Wednesday, December 26, 2007
|
|
One of These Guys Will Win: A Close Look at the GOP Candidates ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:00 AM
|
|
With the New Year upon us, I figured it was time to do a review of the 2007 GOP candidates. This, of course, is purely my opinion. In no particular order, here is my take on the candidates:
Mike Huckabee

What I like: Without a doubt, Mike Huckabee is the most charismatic Republican running for president. He's also a solid social conservative.
What I don't like: Populism is a respected tradition in the Republican Party. It helped a "C student" from Eureka College named Ronald Reagan win over "Reagan Democrats," and also wrest control of the GOP from the country club "Rockefeller Republicans." Every time Rush Limbaugh talks about the "media elite" or the "Hollywood elite," he is, to some extent, advancing a populist message. But the problem is that Mike Huckabee has gone beyond populism to class warfare. That is a very different -- and a very dangerous -- type of rhetoric.
The Campaign: If you're looking for an efficient campaign, look no further than Mike Huckabee's. Though he has spent less than many Congressional candidates, he has managed to climb to the top of the Iowa -- and national -- polls. This is nothing short of miraculous. Of course, this has little to do with his campaign; Mike Huckabee is a cult of personality.
How He Wins: Mike Huckabee must win Iowa, and then hope the momentum carries him into South Carolina. Presumably, an early win or two will kick-start his fundraising. That's the theory, at least.
John McCain

What I Like: If you've met John McCain, it's hard not to like him. The fact that he is so available to reporters and bloggers probably means many of us predisposed, at least, toward liking him. Aside from the ego boost many reporters and bloggers probably get from this exposure, there is also a substantive reason that McCain's availability is a good thing: A candidate who is available to the media would also be a president who is open to ideas and willing to frequently talk to the media -- and the public. McCain's background as a former POW rightly gives him credibility and respect. For social conservatives, John McCain has a solid Pro-Life voting record -- the most solid of any candidate running. Regarding Iraq, he was clearly right about the Surge from day one.
What I Don't Like: Campaign Finance Reform is a big deal breaker for a lot of conservatives -- and for good reason: It is a violation of free speech, and is essentially incumbent protection. On the personal side, I have heard from numerous reliable sources that McCain has a fierce temper and flies off the handle. Other conservatives whom I respect even go so far as to describe him as "crazy".
The Campaign: McCain's original team consisted of some of the best operatives in the business. The only trouble was what worked for Bush in 2004 didn't fit John McCain. He is, by nature, a maverick, and his campaign today fits that mold. From a personal standpoint, McCain is lucky to have perhaps the best eCampaign Director in the business, Patrick Hynes. Of course, Hynes' job is made easy by having a candidate who is so willing to deliver the straight talk to reporters and bloggers.
How He Wins: McCain must win New Hampshire, and hope the momentum takes him to Michigan and South Carolina. Theoretically, that would jump-start his fundraising.
Rudy Giuliani
What I Like: During the debates, I often found myself really liking Rudy Giuliani. He is, no doubt, a terrific leader, and he possesses gravitas as well as a disarming sense of humor. Clearly, he is a good law-and-order type, and his promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges is, at least, some comfort for social conservatives.
What I Don't Like: Without rehashing all the issues, there is no doubt Rudy Giuliani is a social liberal. There is also a sense that he might be a bit authoritarian, if it's possible to be just a bit authoritarian. Moreover, his campaign is guarded and his staffers and advance men do a good job of keeping him isolated from bloggers, reporters, and others. This, of course, plays into the negative stereotype.
The Campaign: Giuliani's strategy relies on defying history. He is essentially banking on losing the first several primaries, and then winning big on February 5. By essentially ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire, he had hoped to decrease their relevance, avoid being branded a "loser," and harvest his resources for later. It is now clear he would have been better off to campaign hard in both states, come in 3rd, and then win on February 5. From a personal standpoint, the Giuliani campaign has done a very good job of providing bloggers with surrogates. For example, they arranged for me to interview former Solicitor General Ted Olson, as well as former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci.
How He Wins: Rudy needs to deprive Mitt Romney of winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. To use football parlance, he doesn't control his own destiny. He needs other teams (Huckabee and McCain) to beat Romney, for him to make it to the playoffs.
Mitt Romney
What I Like: Based on the positions he is espousing, Mitt Romney is the most complete conservative running for president. He is charismatic and well-spoken. And his experience as a businessman makes him appealing to those who are yearning for efficiency and competence in government.
What I Don't Like: Prior to deciding to run for president, Mitt Romney held dramatically different positions on a variety of important issues. While primaries have a centrifugal nature, being an elected official has quite the opposite. I worry about a candidate who isn't steeped in conservativism, and thus may lack the necessary moorings to keep him conservative when the going gets tough. While the conservative movement should welcome converts, it should not immediately promote converts to the highest office in the land. Additionally, Romney often appears to be self-righteous and too polished for his own good.
The Campaign: Without a doubt, Mitt Romney's is the most disciplined and efficient of all the Republican campaigns. Top-notch loyalists like Peter Flaherty have provided stability, as well as helped pull off what may have seemed like a miracle a year ago: Making Romney acceptable -- and even preferable -- to many conservatives. Romney wisely hired Gary Marx, who served as the Bush/Cheney '04 social conservative director, and the list of conservative movement endorsements that Romney has secured is impressive. Kevin Madden, Romney’s press secretary, is no doubt the best in the business. And Matt Rhoades, the famous Drudge friend, has no doubt been key to some of the anti-Huckabee/McCain stories that have recently surfaced. Lastly, a year ago, Mitt Romney took my advice and hired a blogger. Romney was well-served by bringing on some very talented e-campaign folks, early in this race.
How He Wins: Mitt Romney, unlike Giuliani, controls his own destiny. His path to the presidency is the clearest, and history is on his side. What is more, he has the money to sustain him should he fumble once or twice. But he still needs to win Iowa or New Hampshire. He cannot afford to lose both.
Fred Thompson
What I Like: Fred Thompson has gravitas. He is humorous and has charisma. Though he's not perfect, his record is reliably conservative.
What I Don't Like: Like Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson is guarded. His entourage keeps bloggers and voters, alike, at a distance. More importantly, however, there seems to be no compelling reason for Fred Thompson to run for office, other than the fact that he thought he could easily win.
The Campaign: Fred Thompson's campaign has famously been in disarray. However, his commitment to Iowa, and his Iowa team, is what matters most now.
How He Wins: Of all the candidates, it is most difficult to lay out Fred Thompson's path to victory. He needs to stay alive early by coming in 3rd in Iowa. Then, he needs to hope the other candidates take turns winning, thereby depriving any one person of racking up states. Also, as Newt Gingrich has noted, Fred Thompson is the one candidate whom (to much of the country, at least) doesn't have an accent. If Fred can survive long enough to get there, he has a chance to win many of the southern states. Lastly, you will note I did not include Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter, as I don't think they have a realistic shot of winning the nomination. I do like Ron Paul's dedication to the Constitution, though I believe his position regarding terror is naive. Cleary, his campaign has tapped into the internet, and has raised an astonishing amount of money. He will likely play a part in determining the outcome of New Hampshire, though he will not be the winner. Duncan Hunter is a good man, but he has clearly not caught on.
|
|
If Fred Thompson does not win South Carolina or finish a very close second, I think it will be over for him.
|
|
You assume too much about Fred. He has always done things his way, and it always pays off!
Admittedly, I have not looked at your bio, so I don't know your age. If you have been around as long as I have you would know that Fred is the only true conservative running in the top tier. |
|
I am a Ron Paul supporter and I have much higher expectations for him than you do. That said, I totally agree with Con4fred that Fred is the ONLY true conservative running in what the media has designated as the top tier. I just can't understand how we got to the point where the "top tier" candidates include a governor who instituted what is essentially Hillarycare in Mass., an openly pro-abortion social liberal and adulterer from New York, a pro-amnesty under-miner of First Amendment from Arizona, and a nanny-state "let's give benefits to illegals" pharisee from the same political swamp that gave us the Clintons.
I will be disappointed if Ron Paul loses, but I would have no problem voting for Fred Thompson if he gets the nomination. If I vote for any of the others, I will be gagging on self-contempt as I do it. |
|
|
This analysis is quite refreshing after all the my-candidate-owns-all-your-bases rhetoric over the last month or so. Bravo! |
|
Matt, overall good analysis, but I must quibble with your characterization that "Mitt Romney held dramatically different positions on a variety of important issues."
First, it is clear from this flyer from Mitt's 1994 Senate run that the only major position that he switched on is Abortion, which he has explained ad nauseum. (http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/11/oldie-but-goodie-real-romney-is.html) At this point, one either believes it or not, but it's not fair to paint him as a categorical position switcher based on this one issue.
Second, all of the candidates have "evolved" their positions significantly (e.g. Rudy, Huck, and McCain on Illegal Immigration). Again, it seems a bit unfair to single Romney out for changing on the Abortion issue.
As for me, I'm with the National Review and dozens of other Conservatives who have endorsed Mitt Romney for President.
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2007/12/11/mitt-romney-is -national-reviews-choice-for-president-of-the-united-states / |
|
If Romney loses narrowly in both IA and NH (I do not believe that will happen), he has staying power and very easily could go on and win MI. Both McCain and Huck will be hurting for money in MI and SC.
Romney is just as viable as Rudy in the long run even if he runs second in one or more early primaries. He can stay in even if he runs second in all of the early primaries going into FL. He will be in better shape than Rudy in FL.
I do not see a Huck vs McCain race as long as Rudy and Romney have the strategies and money that they do. At the moment Romney is fighting both Huck and McCain but one or both of them will be gone by FL.
Romney will survive all of the way to the convention and so will Rudy. The media will play games and have some influence but both Romney and Rudy have solid core support because they are candidates of substance.
Both Romney and Rudy view this race as a marathon not a sprint. Both Romney and Rudy have taken a lot of negative press and keep on going. The negative press for both Huck and McCain will become a lot more intense as we get deeper into each state.
|
|
|
Remember that the MSM and Left in every venue is pushing for certain Pubs to win. They include Huck and even St. John. That is never good for the GOP alliance. And Lewis did not say whether the Party, the 3-tiered conservative coalition will support the nominee. I will but the Pub purists seem destined to tank the GOP because of their one issue voting. Too bad because all 5 of these guys, well sans the populist Huck, would have a chance to win in the general. Again, electibility is the key to any wise voter and planner for a general. We also have down ticket races which will depend how many voters are drawn by the Prez nominee. That factors in or should. Too many primary voters are emotive and forget that the real enemy to the GOP is the leftist socialist pacifist party on the other side of the aisle not each other. So gag if you want, but pull the Pub lever! |
|
He's smart, he can speak well, he's experienced, and politically savvy, yet he's not an "insider" or member of the elite. Sounds to me just like what America has been asking for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TV0R2vQjg
Check out his 9 point plan to secure America, his proposed Veterans Bill of Rights, his plan for Energy Independence, and learn about how the FairTax is better for you and better for America.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com |
|
While abortion is Romney's most covered flip-flop, it is without question not his only flip-flop.
Another big one is campaign finance reform. Nowadays, Romney is fond of calling campaign finance reform evil, uncostitutional, horrific, etc., but back in 1994 (and even in 2002), he was a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform -- even going as far as to demand limits on campaign spending. (the video of Romney taking this position is one YouTube). John McCain has never even gone that far.
Romney has flip-flopped on 2nd Amendment rights. While running for governor of Mass, he vowed that the NRA was going to "hate" him. Now, he has rushed to join the NRA, and has just taken up hunting as a hobby.
I could go on and on but I have limited space.
Look, we absolutely brutalized John Kerry (rightfully so) for his flip-floppery in 2004. My fear is that the Democrats are absolutely salivating at the chance to return the favor to Mitt Romney. If we nominate Romney, it will appear as though the Republican Party has flip-flopped on flip-flopping. And one of the few things I know to be true about the American people is that they do not like flip-flopping candidates like Romney or Kerry. |
|
Ron Paul: Real Conservatives Don’t Start Wars, They End Them
HP-Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently gained fame for breaking one-day online donation records, but he’s still considered an underdog by many because of his single-digit polling and arguably radical views on a variety of issues. For one thing, he supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a position that seems more at home with the Democrats these days. So why is he up there, debate after debate, standing out from the likes of Huckabee and Romney and McCain? Why isn’t he trying to fit in if he wants to win the primary? Is he even a Republican?
He told me he is–just not the same kind as the rest of them.
“I think their definitions are different,” he said. “Today, the Party has been taken over by a group called neoconservatives, and I don’t believe they’re really conservative. I think they’re really liberal in the modern sense of the word–they’re big spenders, they believe in entitlements, they believe in military adventurism.”
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-or-ronald -reagan
|
|
"Suspicion of Mormonism was not allayed by his “Religion”, speech"
Was it supposed to have been?
|
|
I agree that Fred Thompson is certainly the best according to the media's top tier, but counting out Ron Paul at this point is very premature. He has a lot of interest and exposure right now, and no one knows what may happen in the final weeks before the primaries. Most of the polls agree that people are not happy with the candidates, so it really is a wide open race.
My chief concerns about Thompson is one of momentum, quite frankly. He has generated minimal interest, and is now currently out of campaign funds. He MUST do well in Iowa, or he will not be able to afford to continue the campaign. Add to this the fact that he did not even make the ballot in Delaware, and his prospects are looking even more dim.
Conservatives may HAVE to vote for Ron Paul if they want a conservative nominee even if they do not agree with his foreign policy. With the possible exception of this one issue (on which I personally agree with Ron Paul), Ron Paul lines up extremely well on every other major issue. He is strongly pro-gun rights. He is solidly pro-life and has been throughout his political career. He is the most staunch supporter of a limited government and fiscal responsibility, and has a workable transition plan for implementing all of his major reforms.
Ron Paul has money, grassroots support, and momentum heading into January. Sadly, he is the only conservative who can say that. I would love to see a runoff between Paul and Thompson (and not Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Huckabee), but I just don't see that happening. |
|
"Conservatives may HAVE to vote for Ron Paul if they want a conservative nominee even if they do not agree with his foreign policy. With the possible exception of this one issue (on which I personally agree with Ron Paul), Ron Paul lines up extremely well on every other major issue. He is strongly pro-gun rights. He is solidly pro-life and has been throughout his political career. He is the most staunch supporter of a limited government and fiscal responsibility, and has a workable transition plan for implementing all of his major reforms."
There was actually a blind poll among republicans that was taken solely on the issues a few months back. There was one that was weighted by how important the issues were and one that was unweighted. Rudy won the weighted one. Ron Paul won the unweighted one. What this basically means is that, issue by issue, repulicans agree with Ron Paul more then any other candidate, but are so overwhelmingly in favor of an active military in the ME, that they are willing to overlook EVERYTHING ELSE COMBINED. |
|
McLame will NEVER be the Republican nominee. he might save face with a miracle 30% in a New Hampshire Primary where Independents can cross the line but he betrayed the base too many times to ever be popular. Huckster-Bee has alot of baggage... not the least being that no one relishes voting for a Man From Hope, at least on the Rep side. He is also dogged by a liberal record of governance and an excessive reliance on religion, which makes a lot of people nervous and locks him out in every blue state. Mutt Romney suffers from that annoying, smug pasted on smile and a tendency to say really stupid things ("My son served his country by working on my campaign"...). His liberal past is a big drawback. So if those three are peaking right now what is left? Rudy and Fred. Rudy has a long record of conservative governance and standing up for conservative issues in the public arena but is distrusted and disliked by the flyover country red-staters as a fast-talking, pro-abortion New York City dude.He's rolled the dice that no one will emerge from the first bouts with any momentum. Quiet Old Fred. A very likeable place for Stop Rudy votes later in the process...or stop whoever it is that's ahead, he's everybody's second choice. Can you win with that? I think Giuliani has the winning strategy. |
|
GOOD GRIEF! Women are not the only people with a perogative to CHANGE their minds. That was the huge mistake of GWB. He would NOT change his mind on anything concerning Iraq. Whether you're a registered Democrat,Libertarian, Independent or Republican...this is one of the very few elections when our vote is extremely valuable and the greatest of importance for our country's security and existance as our Founding Fathers writ in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These instruments have been eroded by some people who have and ideology and agenda which strays very far away from them for power and greed. These professional, political parasites only care about being elected and reelected but, not our Republic. We had statesmen representing us in the beginning and we also had some wonks and mugwumps.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city, but the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through the alley and heard in the very halls of government itself. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist." Cicero
|
|
|
I agree that Mitt Romney is the most complete conservative running for president. Ron Paul is a guy I'd have coffee with, but not vote for. He will never, ever win the GOP nomination. Ever. Ron Paul supporters need to back a real candidate with a shot at the nomination. |
|
|
Mike Huckabee is not only the hope of the Republican Party, he is the hope of our country. The left calls him a medicine man selling snake oil, which means Hillary is scared to death of him and the right has now sent out "The Terminator" Rush Limbaugh to eliminate Mike Huckabee by unleashing his Army of mind numbed robot listeners to hopfully crush Mike. Until last Friday I was one of those Mind Numbed Robots, but not any more! Rush's meltdown on air against Mike Huckabee broke his spell on me. Its time for us folks out here in the Heartland who make the wheels of America turn take a stand based on principal. I want a country that is healthier - Look at Mike. The man lost 110 pound and changed his health. He is an example, not the enemy. He wants us to close the border and then solve the imigration situation in a sound and fair way. He wants us to be energy independent in 10 years and no longer be held captive by foreign Dictators and Sheks. He wants to end the Federal Income Tax System and replace it with a truly "Fair Tax". Mike Huckabee doesn't need to be terminated, he needs to be elected President of the United States!!! |
|
It seems that everyone continues to discount Ron Paul's chances, but what, other than the national polls, can people point to as evidence that he cannot win? And before you say that the polls are enough, when have we ever completely trusted the polls.
Did you notice the recurring theme in the article? Theoretical donation support. Ron Paul's donation support isn't theoretical. It is very real, and significantly larger than any other candidate right now. He has more than enough capital to campaign aggressively in EVERY state leading up to and including February 5th today. This does not count any additional support he may gain if he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire. His signs blanket parts of Michigan and most of New Hampshire. He has placed in the top three in almost every straw poll across the country. There is REAL support for Ron Paul out there.
I can almost guarantee you that Ron Paul will do much better than anyone expects in Iowa, and I think he actually has a decent chance of winning. Time will tell, but it is way, way too early to make definite statements regarding this election. There are simply too many variables and too much dissatisfaction with the government to know for certain how people will vote when they step into the polls.
Fortunately, the waiting will be over soon. |
|
One thing that I like about Mitt Romney is that he has gone toe-to-toe on the issues with all his major competitors in both parties. He is a competitor and will continue through to the Presidency.
I don't see Huckabee as being competitive when it comes to issues, he seems utterly incapable of answering for his weaknesses. I would imagine that the thought of spending an hour on Meet the Press scares him to death. I can't picture him in a one on one debate, because his jokes and charm would not be sufficient to carry him.
If Fred had the endurance to be competitive through out the entire general campaign, then the moment he finally entered the race he would have hit the ground running. The people would have been more than happy to have him, but it wasn't till this month that he finnaly started a real campaign.
On McCain, I'll just say that I don't forget things like McCain-Feingold, and McCain-Kennedy as fast as some Americans do. For me he is no longer an option.
Giuliani, won't get my vote because I am traditional when it comes to values and I expect a President to present a moral and vituous face to the nation. I want traditional values to be a priority, and I don't like his non-campaign. He also needs to work on his imigration stance.
I think Mitt Romney's approach to our economy is the best given our current state. He will provide the most possitive change, while minimizing the threat of economic upheaval. He has the right idea on imigration, and I am sure that Tancredo will help make his stance even stronger. Mitt Romney is also putting forth a nice foreign policy plan, and supporting the socialy conservative values that I want.
|
|
You should include an apology to Mr. Burd from Reynoldsburg, Ohio for falsely accusing him of a conspiracy and for presenting false and misleading information.
Matt, your judgment is as poor as John McCain's judgment. He was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal. Even now McCain's Reform Institute is more about advancing McCain's campaign than about true reform. The exploits and loopholes of McCain Feingold are even more dishonest than at any time. And grassroots are told to shut up by John McCain.
Meanwhile, McCain still propose incongruent arguments on fiscal or immigration policy. McCain's policy on tax cuts shifts from March to August to now. His desperation for votes in Michigan has lead him to support welfare.
He shifts between Don John Quixote and Mr. Pragmatist. When the truth is told, McCain is still stuck in the middle as a vindictive, angry, old man--that lashed out against Bush for six years.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/most_re vealing_fibs_john_mccai.html |
|
|
I saw Ron Paul with Tim Russert. I believe Paul is honest, a nice guy, and intelligent, but he is the wrong messenger for the libertarian message. He will never win the nomination. People treat him like the Repiblican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich. |
|
|
|
"he is the wrong messenger for the libertarian message"
I agree that Ron Paul is not the most eloquent speaker (he could certainly take lessons from Mike Huckabee on that), however, his record in the House is unmatched for its consistency and adherence to principled voting. I doubt you will find anyone who has stayed as true to the libertarian ideals than Ron Paul, and that gives him a level of trust that none of the other candidates can touch. People KNOW that Ron Paul will fight for a limited government as president because he has done so throughout his public service career.
He may not be the "best" messenger, but he certainly has a lot of merits and has attracted a strong following. I wouldn't count him out until we hear back from the voters. There may be more support than you think. |
|
|
I thought this piece was very fair and interesting. Mr. Lewis should teach Mr. Hewitt how to write. |
|
"I wouldn't count him out until we hear back from the voters. There may be more support than you think."
Ron has his work cut out for him more then the other guys. The issue is that he's going to have to have an outright majority going into the convention. If he's winning by a plurality (I could reasonbly see this), he's going to have the issue that he's not the second or third choice among very many republicans. He may pick up some Hunter, Tancredo or Keyes supporters, but there's no way he can take out Rudy McRhompsonbee (that's becoming one heck of a name!) once the convention is under way. |
|
I don't know where you get your info from, so take it from an insider, Fred has plenty of money and a very good organization!
Now about Ron Paul. Many in the GOP can agree with alot of RP's ideas, but he won't get alot of votes for two reason.
1.) His foriegn policies are childish.
2.) Most of RP's very own supporters are scaring off potential voters. |
|
Fact: Ron Paul wants to isolate the United States.
Or to put it another way... he wants to stick his head in the sand and pretend the rest of the world will just gorget about us. Ok, the first sentence is fact, this one is fact stretched just a wee bit.
One other fact before I go donate more to the Fred campaign. RP can't win because he has attracted so many whackos to his camp. |
|
|
Ron Paul is a non-starter with me for only one enormous reason: his lack of support for the war. In my view, he is irreparably wrong on foreign policy. He CANNOT get my vote with that. |
|
|
TRUE CONSERVATIVES will vote for Fred Thompson, there is no other candidate even close. Paul is totally misguided on Islamic extremism and foreign policy in general, Giuliani only lines up on one issue and is way too liberal on everything else, McCain, with all due respect, will shove amnesty down our throats as soon as he says the border is secure, Romney makes John Kerry look consistent and defends his new positions with as much passion as he defended his old positions (Search You Tube for Mitt), and Huckabee (“compassionate conservatism gone amuck”) is a Republican Jimmy Carter. Folks, there is a difference between lazy and laid back. I like laid back and I think most people do. The Man [Fred Thompson] wouldn't be where he is if he were lazy, in my opinion, that is a weak argument. True he came in a little later than the MSM wanted, and had a harder time putting his organization together as result, but Thompson was drafted, and most of all - doesn't pander. He hasn’t been planning this run for President for years, like most of the other candidates, nor doing it to fulfill his political ego. I’m voting for Thompson with a clean conscious. Don’t compromise...VOTE FRED THOMPSON!!! |
|
We have to pull this together quick!
Pick a damn leader before Hillary bans the constitution, burns the Bible, and has Oprah writing History books. |
|
Have Fred organize another debate... and then go after the rest of 'em with a scatter-barrel.
Done! |
|
"Please let us all know. Remember: use facts, not neo-con warmonger talking points. Use facts, not made-up crap about 9/11 (which Iraq has nothing to do with)."
When you accuse support for the liberation of Iraq as being based on a need for neocons to "get revenge for 9/11", what facts are you using to support that view?
Or is it just your opinion? Or do you actually have some quotable source citation where a bunch of war supporters say in no uncertain terms that they enjoy the deaths in Iraq because it satiates their need for revenge over 9/11?
I'm guessing you don't have such a source you can cite.
As far as me disagreeing with Paul's vision of America's place in the world, I don't need to cite anything to show that I DO disagree with him.
I do. Period.
Hounding me to cite WHY I do with quotations from Paul is not going to make me slap my forehead and exclaim, "Blimey! I was wrong! I actually DO believe that America should try to pretend it is Switzerland!" |
|
My money and my vote are for Huckabee, he's not your average underdog...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TV0R2vQjg |
|
Rudy Giuliani will take social conservatives out of the GOP for the presidential election if he did win the primary, he would be an instant failure in the general.
Mitt Romney already had a lot of problems and now he is making things much worse for himself and the GOP. Gone into panic mode, his pushing attack ads and slander on Christmas Day show him to be shelfish, greedy politician who wants to buy the presidency. It is not working and will only get worse, and Romney too like Giuliani would lose the general by large numbers.
Fred Thompson just isn't the conservative he and his promoters try to make him out to be. They willfully forget about his big membership to the CFR, McCain-Feingold, and voting against the impeachment of Clinton to name just a few things. There is a reason that Thompson isn't doing well and it is actually a good thing that he isn't doing well.
John McCain has problems enough that they really don't need mentioning, because they are well known. One good thing about him is that atleast he has a sense of honor and does not sink to the level of using slander like the sellouts Romney and Thompson who don't have enough appeal for themselves, so they have to use slander.
Mike Huckabee is the solid social conservative. Also he is good on most any other issues as well, but he is without a doubt stronger than any other cannidate on social conservative issues. Those who realize that the social conservative issues are the most important issues we face are excited about Mike Huckabee and will vote for him. Those who dislike social conservatives are trying with all their might to try to stop Huckabee, but it will be to their own doom. Even if Huckabee doesn't win they will still have been exposed as betrayers against the social conservative movement which will cost them badly. We are definately watching history being made. Be true to the social conservative cause. Vote for Mike Huckabee. |
|
I was very dissappointed that this author was so dismissive about Ron Paul. He has a very good chance of winning the nomination. There are thousands of people like myself who've never been politically active before other than casting a presidential vote. But for the RP campaign, we are donating money, canvassing, attending rally's, voting in the primaries and caucuses and persuading our friends and families to do all this too. There is a HUGE movement taking place and there will be some big surprises when the votes start coming in.
|
|
|
If Mitt Romney can win the Whitehouse, America has sent a signal to an already corrupt political structure that, "You will never again be held responsible for your past voting record and positions, so just lie to me and tell me what I wish to hear!" |
|
When Thompson first started hinting that he would run and everybody was going nuts about him earlier this year, I balked. I considered his office; Senators usually don't make strong Presidential candidates, unless they happen to be JFK. Looking at his record he appeared to be as conservative or moreso than the rest of the candidates, except for the support he gave to John McCain for campaign finance reform. So I kind of wrote him off and kept looking for who I thought would be the more perfect candidate, and for a while that appeared to be Mike Huckabee. I, as I'm sure some of you as well, have withdrawn my support for the Huckster. That is not to say I will not vote for whoever the republican candidate is, even McCain. But after re-looking, I think my guy has got to be Thompson. |
|
|
Thompson has the tools and the ideology to tie the conservative coalition together and gain some democrats, especially if you put him one on one against Hillary. He is a conservative without too many faults, campaign finance reform notwithstanding. He is for cutting taxes (what I loved most about Huckabee was the Fair tax, and it saddens me to give up that idea), he is for killing terrorists, he for securing the border and dealing straight up with Mexico, he is solidly pro choice, he is a tall guy, and he'll probably convince enough democrats that he actually is the lawyer he plays on t.v. Since (were he the nominee) he would most likely be taking on a senator anyway, the fact that he was a senator doesn't hurt him. Now I know this is several steps ahead of the game, but a sensational ticket would be one that included Thompson at the top, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palen as his running mate. An absolute slam dunk. |
|
|
You obviously do not know s--t about conservatives. Conservatives do not support isolationalism. We support free trade, save with terrorist and severely repressive communist nations. NAFTA got approved with strong support from conservatives, liberals fought it every step of the way. |
|
Dan, there is a huge difference between Mitt and John Kerry. John Kerry was a career politician that earned his money the not so old-fashioned way--he married into it. He was a pseudo war hero and a Washington insider that no one really liked (except for the liberal snob class). He flip-flopped right before our eyes! On a subject that was critical to the freedom and security of this nation! Mitt on the other hand worked hard when he was young to garner the grades and scholarships to merit the education that he has. And he scratched and clawed to EARN his fortune by turning failing businesses around from near bankruptcy to profitable ones. His work-ethic is second to none among candidates and is wicked smart on top of it.
Mitt Romney put together a half-hearted campaign in 1994 against Ted Kennedy to put a stop to that liberal blowhard. But he wasn't in office like John Kerry, making bad policy after bad policy after bad policy. Mitt said a number of things then that he probably cringes on now, but he has answered for those things. He acknowledges that he was wrong on abortion and changed his stance--to the right side of life, not the wrong side. Mitt is on the right side of almost every issue now and is a compelling and "presidential" candidate. And unlike Kerry, every acquaintance he has likes him. He'll probably end up winning this thing when all is said and done. |
|
"Conservatives do not support isolationalism. We support free trade, save with terrorist and severely repressive communist nations. NAFTA got approved with strong support from conservatives, liberals fought it every step of the way."
Conservatives or NeoConservatives? Supporting the latter sounds like your shtick... and their's is a policy of isolating others vs. engaging them. In Iraq, U.S. interventionism is the rule: The U.S. created Saddam, then green lighted him into Kuwait, then tore him town, then isolated him -- driving the ONLY secular / anti radical Islam state in the direction of improving relations with the more radical. Then we blamed that on him, and eliminated him. And we don't expect this to galvanize hate in our direction? Hate that would otherwise remain localized against themselves?
RP is for free trade, not isolationist policies. You're promoting radical interventionism and neo Imperial behavior. |
|
I'm very disappointed you chose to dismiss Ron Paul as a viable candidate. Unfortunately far too many people vote on perceived electability (determined mostly by money) instead of who is best. If we don't elect someone who will follow the Constitution, it doesn't matter who we choose.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, he's not naive. He believes in a humble foreign policy, not empire building. History shows many empires falling because they overreach. That's what the United States is doing. So in other words, for moral and practical reasons, we need to change our course and Ron Paul understands this. |
|
|
I'm for Ron Paul, but unless he can show some numbers in NH and Iowa, I can understand the sentiment. What's the big unknown is his motivating many off the radar types to the polls. You can't forget that its something like 45% of the citizens (maybe less) actually vote. Assuming there are no 3rd parties in the numbers, a motivated 10% from the outside could shift things in ways that currently can't be polled. I'm an old R who left the party when it nominated Senator Viagra to Run in 96. Went independent... Then turned Libertarian. I'm back to R. But being for principle, its hard to imagine supporting some of the others -- their type continues to take me for granted. |
|
|
with a 42% plurarity vote. Romney a rich republican with a business background (status quo, Bush has the approval rating of 35%, Romney won't gain more than that in a general election). He has changed his position on all social issues in a manner that makes Hillary look like she has a stable Iraq policy. Also, 85%minorities, 50% of women and 50% of conservatives won't vote for Romney - making it impossible for him to unite the center-right. How easy will it be for her to demolish a fake, plastic can't-connect-with-voters nominee Romney???? This brings me back to WHO HAS BEEN MOST CONSISTENT ON HIS POSITIONS (EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF HIS POSITIONS)? This is a person who can be trusted with the presidency..... A republican who is strong on the culture of life and who is the anti-thesis of the status quo (not rich and without a business background). One who connects with the Mainstreet Americans?.....that is our winning nominee....in the primaries and in the general elections. |
|
|
difference between a genuine change of position and changing positions for political expediency. The latter normally coincides with an election, and when asked to address the continual change of position - the candidate responds by telling you how worse his opponents have performed in the past and concludes by saying - at least I kept my campaign promises (even if I had learned that those positions were wrong) I kept the promises to do the wrong thing in MA because ....aaaaaah it was better than changing my mind and creating a backlash. ONLY PEOPLE WHO GET PAID WILL SAY THIS IS A WINNING STRATEGY - OTHER AMERICANS SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT! Here is my promise that I intend to keep - getting Romney away from the whitehouse. |
|
You didn't include Alan Keyes. Even though you didn't include Hunter or Paul, you at least explained why you weren't including them.
Visit Alan Keyes's website and watch some of his videos.
http://www.alankeyes.com |
|
Fred Thompson is more popular among conservatives than the numbers show. He could pull off a surprising 2nd place in Iowa. Hank Reardon above hits the nail on the head with his assesment. With a few good showings Fred's popularity will rise fast. Mike http://mtaricani.blogspot.com/ |
|
You obviously miss the point of the Paul campaign. While we do hold some hope that he can actually win, and history shows it's more than just possible, it was always about more than just this election, and keeping the evil Hillary out of the WH.
You illustrate my frustration best with your description of Mitt Romney as "the most complete conservative".
If Mitt Romney is your idea of a complete conservative Mr. Lewis, than the object of this campaign is just as much about crushing your hopes as it is about crushing those of the left, as it appears from my perspective that you're one in the same. |
|
Fred Thompson is the best conservatives can hope for at this juncture. I have been supporting Duncan Hunter since he announced. If conservatives splinter their votes among Tancredo, Thompson, Hunter, Paul and Romney, we will likely end up with Mikey Huckster or Regularization Rudy. It's time for conservatives to consolidate behind Fred Thompson if we want to have any chance to secure our country. He has the best plan to deal with the illegal aliens. Fred Thompson is the best of the top tier, I hope he chooses Hunter for VP, it would be a dynamite ticket. |
|
|
The subject of does(n't)have should be who not whom. Please take a refresher course in English if you presume to be a writer. |
|
WAR - IMPERIALISM - INVASIONS - OCCUPATIONS - EMBARGOES - TRILLION $ IN DEBT - ABOLITION OF US AND US MILITARY SOVERIEGNTY - CAESAR-LIKE FAWNING OF EXECUTIVE POWER
"...these are a FEW of their favorite things..."
sounds like SOCIALIST and GLOBALIST Roosevelt Administration agenda.... and for many years the GOP fought(mostly) the socialist onslaught on our republican and independent government and AGAINST all the above....
NOT TODAY!
The sycophantic GOP lackey mouthpieces regurgitate the "conservative" offal in an unending pungent morass....and the MSM and the Democrats play the charade game toe to toe with the wannabe Republican "conservatives"..
all the while TRILLION in DEBT...THOUSANDS of MURDERED US servicepeople in YET ANOTHER GOPugnican UNDeclared(ILLEGAL) war and occupation of YET ANOTHER COUNTRY... and US soveriegnty being scrapped in the ashheap of previous SOCIALIST "freetrade" ideas...like COMECON....
and the "conservative" posters here(and elsewhere) have the utter gall to attempt to challenge Ron Paul and his message and RECORD of freedom and HONOR HIS OATH HE HAS TAKEN all these years to OBEY AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION....unlike the rest of the MOTLEY CRUE of candidates..... |
|
|
Duncan Hunter really stands out to me, I really hope people give him a chance.... Right now I cant see myself voting for anyone but him |
|
Rush and the other talk show hosts talk to the conservative issues that the people generally believe in, but then when an outsider like Huckabee comes along and the people stand up to support him, Rush and the other "mainstream conservative" opinionaters almost all start attacking him. What's that all about?
Even though Huckabee has a consistent conservative record, and proven leadership experience, they nearly all start attacking him and misrepresenting his record and his stance on the issues - what for? Why would they do that? (hint: follow the money)
In spite of a lack of support among big name conservatives and evangelical leaders, and even a fair amount of hostile "Clintonian and Carville-esque" tactics employed by fellow conservatives they attack Huckabee relentlessly and yet he still manages to come from behind with no money or organization to speak of, and un-beholden to any major special interest groups, he pulls into first place simply on the strength of his character, and his message alone, because that's what resonates with the people. That he has accomplished this much is (imo) a testament to his leadership ability. |
|
And all this time conservatives have been lamenting how out of touch Washington politicians have become, and now Rush and apparently most of the other conservative commentators are unbelievably, showing that they too have become out of touch with the pulse of America.
I would not begrudge them if they simply have another preference over Huckabee - but they're losing a lot of respect by ranting against Huckabee and trying to tear him down - in the process they're compromising the very principles they claim to espouse, and they're coming across as increasingly petty, or worse, as shilling for some aspect of the country club elites and/or the GOP "establishment". Whether they admit it or not they're playing into the bidding of the democrats, and the leftist socialists who're all about dividing us conservatives.
I believe that Reagan espoused the 11th commandment not just as a matter of moral integrity and decency, but just as importantly, as a matter of grave strategic consequence. Gov Mike Huckabee exhibits a similar conviction:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_i d=25
What the country needs is leadership integrity and accountability, not just in our presidential candidates, but in all our elected officials, and also from our "conservative" leaders, opinion makers, and commentators, as well as in our religious leaders and clergy, and perhaps most importantly, we need leadership of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's what made America great in the first place.
|
|
Agree with you. Many MANY of the Republicans I know (not people who are here on TH) are voting for Fred. If the primary were tomorrow, I would vote for Fred, no question. Everything he says and everything he writes indicates that he is a small-government leader, and that is exactly what this country needs.
For Pete's sake, even Virginia Patriot -- who is the original Duncan Hunter supporter -- has come out in favor of Thompson. And I agree with Virginia Patriot too -- a Thompson/Hunter ticket would be an absolute dream, a knock-out of a conservative ticket. I pay no attention to the polls because I think they are a gratuitous instrument of the mainstream media. I pay attention to what a candidate says and writes, and I think Fred is the top conservative candidate in the race.
One person we all know who ISN'T conservative, except for his pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-gun positions, is Mike Huckabee. He's virtually a pro-life Democrat. |
|
So many Huckabee supporters, and so little evidence for them to stand on. He is NOT a conservative. Look at the record, and listen to his own words. One of you suggests we vote for him because he lost 110 pounds, as though losing weight was a competency for POTUS? You're upset with Romney's attack ads, which do not qualify as attack ads, they are not personal in anyway to the character of the candidate, they simply identify where the candidates positions are not conservative.
Lewis hits the key word on the head...Competency...and he assigns it to Romney. I dont like the changes in his positions but I clearly recognize them as those of a politician who knows how to position himself to win, where he can be effective.
He is not "elite" in the political sense. Unlike Bush, Romney actually did something in his business career instead of hanging out at Texas Ranger's games.
There is a reason that Romney has just laid a 9 point deficit on Huck in the latest IOWA poll...people spot intellect and competency, and as it should, it wins out...When Romney carries IOWA which is more and more likely, as folks spot Huck's indefensible liberal history, the bump will allow him to hold off McCain in NH, and this race will be history faster than you can say "A Mormon in the White House"!
|
|
IS the most well rounded conservative running, and he is not polling very high explicitly because he is being intentionally left out of the discussion.
What did Ronald Reagan think about Ambassador Keyes? http://www.keyesUSA.com
Can you imagine an Obama vs. Keyes race? You may think that Obama would slick all over him, but there could not be a more pure contrast in social and fiscal conservatism vs. socal and fiscal liberalism.
Race card = removed. Gender card = removed. Liberal Lunacy = highlighted!
.
|
|
Keyes is a fine Christian Gentlemen.
I will vote for him even if i have to write him in-IF the godless pary elites manage to sabotage Mike Huckabee. |
|
I'm from Arizona and know about McCain, and assure you he is totally unqualified to be President.
The author of the article failed to note that McCain has consistently voted against tax cuts (yeah, he now pretends to supports the cuts, but he's simply lying).
The author also forgot to mention that McCain is the leading Senate Republican advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens.
Finally, the author forgot to note that McCain has a record or publicly (and rather viciously) criticizing conservatives.
Its no surprise that the liberal media loves McCain, as he's their boy. |
|
I respect and admire Ambassador Keyes' moral clarity, intelligence and eloquence, and I have voted for him as both a U.S. Senate candidate and as a candidate in the GOP Presidential Primary. However, after reflecting on his career over the years, I have concluded that he lacks the leadership to be POTUS.
When I worked as a volunteer in his first U.S. Senate bid in Maryland, I was unimpressed with those he had chosen to run his campaign. His campaign lacked organization, energy, focus, and credibility. Another problem was his late entry into the race--a problem he repeated in Illinois and in his most recent Presidential bid.
He lacks the decisiveness, judgment, and executive skill for the extremely complex and demanding job of POTUS.
|
|
|
|