I'm convinced Hugh must have just discovered Romney in 2007, because he evidently knows nothing about this liars past.
Romney's voting record from the 1980's is all Liberals and Democrats. As an adult, he voted against Reagan twice. Yes, he's a Mormon, but he also comes from a vehemently Liberal, Anti-Christian, Pro-Choice family.
In a 1994 Massachusetts debate, an adult Romney declared:
"I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan/Bush!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4
That was 6 years after Reagan left office. The real record shows Romney disliked Reagan while he was in office and after he left.
Romney is a wickedly deceptive man. |
|
I just viewed the Huck statement in question and I apologize for my confusion with the October comment he made. Hugh's assessment of Huck's speech was not deliberate misinformation as I intimated. A thousand pardons, sir!
All I have to say now is that I admire the man's courage...it takes guts to lay it all out on the line like that...knowing the lambasting is soon to come.
BTW, the context of the statement was re: abortion & gay marriage...not some frivolous Bible-thumper's attempt to rewrite our constitution. |
|
Yes I make such an equation: ex can = former. Look it up in a dictionary (along with grammar and integrity) if you doubt me. Duh!
You’re proud to be a sophist aren’t you? No wonder you support the Bishop. You now acknowledge that Hawk was talking about 2 states and that he named those states, you acknowledge that in one of my posts I specifically say that MI is NOT a Mormon stronghold but yet you still play these stupid games by defending your mischaracterization of what I wrote. I said “Mitt won his homestate and a Mormon stronghold” - I am clearly referring to two states. Otherwise, I would have said Mitt won his home state, a Mormon stronghold. The “and” clearly shows a differentiation. How stupid can you be?
Have an ounce of integrity and admit you were wrong. Hell your Bishop does it all the time. He was wrong when he was for abortion, he was wrong when he opposed Reagan, he was wrong when he supported gay marriage, he was wrong when he supported amnesty, and on and on.
A Mormon lives in Arizona? What a shock. I not only lived there for 10 years (until last December) I was highly involved in Republican Politics and know all of the men you mentioned personally. I served as the campaign manager for a number of offices in the state house, senate, gubernatorial in 06, Tempe City Council, AJ City Council, Tucson City Council, etc ad infinitum. I am very good friends with the ASU professor who wrote the Immigration Bill for Flake’s staff (of course I know Flake is LDS – I even wrote that he was in a previous post when someone attacked me for my Mormon views and I explained that I am a big fan of both him and his Uncle whom I have worked closely with to help expand Republican precinct committeemen in rural AZ – btw McCain was our greatest source of support on that project). I know very well many of Mitt’s staff in AZ and his fundraisers, which is how I know – firsthand – that they predominately call Mormons to raise money.
|
|
You wrote: “Ok, you know as well as anyone that the church will not allow wards lists, stake directory's etc to be used for poltical (sic) use...”
I don’t know that anymore than you know that. What I do know is that Mitt’s AZ fundraisers are predominately calling Mormons. How they got that list is beyond me. Do you know how?
QM7: MI is NOT a LDS stronghold. Trust me, it's not.
Me: I know it is not – I said it is not multiple times. Please read more carefully.
QM7: “By the way, for those that don't know, it is custom in the LDS culture, to call a former bishop or stake president by the title Bishop or President…”
Me: Oh wow – so I was correct that you can still call him Bishop Romney. Ouch that must hurt TR-Racer.
QM7: “Whatever commandment your having issues with, take it elsewhere. Your anti-mormon rants will get boring and tiring pretty quickly when folks start looking closer, and finding out were not all that different than the rest.”
Me: I do have lots of problems with Mormon theology and I think it should absolutely disqualify any Mormon from being the leader of our Party and nation. Mormon dogma is intellectually absurd and anyone who can embrace it has real problems reasoning in my book which is why I cannot vote for the Bishop in the primary.
However, as I have said time and time again, I love all my Mormon friends, I think they are great citizens and good Republicans and I will hold my breath and vote for Willard if he wins the nom. Thankfully it won’t come to that as the South will likely ensure.
|
|
You wrote: “When you make fun of a candidates religion.... it's not very cool.... not even to those of us who are not of the same faith.... it lacks "INTEGRITY"..... (I'm refering to your post the other night about Missouri.... remember now, chump??”
I’m sorry but your argument is fallacious. Just because something is called a religion does not mean it is worthy of respect. Aryanism can be classified as a religion but I will never respect it nor will I respect Wicca or Scientology or any Cult for that matter. And for me to pretend to respect it just to make you feel all warm inside is that opposite of integrity. Integrity requires honesty, courage and devotion to reason.
So tell me Poyman, do you respect Wicca or Satanism or Aryanism? And don’t fall back on the comparison excuse. I am not saying that Mormonism is on the same level with those – just answer if those religions deserve your respect…?
|
|
Romney "made all the promises he had to" in Michigan.
The notion that "broken Washington" will somehow fix broken Michigan's broken auto industry is ludicrous. The auto industry has been done in by excessive regulation, grasping union leaders and members, and excessive taxation. Romney refused to address any of this. I guess honesty in the face of a tough challenge simply isn't "The Bain Way."
|
|
"I love to see the anti Mitt posts. None of them have any substance and all are full of false assumptions. The posts about Romney having the most liberal record are hilarious. A record refers to the votes on record."
Actually the record is the public record of stances declared versus actions taken.
I doubt that Mitt Romney is a liberal but it will always be questionable why he changed his positions when he did. In politics and public policy "an epiphany" is not an answer.... as much as it is a euphemism for "what my new base would want me to do".
Honestly... give skeptic and critics of politicians the benefit of the doubt.
and back to more anti-Mittness....
I watched enough of Mitt's interviews this Sunday to know that his so-called solutions for my state (not his.... he hasn't lived here within my lifetime) are "government solutions" involving tax dollars and regulation, and since "government solutions" are in fact "no solution" we'd be in big trouble to follow this plan.
Honestly the words may be fancier but Mitt's appeal was as populist as Huckabee's. |
|
Okay West-Coaster...
let me tell you something. This was not EASY. You don't know what the heck you are talking about.
Romney's victory by six points was a last minute crunch and definitively definitely hard-fought and uncertain.
And anybody that thinks a veteran campaigner is finished three states into a Primary is not someone I'll read anymore of campaign tactics.
Back to Hugh.... Hugh you don't know thing one about my state and if you think that Mitt's massive infrastructure didn't work hard to defeat a candidate who has been working for years to get a solid foothold in and among this state's precinct delegates... then you're a bigger fool than I ever took you for.
I don't even like Mitt Romney and I can tell you that he had to work his butt off and make one hell of an empty promise ("those jobs aren't gone forever") believable in order to take six points.
Oh and someone tell that Paul supporter that it's meaningless that Ron Paul beat Fred and Rudy in Michigan, considering how Rudy and Fred didn't have any money invested here and Paul had yard signs and radio ads.
What is this, amateur hour? |
|
"implementing LDS policy around the U.S."
Many of those who support Huck want and expect a pastor and chief. They assume that if Romney wins, that means that the LDS church will take over. You guys are projecting. Romney is not running to become Mullah or Ayatolla - that's Hucks schtick.
P.S. For those that think the LDS church controls LDS politicians... two words counter that whole belief: Harry Reid! |
|
"The victory means we will have a 72 hour reprieve from the anti-Romney trolls on this site."
Now there is a naive statement. Anti-Mitts are full force, 24/7, facts be damned whiners. Look at the posts of McTex, dirLie, con4fred (always wondered about that name), and others.
It does mean that things are looking even better for Mitt. He was ahead going into Michigan (many of the "cons" don't like to mention that) and now he has widened the lead. I do agree that this was still an important win for Gov. Romney. He has good support amongst many conservatives, but he is fighting against a very strong media bias (MSM not talk radio).
P.S. Good show Joe - I have disagreed with some of your posts but thanks for showing your class. I honestly think your impression of Mitt is wrong, but you seem like the type that is open to debate and not "politically" challanged .
|
|
I'm wondering...exactly where in the white house will Anne store her years supply? !! |
|
Sweet little night, eh my friends? It's Mitt-mas all over again! Now, Mitt Romney has won 2 out of four contests (that would be half for all you huckalemmings). In the other two, he came in second. Delegate counts? Upto 55 according to some anyalsis. Hucks is 31.
So, who's the front runner?
Youbetcha. Mitt Romney. |
|
"implementing LDS policy around the U.S." - Synthesizer
I knew a Romney win in Michigan would make the Huckabee campaign (i.e. Synthesizer) dip into their dirty bag of religious smears again. It's all Huckabee has.
It's gonna get ugly over the next few days... |
|
$20 billion federal money for the auto industry is the private sector, not government, as the solution? good to know.
To win in '94, Romney says he's not a Reagan/Bush guy. To win in 2008, they're his inspiration. Not legal fraud, but moral fraud. |
|
Mitt won comfortably - 30% more votes than JM got. The second possible big winner is...
Rudi.
The low % for him is irrelevant and may partly have been Rudi supporters voting for Mitt as his win was critical to the late-blooming candidacy that is RG.
MR is sure to get more support in SC - he's nipping at the heels of huck for third and will likely pass him as will Fred. Good Night Mike.
JM lost 20% support in Mich from '00. The talk radio guys have been beating on him for more than a week now. Fred's comments on SC didn't help him either. Look for JM's support to bleed down in SC. If he loses there, even by a little bit, will doom him to op-eds saying it's a repeat of '00. (and the nattering-nabobs will start doing what alot of us have already done - counting delegates that JM can't possibly win and discovering that as a result a clear victory for him before the convention is almost impossible).
A weakening of JM will see a flood of support to RG in FL? RG is the closest to JM on many issues so he will probably be the most significant beneficiary.
As so, in all likelyhood, it will be a two or three-way race on Super Tuesday.
Nirvana for a political junkie like me... |
|
Like it or not, with all due respect to Fred, John and Ron, geriatric will not sell against youth in the General. It doesn't even look like the Billary twins can hold their own against 30ish looking Obama after Mich.
I had hoped we could be challenging Bill and his wife in Nov but tonight put an ax in that idea when they struggle to break 50% against "Nobody"... kind of like that country western song of that name.
That leaves Rudi, Mitt and Huck. I wasn't fond of Huck before today but he sharpened his own sword before falling on it with his "Modify the Constitution to fit the Bible" remarks. Can Huck supporters visualize that U-Tube clip running 24-7 the entire month of October with Obama smugly approving this message!?!?!
I'll be surprised if some 527 doesn't have this running by SC and FL.
Lord knows we can't afford another Bob Dole campaign with a great person, past his time candidate propped up like David Thomas (Wendy's) for his last commercials. |
|
I live in AZ. McCain and Kyl are my Senators and actually I live in Jeff Flake's district (Jeff is LDS too BTW). I disagree with Jeff and McCain on parts of their bills. I agree we need a guest worker program. I disagree with the easy and upfront path to citizenship that they provided.
As for Reagan and compromise. Yes, we need to work with the other side to get ANYTHING done (that's why Ron Paul is a LOSER - click on my "handle" to read the blog post on why he is a LOSER). But Reagan was sorry for the Amnesty compromise he made because it allowed for Amnesty BEFORE the enforcement which never came.
This time we need the enforcement first then we can talk about the other issues.
|
|
No one can say you aren't entertaining.... You really should go into comedy though as you are way better at that than blogging.... By the way, thanks for catching the misspelled word..."I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y".....
You asked me to cite examples of your lack of INTEGRITY..... Well, here ya go (oh, I misspelled ya... I know, no need to tell me)....
When you make fun of a candidates religion.... it's not very cool.... not even to those of us who are not of the same faith.... it lacks "INTEGRITY"..... (I'm refering to your post the other night about Missouri.... remember now, chump?? |
|
Ok, you know as well as anyone that the church will not allow wards lists, stake directory's etc to be used for poltical use. We cannot use ward buildings, stake centers, the conference center in SLC - any church owned facility or property, to advance one political candidate over another. You are not telling the truth, and seek only to spread false rumors about the LDS church.
MI is NOT a LDS stronghold. Trust me, it's not. There are more LDS in Arizona than in MI. There are more LDS in NYC than in all of MI. I don't know nor care about the ax you feel you need to grind against my faith. But isent it cool that PRESIDENT Romney won tonight? Youbetcha. (By the way, for those that don't know, it is custom in the LDS culture, to call a former bishop or stake president by the title Bishop or President. Since he served the higher office of Stake President, we call him President.) Whatever commandment your having issues with, take it elsewhere. Your anti-mormon rants will get boring and tiring pretty quickly when folks start looking closer, and finding out were not all that different than the rest. |
|
|
I get a kick out of all you who commented "blah, blah", whine, whine, someone upstaged his concession speech, who upstaged someone else! What a bunch of morons. Don't you yahoos know it's the TV STATION that times and plays the clips?? If you have a problem with how it was done, take it up with the TV station! Candidates have no say on what and when their "tape" (whether live or not) is run. Hmmm. Don't you get it yet that the MEDIA controls most of the good and bad and hype and put-downs that we see? |
|
Hiding behind grammer now?
You want to equate Ex with Former? It was Former President Ronald Reagan not Ex-President Ronald Reagan. There is a significant difference in connotation. You chose to display your bias and ignorace. Mike Hukabee is a Former Baptist Pastor he is not an Ex Baptist Pastor. Unloess you want to state that he was "stripped" of his position? ;)
Additionally in your response to Hawk where he referred to wins in MI and WY by name you only referred to MI (his home state). So you are restating/clarifying your position just like I said. |
|
"You have to be taught to hate...."
I recognize that some have literally been taught to hate LDS people and have been fed some nasty morsels to compound that hate.
For my part, with my postings I don't mean to add to the bad feelings, yet I know there really are people who will hate me just because I am LDS.
But shame on me if I return that bile.
Tex may have been fed a heavy dose and his posts reflect that. We are all mirrors of one sort or another.
For today I am happy that Mitt is continuing to get his message out. I know others are deeply saddened and anxious for their candidate to soar.
I respect that some are angry that Mitt has won in a state where he had roots and worked hard - as did his team.
Peace. |
|
No I dont support open borders. As McCain has been saying for years we must secure our borders because it is a national security issue. However to do that would require legislation and to get legislation you would need democrat's votes.
Now Senator Kyl wrote a bill that would do exactly that and Sen McCain fought hard for his fellow Arizonan's bill (in fact it was written by Congressman Flake of Arizona in the House). Yet liberal arguments and outright lies about the part of the bill that had nothing to do with border security caused enough Republicans to vote against it. Because of that we have the status quo which, in essence, is open borders. So thank you for ensure that we have both defacto amnesty and open borders.
People like you need to learn the importance of compromise in a democracy. For the love of God, read what Ben Franklin says about it and look at how Reagan used compromises with the liberals to his advantage.
Okay I mean it this time- adios amigos, lol. |
|
Perhaps, Nathan Arizona, you could grace us with some supporting statements to "...I can't see myself ever voting for such a blatant opportunist and fraud."
Romney sure did fake everyone out by creating one of the most successful business records that this country has ever seen. His success didn't come from a one smash solution, like Bill Gates with Windows. His success came by repeatedly solving the absolute HARDEST unstructured problems in the consulting world. He must be a phony--all 500 million of his net worth.
If he's a fraud, your detector should be able to find some sort of scandal that he has been involved in. Good luck there buddy!
His solutions are against government intervention. The solutions he proposed are these:
1) Lower taxes to stimulate the economy. This MEANS LESS GOVERNMENT Nathan Arizona
2) Invest in technology. That is, THE PRIVATE SECTOR (NOT GOVERNMENT) gets help and incentives to invest in something that will create more economic prosperity.
Suggestions to Nathan Arizona:
1) Go to a university or community college and take an economics course
2) Make sure your arguments are internally consistent.
|
|
Do you support open borders?
Do you believe that the United States can continue to exist as a sovereign nation if we let anyone simply cross into the country illegally and be granted US citizenship?
Or do you even WANT the United States to continue to exist as a sovereign nation?
Those are things I wonder about McCain. I also wonder the same thing about anyone who would support him. |
|
"How do you know he isn’t simply saying what he knows you need to hear so that he can win?"
"I don't, I can't know what is in his head"
Lol - but there is one thing you do know. He said what he needed to say to win the governorship of MA and now he is saying what he needs to say to win the primary. You like what he is saying now but even you admit that you don’t know.
Furthermore, Mitt wouldn’t have to be stupid to do this - he would only have to believe that you (or people like you) would be stupid enough to believe him in order for him to get away with it.
Don’t misconstrue - I truly hope you are right. In my heart I pray my fears are wrong. But my reason and conscience tell me otherwise. He is saying only the things he thinks people like you need to hear so that he can win. AND he spends his millions violating the 11th amendment, which to me is an ominous sign.
But at least you admitted that you don't know. Well that's a start I guess. Be cautious my fellow Republican - be very cautious.
Time to hit the sack - night all! |
|
Love the implied slap. :(
"If he has been stipped of the LDS title of Bishop then I apologize for the incorrect tense."
He was not "stripped" of anything. A person is called to serve a position of Bishop for a period of time. Typically 3-5 years. After that period of time they was released from the position with a vote of thanks and someone else is asked to serve that position.
|
|
OK tex, way to spin it. He was not stripped - he serves for 4 to 5 years and then is released. He has been given other jobs and serves all his days, but not as a Bishop. I feel like I'm talking to a 5th grader, oh wait, maybe you're not smarter than a 5th grader.
I wanted to post this from I Perceive.net:
Michigan Protestants Pick Romney Over Huckabee
by Kurt Schulzke
Fascinating exit polling data from Michigan. Michigan’s protestants showed the Iowans for the rubes that they are. Protestants and catholics who attend church weekly picked Romney over Huckabeee 38-29 and 41-11, respectively. And the protestants who attend less often than weekly really tilted toward Romney, 38-9, over Huckabee. I guess this proves — among other things — that Iowa’s protestants are a very special class of people.
|
|
Hurry and update that delegate count, Hugh.
Congratulations to Mitt Romney!
|
|
at a time.
Now you clarify/restate your postion. Yes, Romney won Wyoming. But, you did not say that in your post.
|
|
Hugh says "Mike Huckabee threw everything trying to recreate the Iowa upset and fell far short, and has now wounded himself with the argument about amending the Constitution to reflect "God's law."
He's quoting McCarthy:
"Huckabee is made to order for the Left: his rhetoric embodies their heretofore lunatic indictment that we're no better that what we're fighting against. Let's "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards"?"
McCarthy's quoting Huck?:
"We do not have the right to move the standards of God to meet cultural norms," he said. "We need to move cultural norms to meet God’s standards." (The Swamp; 10/20/2007)
How did we get "amending the Constitution to reflect God's law" from "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards" when the original quote was apparently "move cultural norms to meet God's standards"???
This type of spin is akin to the childish "knuckle-dragger" comments bandied about by so many against the man. I mean criticize Huck's stand on the issues if you must...but can we please dispense with the inane anti-evangelical bigotry?
|
|
Springboarding him into contention for FL and subsequently Sooper Duper Tuesday.
Fred and Mitt will finish well below Huckabee and McCain and may not even beat Ron Paul and Guiliani by much.
Fred is done Saturday, Romney is probably in this for a while, yet. |
|
So are you saying Bishop Romney is no longer a Bishop?
If that is so it is news to me. I thought he was still a Bishop. As wisewoman wrote: In the LDS community a bishop is a servant to his congregation.
So are you saying Mitt is no longer a servant to his congregation?
If he has been stipped of the LDS title of Bishop then I apologize for the incorrect tense. |
|
You go gal - I'm with you.
Tex uses Bishop as derogatory and he won't admit it. Just for your information, when a Bishop is released he is no longer a Bishop. He serves for 4 to 5 years and then is released. During those years he is paid nothing, zip, nada. It is a real service to his fellow men and I honor Mitt for the years he has spent. A Bishop does not just help those who are members of his church, but anyone in his area who is down on his luck can receive help, no question asked. When there is a disaster anywhere in the world, food etc., is sent out immediately no matter where it occurs or to whom.
Hey Tex -I'M PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST!
By the way, I don't think Romney took a salary while Governor - am I wrong?
And to Joe, who supports McCain, thanks for being a stand up guy. By the way, I'm glad you recovered from the meal you posted, I'm not sure I could ever!!!
Agree with above - why does Mitt have to be the only one who wins, or he's done? |
|
Sen. John McCain has quietly been piling up flip-flops, including ditching his long-held support for the Law of the Sea convention and telling bloggers he now opposes the DREAM Act to legalize illegal alien students.
The sea treaty has become the latest litmus test for the 2008 Republican presidential field, and after a decade-long record of public support for it, Mr. McCain has pivoted to bring himself in line with the rest of the candidates.
Washington times October 2007
|
|
Yeah you moron. Mitt won Michigan and Wyoming (a Mormon stronghold)
Man you must feel like an idiot. |
|
Your unfounded attack on my characted aside.
"How do you know Mitt has repudiated his past liberal philosophy?" Because when asked on Ask Mitt Anything and elsewhere he has explained how he has come around on those issues.
"How do you know he isn’t simply saying what he knows you need to hear so that he can win?" I don't, I can't know what is in his head, how do I know McCain doesn't want to eat babies, I don't really know for sure. But based on the way he behaves I would say he is telling the truth, also based on his intelligence I would say he isn't stupid enough to tell us one thing and then backstab us and expect to get away with it so I feel confident he will have to stay consistant anyway in the long run or he will be destroyed politically. (though the survival of McCain despite the backstabbing might prove that theory wrong)
Exactly, McCain doesn't give a damn what you think because he is always right, you call it political courage and I call it bullheaded stupidity, and he has shown he flip-flops on issues and has the gall to say it was consistant. And even if I had respect for his standing his ground it doesn't make him worthy of my vote, Kucenich stands his ground and remains consistant but he is a nutball all the same.
|
|
|
Fred was on Hannity & Colmes and he is ready for a fight in SC. He didn't let Alan Colmes get in a word...and Hannity was laughing because Fred was just going off on all of the other candidates and how he is the true conservative. Fred, why are you so late to the game? Why weren't you this passionate in the beginning. A little late my friend. |
|
You did not say was. You said "Either Mitt is a Bishop in his Church or he isn't"
Either you can't read or like Bill Cinton it depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
|
|
You are welcome to your nonsensical beliefs but your over the top scare tactics are beneath you.
Hell you couldn't pay me to vote for Bishop Romney in the primaries but I honestly admit he would be far better than any of the dem socialist candidates.
Get a grip - geez. |
|
The victory means we will have a 72 hour reprieve from the anti-Romney trolls on this site.
Mazal tov Mitt Romney! |
|
Huck's one-hit wonder in Iowa was followed by a no-show in Wyoming and two very distant 3rd place finishes in NH and MI. (Romney tripled Huck's votes in both states.)
I expect Huck to quickly drop in SC and finish behind Mitt, McCain, and perhaps even Fred. That ought to finish him off.
What's interesting is that Huck actually led Michigan polls a couple of weeks ago. (McCain led MI polls as recent as three days ago.)
|
|
At "Tuesday, January, 15, 2008 10:35 PM" you denied claiming that Michagah was a Mormon Stronhold but 30 minutes earlier you "Tuesday, January, 15, 2008 9:59 PM" you clearly wrote...
"Mitt won his homestate and a Mormon stronghold."
Would that be a vaunted flip or a flop on your part. Were you for the "Mormon Stonghold" position before you were against it?
|
|
TR-Racer you are a frakin liberal sophist!
Me: "Was" Romney a Bishop in his Church?
You: Sure
You have the audacity to attack me personally while simultaneously acknowledging that I was correct.
You and other likeminded sophistic scumbags can go frak yourself!
|
|
McCain is not a traitor.
He sincerely believes his policies, which would level horrible destruction on America, are actually in the best interests of the people.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. |
|
Does it not bother you the way he won?
He pandered worse than the Dems, and they are experts at it. |
|
|
You cant win the Republican nomination with every talk radio show in the country pointing out how many times you've betrayed the base. When you listen to the 'analysis' by the inside the beltway TV types, who scorn their competitors on talk radio, they dont take that very important factor into consideration. Huckster-Bee is next. The big surges that these two libs got from the MSM was completely counteracted by the scathing attacks on their records that have proceeded all day every day. Hugh might be right about Romney. Only Giuliani stands in his way. |
|
Just saw a scolling quote on Fox News from John McCain on Romney's win: Romney Won. Authenticity Lost. Wow, what a classless, bitter old man. Is that why you lost in Michigan, because you were so authentic?
McCain can say all he wants about Romney's ads as attacks, but it's McCain who is the king of the personal, one-liner attacks like this.
Other personal poke at Romney:
Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty -- and the pig likes it."
Have you heard anything come out of Romney's mouth this childish?
|
|
Fred needs a little better showing than 4th, 5th, and 6th place in the early states to make it all up in SC.
Still looks like he's in 4th place in SC - where is his momentum going to come from after garnering a mere 4% of the vote (5th place finish) in Michigan?
I like Fred (and he has always been my second choice after Mitt...with Rudy as a distant 3rd) but realistically I don't think Fred has a prayer. He will drop out after placing 4th (or 3rd in a best case scenario) in SC.
If his supporters are truly paying attention to the issues, I'd expect most of them to go to Romney since Romney's platform is closer to Fred's than any other candidate. |
|
|
|
Last Thursday I attended a CO Romney caucus organizing event. Despite or because of NH, there were 3 times the expected attendees... By show of hand 2/3 were new to the political process and had never attended a caucus. Only a couple of the nearly 200 identified themselves as LDS.
State elected officials and former Congressmen all indicated that they had never seen such an event attended by even the low number that Romney camp had anticipated... let alone all that showed up and had to stand for the entire event.
Several attendees had flown to Boston to participate in the previous day's fund raiser that raised $5 million for the campaign a day after NH disappointment.
It was shared that even though the MSM talks about all of his own money Mitt has invested in the campaign,he has actually raised more money from more individuals than any other GOP candidate and only now has begun to collect post convention limit funds... another contrast to other campaigns who have already maxed out heavy hitters in their camps.
If you want the right man to win and want to participate in the thrill of a winning campaign, it is time to place your hip pocket and shoe leather bets. Talk is cheap and a win takes effort but Mitt's ground game is very alive, well and now invigorated. |
|
Your comment of "Either Mitt is a Bishop in his Church or he isn't. If he is then there is nothing wrong calling him Bishop Romney and it is not a sneer but the frakkin truth!" certainly shows how ignorant/blind/biased that you must be.
"Was" Romney a Bihop in his Church? Sure. Know what a Bishop is? It's not like a Bishop in the Catholic Church. It's just like a Pastor of a local Congregation. Mormon Bishops are also not paid or compensated in any material way. They work LONG hours at the Church not just on Sunday but every day of the week for as many as 3-5 years on average.
Then they are "released" from the position of Bishop and someone else in the congregation is appointed to be the new Bishop. So in answer to your silly question. No Romeny is not a Bishop in his Church. Romney is currently as much as Bishop as Bill Clinton is President.
|
|
Twenty.
BILLION!
Dollars.
It's a bailout.
Just like the airline industry.
But, hey...That's Mitt! |
|
How clueless you are. The only advantage that Bishop Romney has is his checkbook. I am sorry my naive fellow Republican but Mitt will not win a single southern state. Mitt is a Mormon with the most liberal record of all the candidates. Yes yes yes I know Mitt has supposedly repudiated his past liberal sins but only the most gullible will believe that.
Nixon was the most liberal Republican we ever had. Nixon had the most electoral college votes of any candidate since Washington. You are too stupid for words if you think the base would stay home and let Hitlery win over a war hero.
You know I can respect people who dislike McCain and who even say they wont vote for him. But if you called him a traitor to my face I would knock you on your bum. |
|
1.)The kos kids are ecstatic that Mittens won
2.)Mittbott can not win in November and in fact will go down to a Mondale like defeat, so the Democrats will win the presidency and probably widen their leads in the house and senate
3.)You want Mittens to win the Repuplican nomination
Therefore if you are happy tonight you are a liberal democrat who wants a total defeat for Republicans and what is left of the conservative cause. There is no other way to read this. Glad to know where you people stand.
dirL |
|
Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
NRO
Hugh Hewitt
George Will
Laura Ingrham
Some anti-Mitt media.
This is the *GOP* nomination process. All of the above cheerlead Mitt and hate Huckabee.
Considering the millions mitt spends and all of his hugely-influetial buddies in GOP politics,
Willard is not exactly "tearin' it up".
Enjoy your win. It was well-fought. SC will be very, very different. Enjoy tonight. |
|
It seems like each week's 'winner'suddenly becomes the anointed one. First Huckabee, then McCain, now Romney.
The fact is that conservative Republicans still have not voted in sufficient numbers to give any realistic indication of who can or will win the nomination. We will have a much better idea of this after SC and FL vote; in primaries where Democrats and independents won't be allowed to skew the outcome.
That said I'm glad Romney waxed McCain in MI. I would like to see a true conservative, meaning Hunter or Thompson, get the nomination. But if it's Romney I will at least vote for him in the general election, which I won't do for McCain.
I agree with posters who scoff at the $20 billion promised for research to help the auto industry. The Big Three don't need the government to do their research. They need the gov't to stop meddling with the industry. Dump minimum fleet mileage laws and let oil companies drill where the oil is. The Big Three are big boys. They don't gov't to spoon feed them technology. All they need is for gov't to get the heck out of the way.
BTW - as wrong as Romney's $20 billion promise is, McCain is even dumber. His attitude is that the jobs aren't coming back so let's conserve to serve the false godddess of anthropogenic global warming. What a putz! |
|
MI GOT IT RIGHT:
We all need to Help MI: Buy MI products
support MI charities:
|
|
"The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping” on issues like abortion."
Flip-flopping is a word referring to TWO movements, a flip and a flop. Romney has only flipped on abortion and this distinction is important because a flip is not necessarily false, a flip-flop is nearly guaranteed to be dishonest. His flip also comes with a reasonable explanation which supports the honesty of his conversion.
I would like to point out that although I hate abortion as much as the next social conservative, I am not so short sighted as to 1. vote only based on that issue and 2. not realize that there is very little the president can do on abortion other than appoint judges, something I am confident Romney will be with us on. |
|
for the onslaught? The onslaught begins again tonight on cue from the left leaning blogosphere, punditry and the MSM.
Here will be the outcry, “Romney should have won by a greater margin in his “home” state. The margin of the win proves he can’t win in the general, just look at the national polls. He is toast. He is plastic. He is too rich. He has a sneaky smile. His father is the only reason he won, he couldn’t have done it on his own. His hair is too slick. He spent too much money. He lies. He is too liberal. He is too conservative.”
We fight on! We need judges who will support the constitution, protect the unborn and refrain from legislating from the bench. We need strong borders, but just as important, we need a national policy that will discourage illegal breach of our borders. We need laws and policies that will DETER not encourage illegal border intrusion, even if it results in a little discomfort for the law breaker. We need fiscal restraint, budget cuts, an end to pork barrel spending (line item veto) and a shrinking of government. We need to continue with Bush’s “kick butt” terrorist/radical Islam policies no matter how much the liberals whine. Mitt Romney is our best hope for filling these needs.
Mitt is not perfect and doesn’t claim to be, however there is none other that is better suited to guide the United States of America through the coming “Perfect Storm” of terror, recession fears, immigration woes, legislation from the judicial bench and the steady deterioration of the constitution in a “politically correct” society.
Yes, the Mitt attacks will continue, however we the Romniacs will carry on, one vote at a time, one state at a time like the tortoise we march on to conservative victory.
|
|
OK, time for everyone who wants to be an amateur political analyst to get one thing through their skull.
IF YOU WANT TO DO POLITICAL ANALYSIS, THEN YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE OFF YOUR ACTIVIST HAT AND PUT ON YOUR ANALYST HAT.
Otherwise you are just another liar like the New York Times.
The Michigan win was a must-win for Romney. It means he is still one of the strong contenders. It does NOT mean he is in the driver's seat. As someone pointed out, recent national polls have put McCain WAY ahead. The question will be whether Romney is able to get a strong momentum swing in his direction.
Guess what, folks: WE DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
Now I will put my activist hat on.
I sincerely hope that McAnarchy does not win the Republican nomination.
But that doesn't mean I delude myself that he doesn't have a good chance of doing so.
Analyst hat back on:
If there is anything one can infer from the Michigan race it is that Huckabee may be slipping.
I would say right now there are 3 candidates with a good chance of winning the nomination. Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. And Huckabee still has a shot, although I think his chances are less than the other three. Throw in Thompson as still having a shot as well although it's looking like a long shot at this point.
What about Giuliani? Yes Giuliani has dropped a bunch, but he still stomps in not only New York but other NE states like New Jersey. He could be the new "comeback kid" after Super Tuesday.
|
|
Facts:
Bill Gates does not need Health Insurance
Taxing Energy into oblivion is not an energy policy or solution to affordable energy
Locking the thermostat is NOT a global warming solution
Handing out birth control pills to 11 year olds or teaching, “HOW TO anytime, anywhere, any fashion is NOT EDUCATION
Illegal immigration will drive down wages and destroy the culture of this nation, destroy our schools, deplete our treasury, burden individual states.
It is UN American to be forced to speak Spanish to be considered for jobs in any profession.
Turning control of US technology, commerce, military, freedoms, over to the UN is not protecting this country from the enemy foreign or domestic. WE ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION. NOT subject to the UN or anyone: (no law of the sea treaty needed)
Hostile laws, regulations, and punitive restrictions to corporations drive them out of the country. THEY have zero requirement to grow or build plants in the USA.
Visceral rhetoric toward success, achievement, ambition, risk reward, sacrifice, study, destroys personal incentive. ( this nation cannot survive with 300 million internet junkies sitting at home glued to a screen eating junk food)
Entitlement is a principle of 3rd world countries
WE must stop throwing hard-earned money down the black hole of zero results.
Democrats have ONE solution: Reform, improve and fix everything by simply writing a bigger check, if that does not work write an even bigger check. (Midnight basketball failed miserably)
FREEDOM is not “GOVERNMENT CONTROL” of your lifestyles, personal preferences, and individual freedoms.
Personal responsibility is not a “Government bail out” of your individual obligations, responsibilities, high risk and irresponsible conduct.
|
|
How amazing that you can be so easily bought. How do you know Mitt has repudiated his past liberal philosophy? How do you know he isn’t simply saying what he knows you need to hear so that he can win?
And I would really like an answer to that question. Skip over all the rest if you want but at least answer that one for me.
You are right about there being a huge difference? McCain doesn’t give a frak if you won’t vote for him because you happen to disagree with him on about 5% of his lifetime’s votes. That is called political courage and that is the main reason I respect him even though I strongly disagree with him on most of the same things that you do (except the Kyl border security bill which was actually a conservative bill and was opposed by liberal arguments). However I trust Mac far more. He isn’t going to sell his soul for your vote. Mitt has shown, time and time again, that he will and he does it so easily that it is truly scary. Hell he is now repudiating things he said 9 months ago. When is enough enough for you? How easily people like you can be fooled.
|
|
Paul Edwards - you are pathetic.
Mitt did not promise a government bail out. MItt won because he was the only candidate with substance.
Mitt promised tax incentives for Research & Development. His plan is to encourage companies to innovate, to develop technology, and to break down the barriers that have prevented American Automobile Manufacturers from being competitive with foreign manufacturers.
For all you GWOT and national security folks out there, consider this: If America's economy goes down the drain (compounded by the continued fall of the US dollar) - there's no money for military, border security, or national security.
That is yet another reason why McCain and Huck have it all wrong. Smaller government; lower taxes; more efficient government; mean a better, stronger America. |
|
The question still remains:
Can Mitt Romney win without PAYING OFF EVERYONE???
The only real win he's got comes from promising a "Soviet Style" government bailout.
He did not win tonight on CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES.
So far Mitt has promised:
-Government Mandated Healthcare
-Government Bailout for the Auto Industry
What's next for SC...
-Government Funded Shrimp and Grits for all South Carolinians??
|
|
"Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted."
I would just like to note some words that were used. perceived, sensed, grown to feel
I point this out because they are all words about perception, a perception we can thank a anti-Romney media for much of.
I would have been more worried if that paragraph had been like this: "Voters saw the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They noticed his phoniness. As a consequence, many know that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted." The point is this is perception and not fact. I was under the impression the Democrats were the ones who did things based on emotion and perception.
|
|
we are not electing a President of a CHURCH
or any church:
Reality:
after
Reagan
Bush I
Bush II
abortions are still legal
God has been kicked out of the schools and public square
smoking pot and shoot up rooms are legal
gays have more rights than any other citizen
burning the flag and worse in Oregon is legal
hate speech against our Military is in vogue
McCain, Huckabee, the Democrats are promoting an ENTITLEMENT society, that is a 3rd world principle.
WE NEED "CHARACTER" and ROMNEY is character in his Business ventures, saving the Olympics, and his personal life: WE NEED A ROLE MODEL.
NOT a dictator of RELIGION;
SUCCESS BREEDS SUCCESS
AND: to Huckabee: I WANT THE smartest guy in the company, the founder, the CFO to be my manager / leader:
NOT THE GUY NEXT TO ME WHO rarely shows up for work on time who rarely does his job who is an internet and junk food junkie:
|
|
You people who say McCain has the best shot to win the White House as the GOP nominee show the biggest ignorance towards reality I have ever seen. The BASE, you know.... the actual real conservative Republicans who love the country and are the backbone of the GOP will NOT support McCain. Why is that so hard for you moderates and liberal RINO types to understand.
Lets do some really basic math. For every moderate independent voter McCain gets he loses 3 votes from the Republican base. That equals a net loss of 2 votes. Why????
Because McCain is a traitor to the GOP and is simply not so smart. After all, he buys into the global warming hoax...proof he is a limited thinker.
Mitt Romney in not perfect...but he is a guy the base would rally around if he was up against Hillary or Obama. |
|
|
it that no one is interrested in your cut and paste old news mormon conspiracy nonsense that just shows everyone what a narrow-minded freak you are. Get lost with your anti-mormon bigotted diatribe. |
|
Mitt wanted me to give you the heads-up.
Your check is in the mail! |
|
Some of you may wonder why this is good for Fred, the more savvy ones will understand.
All of us Fred supporters were actually pulling for a RINO (Mitt) win in MI. If McCain had won he would have had momentum going into SC and harder to beat. Now that McCain got what he deserved, it's time to take the south!
|
|
|
Sorry, the vitrol comment was more pointed at a bunch of others who are resorting to name callers. But come on, classless? Why didn't you give the same attribute to McCain who walked over Huckabee? Do you really think they meant to do it? I think we can chalk it up to a communication mixup. |
|
1. I never said MI was a Mormon stronghold. It is Bishop Romney's home frakkin state. Geez – what about that do you guys not get. Should Rudy lose NY? Should Fred lose TN? Should Mac lose AZ? Should have Willard lost MI?
2. I’m sorry – I thought you meant in the polls.
3. You are clueless – like I said I know Romney fundraisers personally. I know who they are calling. They are all calling Mormons.
4. I asked you if Bush, Kyl and Cheney are liberals – where is your answer? And then please explain how those "conservatives" could agree with McCain on those few issues.
5. I could care less about past performances because they are clearly not indicative of future results (lol) as the last few elections have shown a drastic change in voting behavior. Should the Republicans have picked up seats in 2002? Exactly.
|
|
If Mitt was pro-choice and became pro-life, why did he compromise his principles and accept the $50 abortion co-pay in his MA healthcare plan?
Willard "Mitt" Romney only holds a position until the political winds change.
Dean Barnett (who is a Romney fan, like you, states):
Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces.
And-
Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign’s social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy.
This tack rang false with the public because it was false. The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping” on issues like abortion. The public allows its politicians a measure of flexibility. But the public correctly sensed something disingenuous about Mr. Romney’s campaign.
|
|
I love to see the anti Mitt posts. None of them have any substance and all are full of false assumptions. The posts about Romney having the most liberal record are hilarious. A record refers to the votes on record. What do Mitt's votes indicate about abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration? The bile in these posters mouths from regurgitating talking points without merit must be nauseating.
McCain is in trouble because the rest of the primaries aren't open to democrats or independents. I hear a lot of not-so-subtle 'native son' swipes, but don't forget that McCain lost among conservatives 45%-13%. A couple of days ago RCP had McCain up by a couple of percentage points.
Huckabee is an evangelical Arkansas governor and I would be surprised if he doesn't win SC by a wide margin. |
|
Hugh, please, stop and take a deep breath and try to regain some semblance of objectivity. You are no more objective about this campaign than the wingnuts on Kos, spinning everything that happens into great news for Mitt.
If you really want to regain some respect Hugh, try to address these issues in a substantive fashion:
1. A CNN poll last week showed Mitt had the highest negatives of any major Republican candidate. His "I-would-never-vote-for-him" number exceeded 60%, even worse than Hillary. Doesn't this prove he is the least electable?
2. Today's USA Today poll shows McCain by far performs better than any other Republican against Obama or against Clinton? Doesn't this also prove he's more electable?
3. You say Mitt's win today in Michigan makes him the front-runner. Given that polls show McCain ahead of Romney in South Carolina, California, New Jersey, Florida and Oklahoma, and in all the national polls, exactly where is your proof that Mitt is the front-runner?
4. Didn't Mitt have a built-in edge in Michigan given he was born there and his father was governor?
Answer these questions, and then maybe you will stop sounding like a blind Mitt apologist. |
|
|
Quit saying Romney won Michigan because it's his "home." He hasn't lived here for 43 years. He won here because he offered a big government bail out for our economy and played on old people's memories of his father. |
|
The difference between Romney and McCain and Huck, and this is a huge difference, is that Romney has repudiated his past liberal transgressions complete with explanations about why he has come around and assurances that it won't happen again, where Huck and McCain have not. They have dodged and twisted and tried to make people believe that the liberal things they did weren't really liberal, they have not admitted they were wrong and they have not given any reason why they wouldn't do it again.
I have far more respect for a man who admits what he did was an error, than for one who will twist and dodge and deny it ever happened. I wish you would actually look at the canidates records IN CONTEXT.
Who is more conservative a person who was once for abortion and then realized he was wrong and changed his ways and was willing to explain it to anyone who asked, or a man who went along with the democrats on a ton of issues and attacks anyone who says he isn't conservative when they ask him about it or tries to say it was something other than it was. I would take the former any day. |
|
|
Instead of posting lame one liners about Mitt, how about talking about who you like and why? |
|
1. Since when is Michigan a mormon stronghold???
2. Go to cnn.com. With 30,000 votes in Iowa and 75,000 in New Hampshire - Mitt led the popular vote going into today (and that even excludes Wyoming.)
3. Mormons are cheap skates. Romney would be doomed if he relied on mormons for his funds. The mormon church does not provide any monetary or logistical support for political campaigns. The church encourages members to take an active role in electing good, qualified government officials, but the church has yet to provide any attention to Romney.
4. See my post from 10:01pm. Conservative is much more than being pro-life. McCain's record and Huck's record have far more liberal leanings than Romney. Both Huck and McCain are are liberal, big-government, tax & spend guys. I guarantee the GOP would not show up for either Huck or McCain in significant enough numbers to win in November. Even pro-choice Rudy would out-perform Huck & McCain in the general.
5. I didn't say win the early states, I said take less than 18% of the vote. No one in history has won the nomination after taking less than 18% of the vote in the two early states. Not Bush, not Reagan, not Kerry, not Gore, not Clinton, not Dukakis, etc. Look it up. |
|
You and the others still threatening to vote for Obama or Hillary if Willard doesn't win the GOP nomination?
How very Conservative of you all. |
|
|
|
First off it is spelled "integrity". Secondly if you are going to attack mine then have the courage and decency to at least show how I lack it.
A person that attacks someone without qualifying the attack is a prime example of a person with little to no "integrity".
|
|
|
|
|
make that "rabidly" blind |
|
|
McCain stepping on Huckbaee doesn't make Romney any less classless for stepping on McCain. Only a rapidly blind Romney supporter could characterize that honest observation as "vitriol." |
|
McCain's energy policy is a devastating new
tax on energy:
HOW can you support that for your grandparents who are on a fixed income or
middle class families with young children:
THAT HE is going to dictate what type of light bulbs you can use is the crowning blow:
WE WANT OUR FREEDOMS back:
NO LOCKING OUR THERMOSTATS
Mccain is like the democrats who banned sledding in IOWA 2 years ago and those who banned
all smoking except pot in Oregon and who "LOCKED UP SPRAY PAINT" in Oregon not those who desecrate property:
Thanks to PRO ILLEGALS "senators" like McCain you have to speak SPANISH to be considered for professional jobs in Education, law enforcement,
and heath care:
THAT is un American: |
|
I love how this is spun an "easy victory" for Romney. After a month of Hugh making excuses for his business partner Romney, now he pilies on the losing candidates tonight drawing wide sweeping conclusions.
You defend your friend from sweeping conclusions from his prior losses, but have no problem making them of McCain and Huckabee.
Hugh, your takes on this election are truly ridiculous. I have enjoyed you as a commentator for many, many years; but your Romney-love has become self-parodying. Ask your fellow bloggers (whose careers you may have helped spawn) whether this is true.
The Romney-fans at NRO have at least continued to post election analysis free of the fanboy taint.
Full disclosure: I am a CA voter and will either vote for Thompson or Giuliani. |
|
|
I had to laugh when you start talking about"Integrety".... It's akin to Kennedy delivering a speech on ethics. |
|
team in Michigan. They worked hard and got the word out about their candidate. It is not an LDS stronghold as you imply. People of all faiths vote for Mitt when they understand his preparation, good character, brains, and his plans to clean up Washington.
McTex - What's with the "Bishop" stuff on all your posts. It sounds like a put down and is tacky on your part. This man served his church without pay. Can you say the same? In the LDS community a bishop is a servant to his congregation. That kind of unselfishness is appreciated so there is no need to sneer. Bishops work very, very hard and are under the radar in helping people. It takes heart to do that kind of service - for years at a time - and often when you're in the prime time of your work years and raising a young family. You had everything inside out.
On to the rest of the races.
|
|
Appreciate you printing John McCain's concession.
It would be nice if the other anti Romney spinners would follow your lead and ta the night off.
It was unfortunate that the times of the concession speeches and victory speeches conflicted wth each other timewise...
I'm guessing the fact that everyone being in different places had something to do with it...
I'm sorry that Huckabee got caught off by McCain, and even more sorry that McCain got preempted by Romney... |
|
It is so fun to see the vitrial that the McCain and Huckabee supporters are spewing tonight. Paul Edwards says he's classless when McCain did the same thing and walked over the end of Huckabee's speech...Mark says Romney is a "wickedly deceptive man." Can we do without the name calling and bitterness and just say, good win and on to SC?
|
|
I was honest with you - how sad that you could not return the kindness.
I was specifically asking about their records.
Mitt has the most liberal record of all the candidates. Now Mitt was the republican governor of the most liberal state. He clearly believed he had to be a liberal in order to get elected - which is his prerogative. But don't come on her spinning that Mitt is #4 because he claimed to have a Road to Damascus moment in the last few years.
Have some integrity.
|
|
|
It was a hard fought fight and Mitt won fair and square. Congratulations to Mitt and his supporters. |
|
"Hugh Hewitt has divided the Republican party with his relentless attacks on Mike Huckabee and John McCain. If Romney ends up the nominee (which it is looking like he will) how does Hewitt intended to bring the McCain and Huckabee supporters back into the fold?"
Okay, back down to earth here. The idea that one man (who movement conservatives have always viewed with suspicion thanks to Harriet Miers, supporting Specter, etc) is single-handidly dividing the GOP is laughable. Movement conservatives have always spoken McCain's name with derision. They didn't need orders from Hugh on Mount Saini to attack McCain. Outside of Evangelical Protestants, nobody ever liked Huckabee. (Catholics haven't forgotten him playing the anti-Catholic card to steal the votes of social conservatives from Brownback.)
McCain brought this on himself for being a maverick, as did Huck for stating he wants to kill the Reagan coalition. Don't be surprised if that coalition which is still alive takes it personal.
|
|
Hawk you are pathetic.
Romney has the most liberal record. McCain's record is considered conservative if you analyze his overall voting record. Just look at his scorecard. President Bush signed McCain-Feingold so is Bush a liberal? McCain supported Kyl-Kennedy - is Sen. Kyl a liberal? VP Cheney opposes the federal marriage amendment - is he a liberal?
McCain's stance is now all the things you said but his record is the complete opposite. You must be quite clueless if you think otherwise? Have you been under a rock? |
|
|
You are correct if you only include Romney's last five years. |
|
Which parts of the Romney record are conservative and/or pro-life?
The $50 abortion copay?
The Planned parenthood fundraisers with ann?
The promise to protect a woman's right to choose?
The promises to the log-cabin (gay) republicans and the passage of gay marriage in MA?
The promises of gov't programs to bail-out Michigan?
Mitt Romney won tonight, but he is *not* particularly conservative. |
|
|
In what universe is McCain more liberal than Giuliani? Or does social conservatism count for nothing on some of those rankings there? |
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the law. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
Amnesty supporters like McCain, Rudy and Huckabee will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's not ignore them any more. |
|
|
I agree. However they were watching McCain on cable. They knew what they were doing. You are correct, McCain should have waited as well. |
|
Most liberal of GOP top 6 to least:
Huckabee (#1)
McCain (Close #2)
Rudy (More distant #3)
Romney (Even more distant #4)
Thompson (a touch better than Romney at #5)
Paul (#6, but he is insane on a few issues which disqualifies him)
|
|
|
Take heart! The federal government will save you! |
|
Read the whole thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15barnett.html?_r =1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Dean Barnett on Mitt's focus-group positioning:
"If you’re like most politically attuned Americans, you probably don’t agree with my description of Mr. Romney. You may consider him to be the personification of political ambition. You possibly believe he will say anything to get elected president. You might even consider him one of the least honorable politicians in the country."
On Mitt's decision to focus on social conservatism:
"Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign’s social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy."
On Romney's Flip Flops:
"This tack rang false with the public because it was false. The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping” on issues like abortion. The public allows its politicians a measure of flexibility. But the public correctly sensed something disingenuous about Mr. Romney’s campaign."
On who REALLY exploited wedge issues (hint: *NOT* Huck):
"Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces."
Enjoy the win. Our next contest, in South Carolina, the critical 1st in the South primary, may be a little more like Iowa, expecting a more *genuine* social conservative.
|
|
Hmmmm - that's a tough one.
1. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Amnesty for Illegals, Opposed Bush Tax Cuts both times, opposes federal marriage amendment, McCain-Kennedy-Edwards...click here for even more: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUzOGY0ODA1YzBmNjFhO WE5NWU0OTY5NTZiOGNhOGQ=
2. Huck hiked taxes; pardoned convicted killers; soft of illegal immigration.
What is liberal about Romney? His record is pro-life, tough on illegal immigration, pro-traditional marriage, pro-growth, pro-tax-cuts, pro-deregulation, pro-small-government...Romney's health care plan addresses a very real need in America using private insurance (not government care.)
Romney has a lot more conservative things on his ticket than Huck & McCain combined. |
|
McCain walked over the last of Huckabee's speech and Romney started just a minute after McCain. Campaign managers need to communicate better. But not sure it's as easy as we all think it is. Unless Mitt and McCain had ear pieces in their ears.
|
|
Amazing that you don’t get it. Mitt won his homestate and a Mormon stronghold. If you think Bishop Romney will win a single southern state you are as blind as Hugh.
Mitt does not lead the popular vote – where in the hell did you pull that stat out of?
Mitt raises his money from his Mormon donors – big shock there. I actually know a number of his fundraisers in Arizona and they all pull from his church lists - a church, btw, that is now the wealthiest in the world.
You wrote: “conservatives won't go for Rudy. Fiscal/Economic conservatives won't go for Huck or McCain”.
So please explain to me why they would go far the candidate with the most liberal record of all the republicans in the field?
Was the 2000 election unprecedented? Was the Presidential candidate for the dems 8 years ago losing his home state unprecedented?
Are you really, honestly saying that rhetoric trumps record?
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I get the feeling no small part of this is due to Romney's pandering promise to use Government to magically solve Michigan's job worries. Romney may have won and earned it, but he did it with an extremely unconservative message spearheading his efforts. |
|
|
Real class act for Romney to step all over John McCain's concession speech. Pathetic... |
|
Romney's voting record from the 1980's is all Liberals and Democrats. As an adult, he voted against Reagan twice. He comes from a vehemently Liberal, Anti-Christian, Pro-Choice family.
In a 1994 Massachusetts debate, an adult Romney declared:
"I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan/Bush!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4
That was 6 years after Reagan left office. The real record shows Romney disliked Reagan while he was in office and after he left.
Romney is a wickedly deceptive man. |
|
|
In Iowa Romney complained that he wasn't a Baptist pastor. But you are correct - Huckabee did allow Romney his entire say before coming on with his own speech. Nevertheless, I see that you are a Romney fan so congratulations. |
|
|
|
"I love how only Romney has the burden of having to win every time. Somehow no other canidate is hurt by their less than first place finishes (Often far less), every other canidate can get a sixth place showing and it gets shrugged off as no big deal, but GOD forbid Romney take third once and he is history. "
No Candidate before was the frontrunner who poured all his assets into the early states and got embarassing losses. He lost decisively in Iowa and lost convincingly in NH. In order to maintain momentum, he had to win Michigan, and perform good in SC, then win Florida.
Huck has always been a longshot candidate, so even a solid performance but a loss is not deadly. Same with McCain, who leads in those states.
Remember, I'm a Romney fan. |
|
Just watching CNN and our good friend Arie Fleisher (spelling?), the former press secretary had some telling information that is very damaging to McCain. Out of those who voted for McCain 1) Hates George Bush 2) Wants to get out of Iraq and 3) is Pro-Choice, not your conservative issues to say the least.
This is going to be the biggest problem for McCain. This was the last primary where Indies and Dems can cross over and vote in the Republican primary.
Also, I know McCain is good friends with Leiberman but when he introduces you what message does that send to the GOP? He was Gore's running mate! McCain needs to manage his message a little better because he is running like a lefty. Will not work down the line. |
|
Chrysler was a bailout - what Mitt is talking about is investing in alternative fuels and investing in automobile technology - this is important as that investment will pay off not just for Michigan but for the United States economy.
Mitt's message in California needs to focus on real immigration reform, not McCain's amnesty(although I would not hesitate to mention it from time to time). The budget crisis in California has too main factors - the burden of taking care of millions of illegals without compensation from our federal government and the out of control spending of CA legislature - Mitt can address the former and then school the Terminator on how to take care of the latter. |
|
Joe, you and Thale actually have some class. Thanks.
This is far from over. Romney has a good shot at FL with MI at his back. However, NV and SC are coming up and I suspect SC will be difficult for Romney.
I think the GOTV strength is starting to show. Romney is running ahead of his poll numbers. McCain only spent 3/4 of a mill on MI. He is way weaker among independents than he was in 2000 and in NH on 2008. Huck is running weak. I think it is a matter of money for ads and GOTV.
I suspect that weak GOTV is a factor for both McCain and Huck in MI and will remain a factor in SC and FL.
NV is an extremely low turnout caucus and very unpredictable.
It takes both time and money to do a great GOTV. Rudy and Romney may have a edge in FL.
|
|
congratulations Gov Romney:
when Romney didn't win NH it was blasted as blistering, devastating upsent:
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
tonight it is a Romney edge:
WE DO KNOW WHO THE MSM supports: |
|
For the auto industry. Maybe it's a good idea, but it's surely not a "small government" solution.
In 1994 he said "I was independent during Reagan/Bush. I don't want to return to Reagan/Bush." Tonight he said Reagan and GHWBush were his inspiration. Ugh. It's not just his hypocrisy, it's how damned enthusiastic he is about his upgraded positions. Snake oil salesman. Maybe that's what he uses on his hair. |
|
I'm spinning? It was his home state for fraks sake. Say this outloud - maybe it will clear your mind: Michigan is Bishop Romney's home stae.
Williard's victory isn't a so what - its a huge so what - yawn - except for the fact that it now helps Rudy, which pleases me.
I am sorry but you cannot compare this election with the one 8 years ago because 8 years ago Michigan didn't have their native son on the ballot. It would be like McCain get 31% in Texas against Bush.
Now let me ask you a question and I hope you have the decency to answer it honestly. Of all the candidates, which one has the MOST liberal RECORD? |
|
"However to think that Mitt now has momentum or has any possible chance of winning the nomination is downright asinine. It's sad that Hugh cannot be as honest. I bet Rudy sure is happy tonight."
History certainly favors Mitt's chances of winning the nod far more than any other candidate.
1. No Candidate has ever won the nod after taking less than 18% of the vote in Iowa.
2. No candidate has ever won the nod after taking less than 20% of the vote in New Hampshire.
3. Mitt now has more wins (MI and WY) than any other candidate.
4. Mitt's worst performance in any state is 2nd place.
5. Mitt leads the popular vote.
6. Mitt leads the delegate count.
7. Mitt just raised $5 million IN ONE DAY last week.
8. Mitt's fund raising will get a boost after such a decisive win in Michigan.
If Rudy or Fred can still pull off the nomination after such poor performances in early states - it will be unprecedented.
Rudy, Huck, and McCain are un-electable in November. Social conservatives won't go for Rudy. Fiscal/Economic conservatives won't go for Huck or McCain. |
|
I was surprised by when Mitt came out but then I realized what Huckabee and McCain were doing. Why let the losers spin the results? Huckabee gets out there and in his "concession" speech, where he should be gracious, some of the first words out of his mouth were: "We were outspent 50-1." Did Mitt, in his concession speech in Iowa say, Congrats Huck, but by the way, you got 30% just because of the evangelicals. No, because Mitt is a gracious person.
Why should Mitt let both of these guys get in their shots? Sorry, grow up. You snooze, you loose. Maybe both of them should have made sure they got out there before Romney |
|
No question they'd rather run against Romney than McCain. I fear we're shooting ourselves in the foot with a gun loaded with true conservative ammo. |
|
Hugh Hewitt has divided the Republican party with his relentless attacks on Mike Huckabee and John McCain. If Romney ends up the nominee (which it is looking like he will) how does Hewitt intended to bring the McCain and Huckabee supporters back into the fold?
Romney won Michigan by persuading voters he is "Michigan's Favorite Son," though his only connection to this state is the life of privilege he lived here, attending one of Michigan's most exclusive private schools, and then abandoning this state for Utah and ultimately Boston. We in Michigan only see Mitt when he needs our vote.
Romney also won Michigan by promising us a big government bail out of the auto industry. I'm still waiting for Hugh to explain how that makes Romney a small government conservative.
Bottom line: Romney is a Northeastern establishment liberal who effectively deceived midwestern voters into believing he is one of them, at least for one night. When he wins the Republican nomination, get ready to stand as "Hail to the Chief" plays while Hillary Clinton walks into the room. |
|
Romney Rising posts will be few and far between the next 20 or so primaries.
Huck will win SC and finish 1st or 2nd in FL.
Mitt will be lucky to beat Ron Paul and Fred Thompson by any substantial margins.
They may be equally overmatched on super-dooper tuesday, which will hinge upon the next two states.
SC, Fl and then Super Tuesday will be the ballgame. |
|
|
I'm not so sure that independents and more conservative Dems won't vote for Mitt if he continues to come across as he did in his speech tonight. |
|
Spin? That is exactly how I would decribe your post that tries to minimize the outcome, to turn any Romney victory into a "so what" moment.
"What's amazing is how well the Mac did" Really, is it suprising? He got 51% of the vote last time and you are telling me his 31% (as of now) is suprisingly good. I only think it is suprising because it is so high a percent for a backstabber. |
|
I congratulate Governor Romney on his victory tonight. He and his campaign worked hard and effectively to make sure Michigan voters welcomed their native son with their support. You have won the round and earned your celebration tonight. I salute you, and offer you my genuine good wishes for the night.
John McCain |
|
New Hampshire pop 1.3 million
Michigan pop 10.1 million
Looking at the vote margin isn't relative.
Wyoming wasn't contested in the same manner. |
|
MICHIGAN Republicans are outstanding...
Three cheers for the defeat of the liberal placation artist, who is peddling global warming.
Even more cheers for the rebuke of the liberal populism from another dishonest Gov. from ARK.
Romney grows, and is looking truly Presidential.
The Man doesn't need to READ a victory speech...
|
|
Helman, Scott and Michael Levenson. 19 October 2006. "Romney camp consulted with Mormon leaders
Eyes nationwide network to aid White House bid" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/19/romne y_camp_consulted_with_mormon_leaders/
In addition, the PAC has turned to several
prominent Mormon figures for help in shaping the
initiative, including Sheri L. Dew, the chief executive
of church-owned Deseret Book Co., a best-selling
author of Mormon books, and a Romney donor.
==
W. Craig Zwick, who is a member of the church's
Seventies, a group charged with implementing
church policy around the country.
|
|
|
Good victory for Mitt. Congratulation to the Romney Campaign and Mitt. Now on to South Carolina. |
|
|
Did Romney actually say he was for huge bailouts, or are you just assuming that was what he meant by helping Michigan? |
|
McCain won New Hampshire by 13,000 votes.
In Michigan - Romney is already 24,000 votes ahead of McCain with only 25% of precincts reporting.
Michigan isn't as much of a blowout win for Romney as Wyoming was (where Romney took almost 70% of the vote) but Michigan is turning out to be the second most decisive win (for any candidate) so far.
This not only will give Romney two wins, but also an even wider lead in both delegates AND the popular vote. (He already led both prior to Michigan.) |
|
|
with his nasty attacks on everyone. And it is really not necessary to get his boyfriend elected. As so many people have said, Romney won because he gave up on the phony baloney pandering on things he didn't really believe (like the immigration stuff) and relied on his business strength in Michigan. Whether or not his plans are actually better doesn't matter. Republicans who are worried about the economy are more likely to trust a man who built a billion dollar business. If people were actually worried about the GWOT McCain would win, or (barf) Rudy. But people are worried about the economy, particularly in Michigan. And I'm just glad it wasn't Rudy. |
|
Actually it is sad watching Hugh employ sophistry.
There is no reason why Mitt should not have won his home state, the state where his father was Governor and a state where he vastly outspent his opponents.
It would be like Mac losing AZ. What's amazing is how well the Mac did.
The really sick part of Hugh's spin is when he promotes the lie that McCain is not a conservative and that Willard is. Bishop Romney has the most liberal record of ALL of the candidates in the field. And to be a Reagan conservative it would help you if you could show how Reagan endorsed you. The only candidate that was loved and greatly admired by Reagan is the Mac.
I honestly admit that Mac's campaign may be finished - especially if he doesn't win South Carolina. However to think that Mitt now has momentum or has any possible chance of winning the nomination is downright asinine. It's sad that Hugh cannot be as honest. I bet Rudy sure is happy tonight. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry if you misunderstood, but Hugh was right on that fact. Huck gave his speech from a campaign rally in SOUTH CAROLINA. |
|
We the People of the United States of America have the right to have our borders and our laws respected and enforced.
If we wish to keep our representative Republic, and our rule of law, we must elect a President who WILL secure the borders and enforce the laws. The actions of the next President will determine the fate of this great nation. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
|
|
Congratulations to Hugh. Romney deserves the victory. Methinks the voters want a brokered convention or don't want this over so soon.
Praises to Hugh for first defending Huckabee's statements today and for having on Peter Robinson to extol Fred's virtues. But then Hugh bit on McCarty's fruit and echoed Medved's knee jerk reaction to the media's gotcha moment over Huck's God's Law speech.
Hugh, please don't go down that route. We don't have to temper our comments to avoid comparisons to the Taliban. If the electorate is so foolish as to believe we want a theocracy like the religion of peace followers do because we affirm it is God who approves of marriage and the preborn, then we are in sad shape, indeed. Hugh risks diminishing the evangelical voter to secondary status once again if he thinks that voter doesn't appear palatable to the sophisticates amongst us.
Are there that many embarrassed believers out there, Hugh? |
|
|
I would include Virginia as a state in play for democrats. |
|
Fair assessment. Events that have not yet transpired will have deep influences on the election. Economic troubles could spell bigger advantages for Dems, while terror and growing concerns with Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere could change things very quickly.
|
|
a McCain, Huckabee, OR Romney nomination will be disasterous for the Republican party in 2008. None of the three will be able to beat either Her Thighness or Obama.
It's a sad day when the supposed "conservative" party is resorting to clowns such as these.
Republicans, you're digging your own grave. Enjoy. |
|
|
The guy who won Michigan by promising a huge government bailout of the auto industry doesn't believe in big government solutions. Congratulations, Romney backers. But I can't see myself ever voting for such a blatant opportunist and fraud. If the Conservative Establishment succeeds in pushing this phony over the top I'll take bitter satisfaction in seeing Mitt and the GOP slaughtered in November. |
|
|
Glad I wasn't the only guy who noticed that Mitt went on to steal the other guys' thunder. This guy is real classless jerk, and I often wonder if those who support him have any idea how he really is. Nice to see he showed all of America how arrogant he is with a move like that. |
|
|
Easiest money is whether Hugh soiled himself in giddy delight after Romney's victory. |
|
Grats to Mitt, though he is unelectable and would be a sure defeat in the general election.
As Rush said a week and a half ago. Mitt Romney is no Reagan conservative. |
|
|
The good people of SC and FL are smarter than to fall for Romney's pandering. He'l be an afterthought soon enough, and we'll all be better for it. |
|
|
Romney can't wait for concession speeches before stealing their time. Classless. |
|
The General election is going to be decided by about 6-8 states.
Dem's will try to steal FL, CO, and OH from the GOP while holding onto the rest of their states won in 2004.
GOP will try to steal MI, MN, and WI from the Dem's while holding onto the rest of their states won in 2004.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
It looks highly unlikely that any other state is in play for either party.
|
|
"Romney has to at least come in second in SC and win in Florida to do anything.'
I love how only Romney has the burden of having to win every time. Somehow no other canidate is hurt by their less than first place finishes (Often far less), every other canidate can get a sixth place showing and it gets shrugged off as no big deal, but GOD forbid Romney take third once and he is history. |
|
|
Willard will be lucky to get a bronze in SC....If McCain wins SC, he'll be the frontrunner.... |
|
Hey Hugh,
I see you have your results up from the primaries but failed to note Ron Pauls total. So far he has more votes than Rudy and Fred. I always suspected you were an ignorant fellow who perhaps didn't do a lot of reading, but completely forgetting a candidate doing better than several you listed hits the ball out of the park on the moron scale. And speaking of reading, I bet you've never read the US Constitution.
Pontious |
|
In Michigan!!!
But Hugh, you told us he would insult Michigan voters by leaving ahead of time. He didn't. Where did you get your inside information? Maybe you should stop using that source.
No matter, congratulations to Mitt Romney for his victory. |
|
Well done in Michigan!!
McCain, Huck, and Rudy are un-electable. Fred is a good conservative...but if he wins the nod it will be unprecedented.
GO MITT!!!!! |
|
|
So a flip-flopping, nuanced, MA politician with a taste for smearing his Republican opponents is the "Reagan conservative" in the pack? That's a good one, even if it IS decreed by el Rushbo. |
|
The bitter old man is DONE. If he cannot win in a state where they let indies and democrats vote in the republican primary, he has no chance with republican primaries with real republicans. He has no chance in any other state.
The only problem is that he is so bitter that he will spend the rest of his days in the Senate throwing up roadblocks to Romney in the White House. He's bitter, vindictive and senile. Goodbye old man. Goodbye and good riddance. |
|
"McCain and Huckabee are not Reagan conservatives" Maybe not. Yet look at the number or Republicans that are attracted to them. Romney is someone I would vote for, but I am a Republican. Independents don't flock to Mitt. If Mitt is our nominee most polls suggest an advantage for the Dems in the fall.
|
|
This is an important win. Romney is now clear front-runner. He will win Nevada and he will do well in SC. Only pro-illegal dems like McCain.
I take honesty over straight talk anytime. |
|
|
Romney has to at least come in second in SC and win in Florida to do anything. This is a start in the right direction, but not the destination yet. |
|