Thursday, January 03, 2008
|
|
The Conservative Case Against Huckabee And McCain
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:09 AM
|
Rush Limbaugh made the case yesterday, blasting both men as not conservatives.
The American Spectator's Quin Hilyar explains at length today why either candidate would be a disaster for the GOP:
As truly horrific as it would be for the liberal and unethical Mike Huckabee to win the Republican presidential nomination, many Republicans still believe it would be almost as difficult to stomach the nomination of John McCain.
Huckabee, of course, would utterly destroy the old Reagan coalition, as even his campaign chief Ed Rollins has acknowledged. Huckabee's bizarre propensity for letting criminals return early to freedom, combined with his utter cluelessness about foreign policy, also means that he would get absolutely crushed by the Democrats in a general election contest.
Read the whole thing. Hilyar runs down all of McCain's many assaults on conservatives but also adds these more practical observations:
McCain is, and looks, more than two years older than Ronald Reagan was when Reagan was elected president, and a poll last year showed that 42 percent of respondents said they would not vote for somebody who is 72 years old. That is a far higher percentage than that of people who would not vote for a Mormon (24 percent), a woman (11 percent), or a black person (5 percent)...
And speaking of which, McCain seems almost constitutionally unable to disagree without being disagreeable. When he disagrees with somebody on just about any issue, he gives the sense of being so angry that he is having trouble not jumping out of his own skin to wring the other person's neck.
McCain's response to the age issue is to note his pace of campaigning, which has been steady though nothing like Romney's, as well has to joke about his mother's longevity. His aggressiveness he argues will be useful against the Democrats, but may turn out to be exactly the wrong sort of campaign to run against Senator Obama's "rope-a-dope politics of hope, new generation of politics" nonsense. McCain's heroism will never be disrespected by the Democrats, it will be honored and then categorized as irrelevant to the present.
If Obama does indeed win Iowa today, the McCainmentum will be finished at least among Republicans. The last way to beat the next big thing is with the oldest candidate ever to take the field.
Huck's a one-state wonder that couldn't even put it away. McCain is the next vessel into which MSM will pour their hopes and dreams of a hobbled GOP ticket.
Mitt and Rudy should arrange for their own debate and invite the press to attend. It would be good if at least once in the campaign, conservatives had a chance to see their top two choices debate the issues that matter to them.
|
|
December 31, 2007 Issue. Cover & Editorial, "Romney For President"...
"Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative vaiable candidate. In our judgment, that cadidate is Mitt Romney. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free market economics and limited government, moral causes such as right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest...."
That's Rich Lowry today. Now, get your own Blog here at Townhall. Please, friend. |
|
|
a variation on a Rush quote: Reagan is dead... |
|
Agree with PC, Seehawk, Neo, when I see your post and voice of reason - I just skip down all of them and go to the next. Must be something about the length - I have a life and don't want to spend hours reading yours. Besides, the good cop/bad cop makes me sick. If you can't see through what hick is doing, God help our Country.
For all you others, IPerceive.com has some good information and rebutals. |
|
Sir Neo gave you some good advice and apparently you are still unaware that you can set up your own blog at Townhall.
If JackShiite can do it, you can!!!Bless his little heart.(you're not him in another form are you?)nah....
You are very passionate, but I am with PC and Neo on this, nobody is buying what you're selling here.You can still post here and invite friends to visit your blog.
Get a blog and find some comrades!!!
Good luck! |
|
|
Nobody reads you, buddy. Dare ya to find anyone who does. |
|
These claims are false and have been answered a million times.
Try again. |
|
Dan-
The Gang of 14 did not directly lead to the confirmations of Roberts and Alito. The Democrats would _never_ have filibustered them. That would have guaranteed that the Senate would invoke the nuclear option. What the GO14 agreement did was prevent the changing of the rules. At the same time it allowed the Dems to still filibuster in 'extreme cases'.
What McCain and his other gang members _still_ haven't figured out is that the Senate is not a gathering of colleagues of differing rational opinions attempting to work for the common weal. It's a cage fight where one side is arming itself with poison-tipped spiked gloves and boots and the other side is trying to follow the Marquess of Queensbury rules.
As for Romney's 26 Democrats, you might want to consider the fact that jurists in Romney's states are probably overwhelmingly Democrat. Furthermore, the legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat and probably just as given to Borking nominees as their federal counterparts. Romney probably had to make a whole lot of David Souter-like choices: choosing a Dem who _seems_ like he'll interpret more than legislate (which is why Bush 41 chose Souter). I'll grant that Souter hasn't worked out too well, but compare him to Breyer and Ginsburg. |
|
From today's worldnetdaily.com an exerpt everyone should read before they align with Mitt Romney.
A coalition of leaders on family issues has released a letter warning about what they describe as the deception being assembled around former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
"Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate," the letter says. "But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney's role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty.
"Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale," the letter continued.
Signers include William Greene of RightMarch.com, Ted Baehr of the Christian Film and Television Commission, Linda Harvey of Mission America, Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan, Michael Heath of Christian Civic League of Maine, Ray Neary of Pro-Life Massachusetts and others.
The letter cites seven issues seen as problematic in the Romney campaign, including a "phony pro-life 'conversion.'"
"Mitt Romney established abortion as a 'healthcare benefit' in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion – after his supposed 'pro-life conversion,'" the letter said. "He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board."
Second, according to the letter, "Romney told Catholic Charities' adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home," the letter said.
|
|
|
|
article is why he now puts Mitt on the cover and endorses him for Prez??
Please...The SPACE you're sucking up here to make HH's threads your own blg is ridiculous. Ton after ton after ton of unnecessary windage. Stop.
Trust me. |
|
Here are the comments by a columnist who has seen Hugh's morphing Mitt up close for some time now.
Romney looks like the jut-jawed Ward Cleaver, but he acts like Eddie Haskell, the unctuous TV teenager whose syrupy flattery fooled no one. After observing the candidate for months, Hartford Courant editorial writer Bill Curry says he ``wouldn't believe Romney if he were telling me his blood type while lying on an operating table.''
Nothing more needs to be said. |
|
Huckabee would be a disaster to conservatives way beyond his four years in office (and it wouldn't be any more than that). If he were the nominee I'd be looking to the Dem's pick.
McCain has no chance to get the nomination -- his positions are too well known and documented. When he gets it wrong he really gets it wrong. And he's wrong a lot.
|
|
said some nice things about McCain on RealClearPolitics today. Clearly Hanson isn't a "real" conservative and should be shunned. As long as we're conducting a purge based on ideological purity.
Remember how McCain was going to drop out before Fred announced, Hugh? |
|
|
|
Huckabee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH6pqJOmUWc
|
|
It's SO TRANSPARENT!! There is a reason that well-known LIBERAL newspapers, journalists and reporters support and endorse Huckabee (and especially) McCain---- while smart, conservative papers, journalists and bloggers are for Romney!! It's not rocket science to figure out what the liberal agenda is people!! Huckabee has no substance except with extreme Christian right wingers, and can be wiped off the map with one fell swoop-- McCain---he is one of them-- a well known liberal who is too old, too volatile, and has a well documented liberal track record within the Republican party. He is easily taken down also.
I can see why all the respected, true conservative talk show hosts, journalists, bloggers, etc. have come down so hard on Mike Huckabee and John McCain (have you read the list--including Rush Limbaugh's latest statements--- on Iowansforromney.com?). Huckabee's latest wacko mis-statements and publicity stunt fiasco on Monday just reiterates why I'm voting for competence. John McCain is just plain volatile/mean, a liberal and a MSM prop since Huckabee is no longer a viable glass house to put up against Hillary.
Don't be such gullible sheep! Vote for a conservative candidate with intelligence and substance. Vote for Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romney has no core beliefs as far as I can tell. If he becomes the nominee, and if he then becomes President, the base will have to put constant pressure on him to try to keep him from 'evolving' leftward.
Do you agree?
Do you think a President Romney would be susceptible to much influence by the Linda 'Greenhouse effect'?
Lithwick, Dahlia. 3 August 2005. "The Souter Factor
What makes tough conservative justices go soft?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2123935/
"The Greenhouse Effect" is the name of a
phenomenon popularized by D.C. Appeals Court
Judge Laurence Silberman referring to federal
judges whose rulings are guided solely by their
need for adulation from legal reporters such as
Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times. The idea
is that once confirmed, justices become desperate
to be invited to the right cocktail parties and conform
their views to those of the liberal intelligentsia.
Robert Bork recently told the New York Times, "It's
hard to pick the right people in the sense of those
who won't change, because there aren't that many
of them. … So you tend to get people who are
wishy-washy, or who are unknown, and those
people tend to drift to the left in response to elite
opinion."
|
|
Conservatives with all of the candidates, not just Huck and McCain.
Romney: The last thing conservatives want is another Northeastern Republican. Does the term RINO mean anything? Doesn't anyone remember Jefferds, Snow, Chaffee, etc. No one knows the stand Romney takes on any issue. Remember this; Massachusetts liberals liked him enough to vote for him as Governor. He either lied to them to get their vote, or he's lying to us to get ours.
Guiliani: Same as above, except he's honest about it.
Huckabee: Simply put; a christian liberal. (and a Mormon bigot besides!)
McCain: An unalduterated, unforgiven political opportunist and populist.
Duncan Hunter: The conservative in the race. Unfortunately, it'd hard to vote for the invisible.
Fred Thompson: My Choice. Doesn't seem to want the office, but at least I feel I can trust him and I share most of his values. |
|
[CDubber on January 3, 2008 11:59 AM]"Way to plant a link to an article that's a YEAR OLD."
Did you read the March 2006 article "Mitt missing convictions"?
control - f/ "find" for: bucki
http://www.prolifefederation.org/custom3.asp
|
|
What makes Rudy so different than McCain or Huckabee? All three are Liberals trying to be conservatives. I fail to see how Rudy could unite the Reagan coalition... at least on domestic policy.
As far as I'm concerned, the only two candidates worth voting for out there are Romney and Fred.
Jim C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's becoming clear that Mike Huckabee's true hero and exemplar is Bill Clinton. |
|
|
because I can't support anyone else... |
|
Mitt Romney is the leaky vessel into which Hugh Hewitt will pour his hopes and dreams which will result in a hobbled GOP ticket.
|
|
McCain in contrast kept his cool. He candidly admitted that the tragic loss of Bhutto was a setback to American democratic objectives, while reminding us that a nuclear Islamist Pakistan is unstable and doesn't present America with any good choices. In this war, having a veteran fighter and savvy old statesman as commander-in-chief makes a lot of sense.
I don't know whether plain-speaking John McCain will win the presidency. But so far he's proved the most experienced of the candidates, and he's run the most principled and honest of the campaigns. Other candidates may be younger, better financed and more charismatic; none has more earned America's trust.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/john_mcca in_the_old_warhorse.html |
|
How can a candidate call himself a conservative and be so blind as to the influence of Rush on
conservative voters? Huckster-Bee allowing this tiff with Rush and now Mark Levin has finished any chance he might have had to break loose from the pack. How could he be so stupid? After the first gaffe he should have made some kind of an effort to smooth things over instead of feeding it and having Rush pointing out to everyone the liberal record that Hucky is trying to downplay. Now he's doing his Clinton imitation on the Tonight Show. What genius thought of that as a way to bolster his conservative credentials? This guy has made enough mistakes just in the last month for us to question his competence and common sense as well as his non-existent conservative credentials. |
|
PC:
yup!
We know Ronald Reagan,
President Reagan was a friend of ours.
Huck...
You're no Ronald Reagan!! |
|
|
As Huckabee and McCain pull away in their respective states, Hugh and the other Romney fools dither on and have fantasies of a Mitt/Giuliani debate. How laughable. Can't wait for tonight when Huckabee puts his foot in Romney's rear yet again (for the fifty-millionth time.) Mitt will be left holding the money bag (though a little lighter) and then it's on to New Hampshire for some more butt-whoopin'. Romney, or Mittens, as I've seen him referred to, will soon be riding on his bus back to Massachusetts with the comforting feeling that, at least, he pumped some money into various local economies. How un-presidential can one man be? What a complete and utter jack**s. |
|
The Huckabee versus Romney race is very tight. Caucus turnout could be low; under 78,000 and that would help Huckabee. The crossover for Obama hurts a regular Republican like Romney who needs all the non-Christian conservative votes he can get. No doubt Romney has gained a tremendous amount in last 30 days, but it may not be enough. Mitt's troops in eastern Iowa are confident and feel they dominate. Operatives in west Iowa and Polk county are far more worried. I have less confidence in this prediction than the Democratic one because the Republican race feels so close but I've changed my prediction to put The Huck narrowly ahead. McCain's third place surging finish will be a big media story; impressive because he did it with without TV ads. I predict:
Huckabee: 28%
Romney 27.25%
McCain 17%
Thompson 11%
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008 /01/richelieu_predictions.asp |
|
|
Did you hear that last smackdown of Huck? Beautiful. |
|
Entitled "Age in America."
He could even take a bunch of funny swipes at Mitt's speech...
"Our nation's founders did not want to place a litmus test on age for public office. I know, because I was there...." Buh-dum-dom!!
Seriously, this has to rank right behind Hugh's "cancer scare" attack on Thompson. Remember what Reagan said to Mondale, about the latter's "youth and inexperience"? These types of poll questions are pretty stupid. Ask someone if they will vote for an 72 year old and they say no. But ask them if McCain is too old to be President, and they will also say no. Age is a theoretical concern that is irrelevant when individual candidates are considered. And unlike many other things in life, aging is a given. What isn't a given is how one ages. There are 72 year olds who regularly finish ahead of me in marathons (and I am 38, and not *that* bad of a runner).
|
|
Dukakis and Kerry were weak in the absolute sense, but would you care to make the argument that the Dems left far better candidates on the shelf in 1988 or 2004? Who, Gephardt and Dean?
No Dem was going to fare well in 1988 with Reagan still popular and his veep running. Kerry actually did quite well in 2004 and came within 100,000 or so votes in Ohio of winning the presidency. He was certainly a better candidate than early favorite Dean would have been.
The system's not perfect, but the point is that the system does tend to weed out the weak. Conservatives who believe in the power of economic competition to reward effectiveness and punish incompetence should have the same confidence in the phenomenon applying to politics as well. |
|
Big deal. The guy's history after tonight. He's out spent his closest competitor by millions and he fighting for the lead in IA. What a joke.
Everyone has seen that Slick Mitty is a lying, flip-flopping political tool. I'll take personal joy when he pulls the plug on his failed presidential bid.
It'll also be interesting to see what HH posts on his blog. I'm sure he'll support the GOP nominee with the same fervor and intensity that he has Slick Mitty. |
|
it is a miracle.
Huckabee has:
1. The entire conservative leadership 100% against him.
2. Limbaugh calling him a liberal.
3. Endless gaffes the last two weeks.
If he can still somehow hold on and win Iowa, that will be a miracle. |
|
Huck could not resist the temptation to exploit anti-Mormon sentiment. (Of course not, he has a gut full himself, so it came natural.) His strategy centered around dividing social conservatives and "innocently" going about spreading doubt about Romney's faith. Not only that, he portrays himself as the righteous one, and maligns Romney as a liar. But neither are true. in fact, it's quite exactly the opposite. Huckabee has been the one behaving in a very UNrighteous manner and is the one lying - repeatedly.
And all this in addition to the fact that he is a man with serious ethical lapses, a terrible record as governor, and is a liberal on all but 2 issues. And the commutations of criminals is beyond the pale.
Throw in the gaffes, misjudgements, deceptions, and just plain idiocy when it comes to foreign and domestic affairs, and you have the silliest, yet most dangerous politician to come around since Bill Clinton.
Iowans who buy into the religion-baiting and base their vote solely upon religion (as Rush so eloquently nailed yesterday) are foolishly duped by Huckabee. He can no more be considered a "Christian Leader" than Bill Clinton, based upon his actions.
|
|
This is going to far, now you are sending letters to Iowa Pastors????
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080103/huckabee_letters.html?.v=1
|
|
"Having weak candidates is a self-correcting problem."
John Kerry? Michael Dukakis? Sadly, the list goes on.
Seeing a hopeless candidate like Huckabee nominated, against all logic, would not be a first. |
|
Barnes, Fred. 09/06/2007. "McCain Helps Himself
And Romney appears vulnerable on Iraq." _The Weekly Standard_
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp ?idArticle=14065&R=1157667B
The alacrity with which McCain went after Romney
on Iraq reflected the Arizona senator's view that
Romney shades or modifies his position on the war,
depending on his audience.
==
But Romney's tone and
tack on Iraq were noticeably different last Sunday
when he answered an antiwar questioner in
Nashua. Then, he agreed Iraq is a "mess" and said
he has a three-stage plan for the war, leading to the
complete withdrawal of American troops. The
soldiers would be deployed outside Iraq and "would
be available if needed," he said.
And Romney said he sees his plan, including the
final withdrawal, "happening relatively soon." He
didn't offer a timetable. But the second phase, with
Americans out of combat and assigned to train Iraqi
troops, might begin next year. In any case, his
three-stage strategy seemed to distance him
perceptibly from President Bush on Iraq.
At the debate last night here at the University of
New Hampshire, Romney explicitly moved back
toward Bush, identifying himself with the president's
desire to begin withdrawing troops as soon as the
surge is successful. He is "committed to success in
Iraq," Romney insisted, but wants the United States
to "not have a permanent presence in Iraq."
==
Romney is not an easy target, however. His position
on Iraq has been a study in flexibility, though he's
never come close to opposing Bush on the war. To
counter McCain, he may simply invigorate his
support for Bush and the surge.
|
|
Way to plant a link to an article that's a YEAR OLD. While failing to mention that NR (of which Rich Lowry is the editor) OFFICIALLY ENDORSED ROMNEY.
Apparently Lowry himself now thinks less of his *own* year-old comments than you do.
Synthesizer fails. Again.
When Huckabee runs out of money (soon), who will pay you for your spam? |
|
are the representatives of Conservatism? Huckabee
and McCain have now been scratched from the lineup.
And the roster gets smaller and smaller every day.
With all the infighting and Repub-on-Repub slapdowns
it seems that Conservatism is shrinking it's ranks
instead of growing out. Sad to see the likes
of Buckley, Kirkpatrick, and Reagan, replaced with
the new stewardship of Limbaugh, Coulter, and
Hewitt. |
|
McCain is a liberal.
Huckabee is a liberal minister.
Will either one of them shrink the growth of the Federal Government?
Answer: No.
They are both out.
Forget about them. We need a true conservative to save the Union. Netiher one of these two men make the cut. |
|
[NeoConScum]"The space you waste here for attention is beyond ridiculous."
Do you agree with any Lowry criticisms below?
Lowry, Rich. 29 January 2007. "The Romney Speech"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTU0NzEyZjIzMTI5Yz ZiYjgxMjY3MTM4YTIzMjY4NTA=
Here's my take: Put aside how rambling and unfocused it was. Maybe that can be chalked up to a bad night or fatigue. But to speak for 50 minutes or so and not to talk about the Iraq war before a conservative audience at a crucial moment in that war is bizarre and just wrong and almost offensive in my view. This doesn't seem like an oversight. He went out of his way to check off every conservative box-- except the one that is politically risky at the moment.
The rest of his foreign policy stuff-- when he talked about Iran and the broader war-- felt very shaky and about an inch deep. His account of how he came to change his view on abortion-- through the issue of stem-cell research-- isn't very compelling and he would probably be better off not talking about it at all. Fairly or not, people aren't going to believe it. It was his misfortune to boast about signing Grover Norquist's no-tax pledge, after Jeb Bush gave a very mature and persuasive explanation earlier in the day for why he hadn't ever signed the pledge, but still cut taxes each year he was in office. I'm a fan of the pledge myself and I'm glad Romney signed it, but his boast on this night after following Jeb played into what will be the chief vulnerability to his candidacy-- the
sense that he is simply pandering to the right. Believe me, I prefer politicians pandering to the right than to something or someone else. But it won't be enough to sustain a serious presidential campaign, which has to have a deeper rationale than occupying a niche in the marketplace. It was just one night, and Romney is impressive in many ways, but Saturday night was a missed opportunity. |
|
How did McCain do harm? The Gang of 14 directly led to the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Without the Gang of 14, those two nominations go kaput. Which Bush nominees have gone down as a result of the Gang of 14? Names? The Gang of 14 was a tremendous victory for conservatives.
McCain helped us get Roberts and Alito. Romney? He nominated 36 judges while Governor of Massachusetts, and 27 of them were Democrats. How do you explain THAT record? |
|
This is HUGE!
Rasmussen has just come out with his National Tracking Poll and ROMNEY has SURGED into 1st place for the first time ever with 18%!!!!!
Massively huge news. |
|
|
That was a very substantive and analytical comment. Now please take your thoughtful writing somewhere else, OK? This is a comedy blog, after all. |
|
Having weak candidates is a self-correcting problem. They tend to get overtaken by stronger candidates. Thus the falls of Romney and Giuliani, and the rises of McCain and Huckabee.
Hillyer (and HH) seem to want it both ways: Huck and McCain are very weak candidates; therefore we have to strive mightily to defeat them.
Hillyer also seems to confuse liberals with conservatives:
“Huckabee's bizarre propensity for letting criminals return early to freedom, combined with his utter cluelessness about foreign policy, also means that he would get absolutely crushed by the Democrats in a general election contest.”
Even assuming these simplifications of Huck’s record are true, Hillyer’s charge is that governing like a Democrat would make Huckabee get crushed by the Democrats?
That’s like a Democrat claiming he doesn’t want his party to nominate Lieberman on the grounds that Lieberman’s many conservative traits would cause him to get crushed by the Republicans.
What Hillyer really means of course is that he, a conservative, doesn’t like Huck’s many moderate/liberal traits. Fair enough. But the right way to say that is not to say that having many positions in common with Democrats would make Huck less acceptable to Democrats than a more reliable conservative would be. That’s patent nonsense. |
|
Knowing the type of man Romney is, I doubt he would take my job from me. Ok, if he wants it, he can have it today. (I'm now a full time mom to 7 very high maintanence kids. If he wants this one, he's got it!!). However, that said, I've never known folks to work for a poor CEO. You know Mike Huckabee got rich by having little old ladies send in their pensions when he was a TV preacher? So, making the money by owning companies, using talents for honest work, or stealing from the pocket books of little grandmas who think Huckster is the golden path to God? Mitt has my vote head and shoulders.
Poor CEO's don't pay wages. Rich ones do. Because my husband works for a successful CEO, we can pay our mortgage, buy cars, food and shoes for the kiddos. |
|
|
have you all noticed that, if you go to the townhall.com homepage, the headlines concerning romney are bolded while the other headlines are not? |
|
John McCain did severe damage to George W. Bush's attempt to nominate conservative judges. Period. That's the record.
On another topic: If the Republican Party rejects the kind of conservatism represented by Robert Bork, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and National Review, I will leave the Republican Party. And I won't be alone. |
|
|
I am also sick of the way McCain keeps trying to use his war record to beat us over the head with, in an attempt to control us. That is an insidious form of oppression and also denies all the risk and sacrifices our own families have made for this country, like he deserves more than we do and is above us all. Not! According to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, we are all created equal and have a right to dissent. He's ridden that horse to promote his career and beat the rest of us down long enough. That's not the behavior of someone who respects our own freedoms and autonomy, he is obsessed with his own desire for power and even called us "unAmerican" for opposing his tolerance of illegals and open borders. We abide by the law and become his enemies, what does that tell you? |
|
With regard to nominating conservative judges ...
Rudy Giuliani has vowed to nominate originalist judges.
John McCain has been strongly pro-life throughout his entire career, so there is no reason to believe that he would not nominate originalist judges.
Mitt Romney?
While Governor of Massachusetts, Romney nominated 36 judges. 27 of them were Democrats.
Look at the records, people. The more and more you look and Romney, the more unappealing he becomes.
|
|
|
It's a new day, with the GOP moving away from the snot nosed Ivy League set to the rough and ready populists like McCain and Huck, as Huckabee says to cheers, "Someone who looks more like you at work than he does like the guy who laid you off." That would be Romney, the guy who would lay you off and send your job to China. We're tired of the Caustic Cons, those negative, sour, "Don't touch my yacht tax" chattering East Coast journalists. Give us real men, not someone running around Iowa looking like a deer caught in the headlamps as Mitt does in his preppy sweater. |
|
"This ridiculous Rush Limbaugh mentality has to stop."
I think Rush Limbaugh has an enormous amount of common sense. There should be more Rush Limbaugh mentality in this country, not less. |
|
|
Please. The space you waste here for attention is beyond ridiculous. |
|
Susan Estrich (definitely a *liberal*), on Fox last night:
"Huckabee could win tomorrow here in Iowa. Huckabee is a Democrat's dream. He's the kind of candidate who can do very well in the Iowa caucus because he taps into something. But when the republicans nominate Huckabee? Honey, I'm dancing at the inaugural ball."
Wake up Iowa!!! |
|
|
McCain and Huckabee both have thin skins, bad tempers and a tendency to shoot off at the mouth. These qualities in a leader of our country could start a war unnecessarily and that is a *national security risk* that we would not be able to control. We do not owe McCain or anybody that. |
|
|
the little squids were! Can't imagine what flavor of koolaid Dan's drinking--Maybe the kind that the often delirious McCain drinks--but, the po'lad just doesn't seem to GET that John's stepped on darn near every Republican face and thinks illegal aliens are required to do our work and has sapped some freedom from the electoral process and hasn't got the TEMPERAMENT for POTUS in these Huge Times. |
|
from Hugh. No facts, no analysis, just quotes he was able to find to support his guy Romney.
A whole bunch about McCain, but nothing about what non-conservative actions Huckabee has taken.
And Quin says that Rudy governed more conservatively than Huckabee or McCain? Let's see, was it the sanctuary city part or the support for abortion part or the support of homosexual marriage part?
Huckabee took Arkansas from the 37th most taxed state to the 44th when he left - that sounds Conservative to me.
Quin is as big a joke as Mr. Hewitt... |
|
|
|
Why worry about a conservative case on this blog, Hugh? Most the trolls that infest the comments aren't conservatives anyway.
And Mike Huckabee might be a sly conniver, a liberal at heart, and totally unqualified for the presidency, but he plays a mean bass! Oh, and he's a "Christian Leader." And that's all it takes to get Iowa's vote. |
|
1 January 2008. McCain Press Release "New Web Ad, 'Experience'"
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/4a5f c438-2e8d-40b4-9c32-49c5bec85b25.htm
Former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey issued the following statement:
"We couldn't disagree more with Governor
Romney's recent suggestion that foreign policy
experience really doesn't matter when it comes to
evaluating who should be our next president and
commander in chief. America is at war. Our military
forces are engaged in Iraq, in Afghanistan and
elsewhere against a determined, vicious enemy. We
are facing serious challenges, in a nuclear-armed
Pakistan, in Latin America with the rise of Hugo
Chavez, and in other corners of the globe. In such
dangerous times, John McCain has the necessary
experience and judgment to strengthen our national
security and lead our nation and allies. He has had
extensive contact with foreign leaders and military
officials. John McCain has been on the ground in
many of the world's hot spots, including several trips
to Iraq and Afghanistan, and also the tribal areas of
Waziristan. As an ex-Navy pilot and POW, he
understands first-hand how political decisions in
Washington impact those serving in our Armed
Forces. On Iraq, John McCain's experience and
judgment served him well. For years, despite public
opinion, he called for a surge of forces and a new
strategy in Iraq to prevail against our enemies -- a
strategy that is now succeeding. In contrast,
Governor Romney, with no national security
experience, was a follower on Iraq, while John
McCain showed strong leadership and vision."
|
|
|
If Mitt is willing to attack Rudy where he is really weak (Rudy is the pot to Hillary's kettle), Mitt will leave Rudy behind in the dust. It is important for Mitt to attack Rudy's moral character and nothing highlights that better than the fact that Mitt's sons are enthusiastically campaigning for their dad while Rudy's kids are either staying out or endorsing a Democrat. |
|
When I start taking my political cues from Margaret Carlson, just shoot me. Please? |
|
I would vote for McCain. (I would NOT vote for the ethically-challenged liberal demagogue and religion-baiter Huckabee. But he has no chance of getting the nomination.)
However, I would be less than thrilled about electing a man who seems to place little value on free political expression, confirming conservative justices, and securing the borders, and who, to top it off, appears to lack presidential temperament and who, frankly, is so old. |
|
I read the post from start to finish, and it is the same hackneyed garbage.
If Hugh is going to keep posting the same exact anti-McCain and anti-Huckabee arguments that he has been posting for months, then we have every right to keep on responding.
Romney is unelectable. His numbers against the Democrats the WORST of any of the Republican candidates.
This ridiculous Rush Limbaugh mentality has to stop. McCain will beat Hill-Dawg. He will beat Obama. He will beat Edwards. Romney will not. I fail to see how nominating Romney and then getting blown out in the general will "unite the Reagan coalition." Bull. We need to keep the presidency, and John McCain is the only man who will do that for us. |
|
From Margaret Carlson's piece on Bloomberg.
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist _carlson&sid=azDDt65NtvPc
"Romney looks like the jut-jawed Ward Cleaver, but he acts like Eddie Haskell, the unctuous TV teenager whose syrupy flattery fooled no one. After observing the candidate for months, Hartford Courant editorial writer Bill Curry says he ``wouldn't believe Romney if he were telling me his blood type while lying on an operating table.''" |
|
and John McCain UTTERLY LACKS Presidential temperament. Let's encourage him to stay in the US Senate Forever, beoming a Republican Irrascible Bobby Byrd. He's gifted at irritating nearly everyone and being ever on the lookout for a camera & mic. The Senate for Sanator McCain!!
Go, Mitt. Go, Rudy. Go, Condi as VP. Go, Fred as VP. |
|
Wow! That changes everything.
Err, one thing, though.
Who the heck is Quin Hilyar? |
|
How DARE Hugh Hewitt express an opinion?
I never read him, of course. He's irrelevant. But I want to be the first to attack him because of this latest post, just as I've attacked him several times for every PREVIOUS post.
And how DARE Hugh Hewitt criticize a war hero?
Senator McCain's stay in the Hanoi Hilton not only makes him an expert on today's foreign policy issues, it makes him impervious to criticism.
Hewitt should ask "How high?" and then shut up. And if Senator McCain uses an obscene verb to tell him where to go, he should do his patriotic duty and obey.
Our nation is suffering from too many conservative judges, too few illegal aliens, and too much free political speech. Senator McCain has fought hard to end these evils.
He deserves the presidency. It is his right. |
|
|
|