McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman, etc., etc., etc., plus Botox to make him TRY to look younger. No thanks.

http://www.textmap.com/cgi-bin/generateJuxta.cgi?version=0.1&actor_one=481808&actor_two=1536567&db=goodnews&juxta_type=complete&text_mode=textmap

Remeber the Big Dig?? Mitt can’t even over look a bridge and he wants to overlook USA. No way!!58% of Mass. residents said will not vote for him.

Romney is the best man for Michigan. The man is a economic genius. His ties to Michigan seal the deal. It helps that his father was a fabulous governor in Michigan and that he has great values with an amazing family. Mitt will blow this away and with good reason. The other candidates fail to inspire and their credentials are lacking. I want Romney as President because he can fix this nation and keep us competitive and surging internationally. He knows how to help everyone, not just a select few.

Don’t understimate clever, tenacious Mike Huckabee, and patriot John McCain. Romney’s candidacy should hopefully soon be in the rear-view mirror… He is smart, but has switched on major issues, sincerely proclaiming how this would be his position ( I saw him in ‘94 debates on youtube against Senator Kennedy, and other old videos…and would not, frankly, have believed such switching otherwise. He has lost credibility with me on the sincerity and strength of his positions on a number of issues (which is a different issue than whether he is a loyal family man.) Giuliani… smart of him not to let Michiganders take a gander at him up close…

A vote for Liberal McCain is a vote for Hillary or Obama. Thousands of Republicans will switch or sit this one out if McCain is the nominee. His presidency would be no different than Hillary or Obama. In four years we would have a new slate of Republicans and a chance to get a decent candidate in office again. That’s by far better than taking a chance on four years or worse yet, eight years of McCain. You don’t believe it? Go ahead and vote for him…see what happens.

To Susan -

Both your choices for president have moved to the left on issues. That’s not flip-flopping??? Romney has never moved to the left. His moves have always been to the right with a record to show the moves have been genuine.

Both Huckabee and McCain have moved to the left. Their record also documents that. Their campaign rhetoric has moved to the right of their record. Too bad they have nothing to prove their talk has substance. THAT, my dear, is a flip-flop.

John stands out due to his integrity, experience and leadership. We desperately need him at the helm of the “ship of state”. go john!

This is McCains plan:

Raleigh, N.C. – What do John McCain, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Pew Center on Climate Change have in common? They have united to support a massive new tax increase on energy — which will raise costs throughout the economy and threaten the vitality of, among others, the oil and automobile industries.

I suspect that many who would be significantly harmed by McCain’s wrongheaded tax plan — say, blue-collar workers in Michigan — have never heard of it. The Arizona senator’s position on federal tax cuts is better known. Nearly all of his opponents in the presidential campaign have criticized him for voting against both of President Bush’s tax-reduction plans. What is not widely understood is that he is currently sponsoring legislation that, in the name of fighting global warming, would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas.

The proposed bill, co-sponsored with Joe Lieberman, mandates an energy-rationing scheme that all economists acknowledge is equivalent to a broad-based energy tax which is similar to Bill Clinton’s 1993 Btu tax proposal. Energy would be taxed through the back door by placing a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that energy-producing companies can emit. It puts a legal limit on the amount of energy that can be drawn from conventional sources such as oil, coal, and natural gas.

McCain’s energy tax would kick in whenever an energy-producing company wants to expand its output above the cap. If, for example, a utility company that is bumping up against its emissions cap wants to increase its production of electricity generated from coal, oil, or natural gas, it will have to buy permission to do so by purchasing unused permits from other companies. The same would be true of an oil refiner that wants to increase its output of gasoline or home heating oil, possibly to meet new consumer demand. The purchase price of the permits is a tax, and will have the same effects as a tax on the market; it would raise the price of the energy source, i.e. coal, oil, etc., and therefore, it would likewise raise the costs of all production that relies on those sources, as well as the price of all goods and services that those production processes generate.

The EPA has estimated what the McCain energy tax would mean to consumers. Since the bill’s provisions are phased in, the full cost of the tax would not be felt for a number of years. But in a letter to Senator McCain dated July 2007, the EPA estimated that the tax will be about $.26 cents in current dollars per gallon of gasoline by 2030 and $.68 cents per gallon by 2050. For electricity, the EPA estimates that the McCain energy tax would increase individual’s electric bills by 22 percent in 2030 and 25 percent in 2050.
The effect on the economy of the McCain tax would be similar to any other broad-based tax. In the EPA’s own words:

The present value of the cumulative reduction in real GDP for the 2012-2030 period ranges from $660 billion to $2.1 trillion…the cumulative reduction in the present value of real GDP for the 2012-2050 period ranges from about $1.6 trillion to $5.2 trillion.

The real surprise is that in a Republican primary in which Senator McCain’s anti-tax credentials are in question, none of his opponents have even mentioned his advocacy of this new broad-based energy tax. I will leave it to political pundits to speculate on the reasons why. But if it is thought that the climate change benefits will be worth these significant new costs on consumers and producers — think again. Over the next 100 years, the CO2 reductions from the tax will result in a temperature change that even its proponents concede, is so small as to be virtually undetectable by current technologies.

Higher energy costs will, among other things, raise the cost of manufacturing big-ticket items in American factories. And higher gas prices will likely raise demand for those classes of automobiles that tend to be manufactured overseas. Somehow, I think Michigan voters will be less than thrilled about this, should anyone bother to inform them.

CintiKid, thanks a whole lot for the info on McCain’s tax increase proposals…nice research. Something that needs to be put out on the Internet again and again for a whole bunch for people to see. HOWEVER, could you please condense it. The meat is the EPA letter paragraph and I am afraid some people may not read the whole thing…

Thanks! CintiKid. You did a great job putting out the info. on McCain. Vote Mitt Romney, the only candidate with the economy know-how. Mitt Romney’s stance on Illigal Immigration, The Economy. Taxes, and Education is strong. His stance on Social issues is strong. Go Mitt!

Mitt is going to win Michigan because Michiganders aren’t going to let this last opportunity to have an ally in Washington pass them by. I’ve been very surprised at how blunt McCain has been to the Michigan voters. He has basically told them that the jobs they’ve lost are never coming back and that he is going to continue to help pass legislation that will hurt the domestic automakers.

Dan, your kinda right.

McCain says the jobs are gone. OK.
His Solution: Pure Washington DC, we need to retrain you. Lets create another work program instead of working with Business.

I’m with you, I’d prefer a successfully experienced corporate executive and State (Gov.) Official than someone ready to make a deal in Washington DC’s back room.

And as far as I’m concerned, because the Democrats can elect McCain in the Republican Primary, the votes need to be looked at very carefully.

Republicans need to step back and figure out why many lost 2006 to democrats.

Romney is a sure loss for Republican in November 2008.