren't you? Mitt's plan, while being far from perfect is a step towards a free market solution. The next person to tackle it will do better and so on until we have universal health care provided through the free market. Find another reason to oppose the guy. Your bias is showing.

Dude, there are entire websites devoted to all the campaign promises Romney made prior to his stint as MA governor that he reneged on.

Dude! provide the link.

I have every confidence that as much of a flip-flopper he's been, a flip-flop on the war is not only not beyond him, but likely.

Oh, so this more baseless accusations on your part. Dude! Your bias is showing.

"Romney: At Least He Won't Confiscate Our Guns". Now there is a compelling reason to vote for the guy.

Don't put words in my comment. Dude! Your bias is showing.

No. I believe "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". Romney apparently believes that "shall not be infringed" means "shall be infringed whenever politically convenient and/or the gun-grabbers get their panties in a wad about a particularly scary-looking category of firearms".

Oh great! You're one of THOSE types too. I guess we should all have access to tanks? Biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons?

DUDE! You're bias is showing.

Posted by: csdeven at December 12, 2007 01:45 AM (M5cP1)

108 >Not a pundit, Beltway person, fundraiser, bundler, or any of that.

>You know, a voter.

Late to the party but me. In fact, I believe I was the first openly enthusiastic supporter of his candidacy on this blog about a year ago.

Once thoughtful people look at the actual record and equally important, the arena that he fought in, he is hands down not only the most impressive candidate in this election but in years. It's cheap and stupid to keep saying that any candidate who comes out of MA is John Kerry and it shows an ignorance on the part of the person who says it. The man has the endorsement of many if not most conservative organizations and leaders, religious leaders (not that it should matter) and is rivaled but not exceeded only by Rudy as a proven executive. He has also proven he can actually win an executive race in the most heavily Democratic state in the union, not entirely unimportant if you care about winning the election, not just the primary.

Yea, he has spent a butt load of money. He had to if he wanted to compete with the free media of a movie star and Americas mayor who got the PR for free. But he has also run an excellent campaign and if not for religious bigotry in the primary this race would be over.

You Fredheads need to get over the fact that you got behind a myth of a candidate, a guy who unlike Reagan, really is only a second tier candidate with a mediocre record who has run one of the worst campaigns in modern times. He managed to take a 2nd place standing before he even entered the race and levered it into not just an also ran candidacy, but one that has less buzz than Ron fucking Paul.

Besides, Fred was done once the Hollywood writers went on strike.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 12, 2007 02:08 AM (t+mja)

109

Mitt's plan, while being far from perfect is a step towards a free market solution.

You keep saying this.

Before Mitt's plan, they had a free market.

It was a step away from a free market solution.

The next person to tackle it will do better and so on until we have universal health care provided through the free market.

This term "free market" you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it does.

Posted by: Entropy at December 12, 2007 09:52 AM (m6c4H)

110 FYI, Mark Steyn isn't just a visitor to NR, as was said in an earlier post. He has a column in every issue, at the back, called "The Happy Warrior."

Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at December 12, 2007 10:24 AM (B8Q2p)

111

THere are ALOT of people who would consider voting GOP out there who will never vote for a mormon, and will vote for Hillary before they vote for a mormon

Its silly, bigoted, misinformed and wrong.

But its out there, and i have plenty of anecdotal evidence to back it up (talking to co-workers, family members, etc)

Face it, the electorate is pretty dumb (yes, im calling family member and coworkers a bit dumb , at least politically, or at least underinformed)

This is why Romney cannot win. I like him, Ill vote for him- but he CANNOT WIN

Posted by: Rumplestiltskin at December 12, 2007 11:09 AM (KTgUG)

112 Entropy, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Since when did the free market system provide universal health care? THAT is the context of the plan. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Hillary wants the government to provide it. Mitt wants it free market based. The plan is not perfect, but it was based on the free market. And just like any change, it happens in increments. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

Posted by: csdeven at December 12, 2007 12:01 PM (M5cP1)

113

Suppose Mitt is nominated and elected. What's the first thing he wants? Like all Presidents it's a second term. He won't get that by pissing off Republicans in general and conservatives in particular.
Have you forgotten what monstrosities the current president was able to sign with a REPUBLICAN Congress no less? No Child Left Behind Act, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement & Modernization Act. Now what temptations will a Democrat Congress give to Romney to sign into law?

Posted by: John at December 12, 2007 12:02 PM (oKp49)

114 When this primary season first started, I was wide open about all the candidates. My interest in Fred was piqued by his TV roles. I was curious about Mitt only in the sense that he was LDS and I wondered how that would play on the national stage. Rudy was my first choice because he is America's mayor. I knew nothing of the other candidates.

Then reality set in. Mitt was going to be rejected solely on his religion regardless of his excellent personal, public, and business accomplishments. So, even though I liked him, I felt he was going nowhere.
Fred lost me the day he spoke at the Lincoln Club in Orange County. He used his theme song to introduce himself and then took credit for part of a speech that Ronald Reagan gave.
It was obvious that he felt he couldn't stand on his own, so he used his TV personality and Reagan to give himself credit. This was the first indication that Fred wasn't who he wanted us to believe he was. It only got worse from there. Not only did he play games with his announcement date, but he lobbied for the scummiest causes, gave legal advice to terrorists, whored around DC, lies about his pro-choice positions, and funneled campaign cash to his son. The Clinton smear machine would crucify him and he'd be totally ineffective by September 08.
I found out RP is great on domestic policy, but is absolutely bat$hit crazy when it comes to foreign policy.
McCain lost me with shamnesty and water boarding.
I liked Huck until recently. The guy is Clinton lite.
Tanc is too single issue.
Hunter I really like, but he can't get any traction. I'll look to him in the future.
So, that left me with Rudy. I have no problem voting for him even though I am bothered by his social liberalism. I know he will fracture the party to an extent, but his presidency gets us the constructionist's justices that we need in order to stem the tide of secularism that is destroying this country. Butt I still think Mitt will bring all that Rudy does AND the social conservatism.

Then Mitt started gaining support and he got past the "September Dawn" movie with no apparent problems. I got very excited that this country would judge him on his record and not his religion. So for a couple of months I was very hopeful that Mitt would get the nomination and could be elected in the general.
But alas, I was premature. The bigots have begun attacking in full force and I am discouraged by the decent Christians silence on defending Mitt's right to worship as he pleases if not his faith itself. Which I believe is appropriate. Now we have the Jesus candidate in Huck who is gaining support on his affability, but also his use of religious bigotry to garner support. My hope is that Huck's support is another manifestation of the base's dissatisfaction with the candidates. Just like the Fred buzz this summer was a result of that same dissatisfaction.

So, that is where I'm at today. I think Mitt is the best candidate, Rudy is acceptable, and Huck is completely unacceptable.

Oh yeah....and you bigots disgust me.

Posted by: csdeven at December 12, 2007 12:31 PM (M5cP1)

115 John,

Who knows what the congress will send to his desk. I believe Mitt will be the most fiscally responsible president ever. I am sure he will defend this country abroad, and I know for sure he will be ethical and will promote the strengthening of the family. It just seems like the whole package. I know there will be compromises, but hopefully he can get the compromises on his side too.

Considering all the candidates, I think Mitt has the best chance of enacting what he is promising.

Posted by: csdeven at December 12, 2007 12:36 PM (M5cP1)

116 One cannot possibly trust Mitt to be conservative.

Posted by: Fred at December 12, 2007 12:39 PM (ywDRa)

117 You're one of those types that want it all fixed "right now!" aren't you? Mitt's plan, while being far from perfect is a step towards a free market solution. The next person to tackle it will do better and so on until we have universal health care provided through the free market. Find another reason to oppose the guy. Your bias is showing.

Nah, I'm "one of those types" that understands -- unlike you, apparently -- that you don't get free-market solutions by using the coercive power of the government to force people to behave in a certain way. My only "bias" is against frauds, shills, idiots, and socialists.

Dude! provide the link.

Here, this'll get you started: Romney campaigned on a promise to increase the minimum wage in Massachusetts, and then reneged when in office. In 2002 Romney campaigned for aggressive campaign finance reform; in office, though, he's cheerled for judicial setbacks to McCain-Feingold. In his 1994 campaign for Senate he opposed employer healthcare mandates... which became a central feature of his universal healthcare plan in Massachusetts.

This took ten minutes of Googling, during which I also located a viral video in which Romney hilariously claims to never have broken a campaign promise. You and other pro-Romney shills should pull your heads out of (a) your asses and (b) Romney campaign propaganda.

Oh, so this more baseless accusations on your part.

No, it's simple extrapolation from his past behavior. The guy's been a first-class phony his entire political career about virtually every issue of any import. There's no reason to think he's not singing from the conservative hymnal merely for the purposes of convincing softheads like yourself to vote for him; there's no reason to think that he won't reverse himself the moment it becomes politically expedient.

Don't put words in my comment.

You wrote, above: "Yeah, he did support the AWB. That doesn't mean he will take our guns from us."

Please explain to the class how it's unfair to paraphrase that statement as, "At least he won't confiscate our guns!"

Oh great! You're one of THOSE types too. I guess we should all have access to tanks? Biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons?

That's a cute straw man you're setting afire. But this is about Romney's support for the AWB and the Brady Bill, not whether the Second Amendment protects a right to own nukes.

Your boy is a unprincipled well-coiffed office-seeking phony who's built a political career out of being a political weathervane and who's about as reliably conservative as John Kerry. Fuck him, and fuck you and his other supporters for giving this douchebag a home in the GOP.

Posted by: BC at December 12, 2007 04:07 PM (sAB0u)

118 大江东去，浪淘尽，千古风流人物。轻量型货架。。北京角钢货架。。角钢货架图片。。杭州角钢货架。。万能角钢货架。。角钢货架厂。。北京角钢货架厂。。角钢货架。。轻型货架货架厂。。宁波轻型货架。。苏州轻型货架。。轻型仓储货架。。青岛轻型货架。。轻型货架图片。。轻型货架价格。。轻型货架。。轻型货架。。抽屉式模具架。。重型模具架。。宁波模具架。。东莞模具架。。苏州模具架。。模具架。。模具货架。。模具式货架。。抽屉货架。。抽屉式货架。。滚轮式货架。。滚轮货架。。辊轮式货架。。辊轮货架。。流利条。。流利条货架。。流利货架。。流利式货架。。驶入式货架。。驶入货架。。通廊货架。。通廊式货架。。贯通货架。。贯通式货架。。悬臂式货架。。悬臂货架。。钢结构平台。。钢平台。。搁楼式货架。。搁楼货架。。长春阁楼货架。。阁楼式货架。。阁楼货架。。托盘货架。。托盘式货架。。货位货架。。货位式货架。。仓储式货架。。选取式货架。。横梁式货架。。横梁货架。。组合式货架。。北京重型货架。。天津重型货架。。重型货架图片。。无锡重型货架。。武汉重型货架。。重型货架价格。。青岛重型货架。。杭州重型货架。。苏州重型货架。。重型仓储货架。。重型货架。。中型隔板货架。。隔板货架。。挂板式货架。。挂梁式货架。。次重型货架。。中量B型货架。。中量A型货架。。中量型货架。。无锡中型货架。。苏州中型货架。。烟台中型货架。。杭州中型货架。。天津中型货架。。上海中型货架。。中型仓储货架。。青岛中型货架。。中型货架。。轻量型货架。。北京角钢货架。。角钢货架图片。。杭州角钢货架。。万能角钢货架。。角钢货架厂。。北京角钢货架厂。。角钢货架。。轻型货架货架厂。。宁波轻型货架。。苏州轻型货架。。轻型仓储货架。。青岛轻型货架。。轻型货架图片。。轻型货架价格。。轻型货架

Posted by: 托盘 at July 20, 2008 02:38 AM (//K35)

119 ★莫道不消魂，帘卷西风，人比黄花瘦★
塑料托盘 =>厦门塑料托盘，塑料托盘制造商，宁波塑料托盘，天津塑料托盘，北京塑料托盘。
仓储笼 =>仓储笼报价，苏州仓储笼，仓储笼诺恒，无锡仓储笼，广州仓储笼。
仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂，北京仓储货架，苏州仓储货架，无锡仓储货架，广州仓储货架。
货架厂 =>佛山货架厂，天津货架厂，成都货架厂，常熟货架厂，服装货架厂。
超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸，超市货架效果图，杭州超市货架，超市货架摆放，广州超市货架。
专业从事组合式仓储货架、建材超市及仓储式超市货架设计、制造、安装、调试的企业，是国内最大的货架制造商之一。公司已承接近千座仓储货架(http://merryrack.cn.ec21.com)工程的设计、制造和安装。 ★鼠标好比爱情箭，上网一点胡乱窜★
货架公司 =>无锡货架公司，杭州货架公司，苏州货架公司，超市货架公司，广州货架公司。
广州货架 =>广州货架厂，广州货架批发市场，广州货架公司，广州货架市场，广州货架制作。。
北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场，北京货架厂家，北京货架制作，北京货架价格，北京货架销售。
仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂，北京仓库货架，无锡仓库货架，深圳仓库货架，广州仓库货架。
南京货架 =>南京货架厂，南京货架网，南京货架公司，南京货架制造厂，南京货架价格。
塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞（塑料托盘）有限公司是国内专业从事（塑料托盘http://blog.hsw.cn/261491/viewspace-328795.html）集研发、生产、销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内（塑料托盘）制造业众多技术精英，所 ...

Posted by: 托盘 at August 03, 2008 09:22 PM (ngbd1)

120 ★白天没水，晚上没电，发的工资只够买面★ 仓储笼 =>南京仓储笼，求购仓储笼，折叠式仓储笼，苏州仓储笼，无锡仓储笼。仓储笼 =>仓储笼图片，仓储笼报价，常州仓储笼，麦瑞仓储笼，折叠仓储笼。仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂，北京仓储货架，苏州仓储货架，无锡仓储货架，广州仓储货架。货架厂 =>佛山货架厂，天津货架厂，成都货架厂，常熟货架厂，服装货架厂。超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸，超市货架效果图，杭州超市货架，超市货架摆放，广州超市货架。塑料托盘专业制造商�塑料托盘制造有限公司南京麦瑞欢迎您！南京麦瑞（塑料托盘 http://www.ewkej.com/suliaotuopan.htm）有限公司是国内最具影响的物流产品大型生产企业，主要生产的产品有塑料托盘，塑料卡板箱， ... ★打开邓选，找到答案：原来是社会主义初级阶段★ 货架公司 =>无锡货架公司，杭州货架公司，苏州货架公司，超市货架公司，广州货架公司。广州货架 =>广州货架厂，广州货架批发市场，广州货架公司，广州货架市场，广州货架制作。。北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场，北京货架厂家，北京货架制作，北京货架价格，北京货架销售。仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂，北京仓库货架，无锡仓库货架，深圳仓库货架，广州仓库货架。南京货架 =>南京货架厂，南京货架网，南京货架公司，南京货架制造厂，南京货架价格。塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞（塑料托盘）有限公司是国内专业从事（塑料托盘 http://ybmerry.photo.hexun.com/1043873_section.html）集研发、生产、销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内（塑料托盘）制造业众多技术精英，所 ... ★再往后翻，我靠！还一百年不变★ 木托盘 =>木托盘标准，木托盘价格，塑木托盘，熏蒸木托盘，求购木托盘。工具柜 =>工具柜价格，天钢工具柜，北京工具柜，安全工具柜，苏州工具柜。工作台 =>超净工作台，防静电工作台，净化工作台，回转工作台，超净工作台价格。工作桌 =>不锈钢工作桌，厦门工作桌，重型工作桌，电脑工作桌，防静电工作桌。周转箱 =>塑料周转箱，防静电周转箱，周转箱英文，周转箱模具，中空板周转箱。塑料托盘广告招租网热线：13805186030，塑料托盘在中国正处于高速增长期。目前，国内流通所需（塑料托盘http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/reader_4fd7a58a01000d54.html）每年约为8000万只，其中港口用2000万只（出口），总需求还会进一步 ...

Posted by: 货架 at September 04, 2008 09:00 PM (PYpbd)

121 DVD Burner for Mac,DVD Converter Mac,DVD Creator for Mac,DVD Ripper for Mac,Mac DVD Ripper

Posted by: ginonbm at January 20, 2009 08:58 PM (EM0QA)

Posted by: �Ƚо�� at January 30, 2009 10:45 AM (hXNNS)

123 Could you help me. After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. Help me! I find sites on the topic: E38 bmw 7 series individual limited edition. I found only this - middle east job vacancies. Please click here to go to the new site. No business loan applications or long loan approval waiting periods. With love :cool:, Lane from Seychelles.

Posted by: Lane at July 23, 2009 11:53 AM (SuE0x)

124 塑料托盘托盘托盘仓储笼塑料托盘托盘手推车钢托盘

Posted by: 货架 at August 14, 2009 07:51 AM (i5+8w)

125 货架货架托盘托盘货架

Posted by: google排名 at August 18, 2009 04:12 AM (ZaHj6)

126 links of london
london links jewellery
links jewellers
london links
links necklaces
links bracelet
links charms
links rings
links earrings

Posted by: linksfromlondon at October 01, 2009 10:17 PM (SgUdh)

127 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 12:01 PM (9oMrs)

128 Buy discountnba shoes
cheap basketball shoes
mens basketball shoes
kobe shoes
kobe bryant shoes
lebron james shoes
free shipping!

Posted by: NBA SHOES at October 24, 2009 06:36 PM (/6617)

129 Buy discountugg shoes
ugg boots
boots ugg
mbt shoes
nike running shoes
cheap nike shoes
nike footwear
cheap nike footwear
nike air max shoes
free shipping!

Posted by: nike air max at October 26, 2009 01:44 PM (n7GXH)

130 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

Posted by: discount ugg boots at October 30, 2009 04:52 AM (mBGLP)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 30, 2009 07:28 AM (3iF2y)

132 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg bootsfrom usa

Posted by: shoesshoe at November 03, 2009 09:56 PM (LHCCE)

133 吊具索具吊装设备

Posted by: 钢丝绳 at November 09, 2009 12:33 AM (SIx8Q)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 14, 2009 05:32 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:45 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 02:20 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 04:03 AM (C/zDM)

138 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 21, 2009 01:50 PM (eVWSP)

139 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 25, 2009 12:23 AM (fd1jz)

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 11:47 AM (bsW/x)

141 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

Posted by: ugg boots at December 08, 2009 05:04 PM (JOSIc)

142 The womens mbtchallenges the hard to reach
muscles in your legs, but also works the abdominal, back, buttock, and thigh muscles.
With every stride, the instability activates the whole body in concert and tones as it
stimulates different areas.mbt
footwear have a curved pivot sole that copies walking on soft moss. The sole of
href=http://www.mbtshoesbuy.com/products_new.html>new mbt turns even, flat ground
into uneven terrain. The mbt anti shoes challenges the muscles to work harder with
every step you take. The unique curved sole works by providing instability and makes
the muscles of your body more engaged and also helps burn more calories.
The mbt shoes walking shoes have been
highlighted for its ability to cushion your feet while challenging your muscles.
Clinical studies suggest that regular use improves balance, posture and circulation.
mbt lami shoes re-establish
the natural conditions for standing and walking.You will get more results out of your
workouts ? MBT shoes have technology in the sole design that make your working more
efficient and burn more calories. With every step, the instability activates your
muscles and the whole body is stimulated as your walk more and more.Free Shipping
1Week on Select Styles Of discount
mbt Walking Shoes Reviews !

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at December 09, 2009 02:50 PM (B0M1x)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 15, 2009 06:59 PM (5o+JZ)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 16, 2009 03:58 AM (1dySH)

Posted by: rolex watches at December 17, 2009 10:38 AM (EGD2i)

146 i just want to say,the article you write is great,today is my first visit here,and i'll come again to read your new blog.in our website,we sell all kind of nike air max,like nike air max 360 shoes and so on,the womens air max is so popular that you can view them and purchase.(air max)
http://www.my-nikeshoes.com/

Posted by: womens air max at December 22, 2009 06:18 PM (xnxK1)

147 Nike Air Max
hot sale nike shoes
nike air
buy Air Max shoes
nike max air

Posted by: cheap Air Max at December 25, 2009 10:00 AM (ZgK+c)

148 minocycline hydrochloride

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 15, 2010 08:44 PM (r6I04)

149 cipro for bladder infection

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 19, 2010 11:45 PM (zAS0W)

150 acheter lasix en ligne

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 20, 2010 04:45 AM (CyXIY)

Posted by: nike air max at January 20, 2010 03:08 PM (CZv6h)

152 what is mysoline

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 26, 2010 08:27 AM (ZuBVq)

153 doxycycline interaction with warfarin

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 26, 2010 01:17 PM (EjuBo)

154 phoslo gelcaps

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 26, 2010 10:07 PM (0+CKb)

155 renagel 3200 mg

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 27, 2010 02:40 AM (+skBI)

156 leg requip restless syndrome

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 27, 2010 07:43 AM (X+l9d)

157 calcitriol 0.5 mcg

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 27, 2010 12:21 PM (NFgB8)

158 trileptal for mood disorder

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 28, 2010 02:30 AM (FZLyI)

Posted by: air max shoes at January 28, 2010 03:45 AM (JOSIc)

160 albendazole mebendazole

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 28, 2010 12:16 PM (/aI55)

161 viracept 250

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 28, 2010 04:55 PM (0jo1x)

162 ziagent

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 28, 2010 09:25 PM (XO3jT)

163 cellcept tablet

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 29, 2010 11:10 AM (WLaPP)

164 generic cyklokapron

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 29, 2010 03:40 PM (c5/Nr)

165 demadex drug

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 29, 2010 08:12 PM (OrgIl)

166 gengraf

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 30, 2010 12:45 AM (Mhdpi)

167 azathioprine prescription

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 30, 2010 05:42 AM (hX8S3)

168 neoral cyclosporine

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 30, 2010 10:26 AM (wHuAd)

169 sandimmune neoral

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 30, 2010 02:54 PM (d5E72)

170 viagra uk

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 30, 2010 07:29 PM (yRVPx)

171 cialis no prescription

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 31, 2010 12:17 AM (ONM9Z)

172 generic levitra

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 31, 2010 05:13 AM (bygST)

173 tadalafil

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 01, 2010 12:22 PM (oWo2C)

174 sildenafil pulmonary hypertension

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 01, 2010 04:42 PM (dM0hs)

175 tadalafil tablets

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 02, 2010 07:34 AM (V/b/x)

176 sildenafil alternative

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 02, 2010 04:36 PM (seZwO)

177 cheap levitra online vardenafil

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 03, 2010 07:04 AM (atVB/)

178 sildenafil citrate tablets

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 03, 2010 11:55 AM (jdDfT)

179 sildenafil

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 03, 2010 04:38 PM (2RfYf)

180 tadalafil alternative

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 04, 2010 02:19 AM (2dGkI)

181 generic sildenafil citrate

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 04, 2010 07:03 AM (sibjL)

182 viagra soft

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 04, 2010 10:05 PM (BfnXl)

183 generic tadalafil

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 05, 2010 05:11 PM (Oa2ge)

184 depakote bipolar

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 05, 2010 09:44 PM (/L+4Z)

185 phenytoin dosing

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 06, 2010 07:13 AM (WUQ/I)

186 lamotrigine side effects

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 06, 2010 04:27 PM (WaHC0)

187 lamotrigine generic

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 07, 2010 03:45 AM (E9icH)

188 maxalt dosage

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 07, 2010 03:08 PM (wFT6w)

189 phenytoin sodium

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 07, 2010 08:49 PM (aJFpb)

190 lyrica drug

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 08, 2010 02:29 AM (q2fzf)

191 the palms resort and casino

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 08, 2010 08:20 PM (4Z7db)

192 risperidone

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 09, 2010 06:49 AM (AjScB)

193 sanvk replica watches jmxkzz replica watches,qujfps louis vuitton idd replica watches,jdlga replica rolex dlgszk replica watches,qiohbh watches replica celw replica watches replica watches,wmqicxn louis vuitton lviknb replica watches,msibs replica watches louis vuitton,yzfq louis vuitton,lwcfws watches ofxjjy louis vuitton replica hqae watches fxxtth,louis vuitton,nisbtwh louis vuitton ksyysk louis vuitton,uqohmgq replica louis vuitton vamrox,louis vuitton,hlkcr louis vuitton rtoa replica watches qrdkef.

Posted by: replica watches at February 09, 2010 12:31 PM (UTLu5)

Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.1298 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0313 seconds, 202 records returned.
Page size 179 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.