• Advertise on blogs

    The links directly above and below are advertisements only. The views and opinions expressed by advertisers are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Resistance is futile!

    Gullyborg is a proud capitalist, and encourages you to explore these NON-GOOGLE advertisements.

Shop Amazon

  • If you are going to shop, shop Amazon.com. Find just about everything you want from the comfort of your own home. By searching Amazon.com through this site, you are helping to support Resistance is futile!

  • Search Now:

Worthy Causes



Dead Fish Wrappers and Bird Cage Liners

Carnival of Cordite Submitters

« I am now thoroughly committed to John McCain | Main | Presented without further commentary... »

Monday, 18 August 2008


Independent Thinker

Well you pose your Petraeus question with a really big IF. However, IF he turned out to be generally (pun intended) in favor of limited government, lower taxes, enforcement first, gun ownership, and strict constructionist judges, I could forgive him if he needed some more evolution on the finer details. But if Petraeus as VP would support taxing the rich, restricting gun ownership, gay marriage, abortion on demand, amnesty, etc., then merely being a war hero would get him nowhere with me.

So it would really depend on seeing where he stood if nominated.

But I doubt he would be nominated at all. McCain already has the Iraq issue wrapped up in his favor as much as he is going to get it. He'd be better off with someone like Engler, who really understands the economy and manufacturing while maintaining good conservative credentials on other issues.


I think Romney does best in the swing states, and with the Rush conservative crowd.


Hell no. Romney is nothing but a weasel and won't bring any states that would be considered even remotely "crossover".

I think I already know who is gonna get the nod, and one of the reasons I know is because he isn't touted in the press and he has the capability of taking at least 1 distinct group that the Democrats have relied upon for help: The Jewish vote.

Call me crazy, but if Eric Cantor gets the nod for VP, then you can almost guarantee that Virginia and the Jewish base of NYC that would be voting for Hillary will switch.

I'm thinking that a no-name may actually turn out to be the best name out there.


Romney isn't that bad. He is not my first choice, but he is perfectly acceptable. And, he would bring more money from his own checkbook as Obama has raised in almost two years of fundraising. That would allow the RNC to dump all its cash into Congressional races. As in, we take them back.

That said, I *just* saw on the news that McCain is scheduling his VP announcement for Aug 29, in Ohio. That might mean...



This is a guy the base will LOVE.


"Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)"

Considering that the "base" is 70+% AGAINST the current immigration policy, and Portman is for it, how does that make him the obvious guy to love?

Immigration is a biggie.


I am having trouble with all the candidates but I agree that there could very well be a sweeping change of heart as the process continues.


Portman agrees with McCain on immigration - and McCain won the nomination while guys like Tancredo never broke out of low single digits. And even though McCain and Portman support amnesty, they are far and away better than Obama, who essentially favors no border at all.

So, while immigration is vitally important to me, it is not a factor in this race other than in preventing Obama from holding executive power.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Contact Gullyborg

  • g u l l y b o r g A T
    g m a i l D O T c o m


  • Ignore this