Monday, September 24, 2007
|
|
Meanwhile on Mackinac...
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
7:04 PM
|
For Republicans hoping to hold on to the White House, it was a chilling weekend. The GOP hopefuls descended on Michigan’s posh Mackinac Island for one of the season’s top events. All the big boys came, and most of the little ones, too. If David Freddoso’s reporting in National Review is to be believed, none of the top tier candidates impressed. Reporting on Saturday, Freddoso bluntly stated that Romney bombed. The real shock came even later in the day when Freddoso implied that Fred’ s speech was even worse. These speeches came on the heels of Rudy Giuliani’s NRA address earlier in the week. That’s the speech that Rudy interrupted to take a cell phone call from his wife.
Everyone knows where I stand in this campaign – I’m a Romney guy. I know him personally and have for a long time. I’ve always thought he would make an exceptional president. I offer the preceding as my mandatory qualifier. Feel free to dismiss what follows.
At this stage of the game, none of the Republican candidates is particularly sharp. Fred’s speaking style is slow and uninspiring. Rudy keeps doing goofy things like taking cell phone calls from his wife during the middle of speeches. And Mitt continues to show an odd fondness for uninspiring corniness and a penchant for unforced errors.
LET ME START WITH MY GUY. In the past few days, he said no fewer than three things that I consider groan-worthy. In a gratuitous swipe at Rudy, Mitt chided the Mayor for not being able to mobilize his family to support him. He said of his own family’s work on his behalf, “That’s been a big part of what’s ignited our support.”
I think this comment clearly falls into the unforced error category. This is the kind of statement that shouldn’t even be said by the campaign’s surrogates, let alone its principal. I’m assuming the statement was made out of carelessness, not design. If it was out of design, a surrogate would surely have done the bidding. And it would have been one truly hideous design.
So let’s assume it was carelessness; Mitt has wandered into the minefield of saluting his family’s support before. It wasn’t the campaign’s high point. Mitt’s been at this too long now to make an unforced error of this sort. At this level of the game, spontaneity is often synonymous with “mistake”.
The other two groaners were definitely by design. During his Mackinac speech, Mitt sad that he would move the “In God We Trust” from the back of our currency to the front. He also assured the gathered Michiganders that he’d “make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA.”
These comments bother me a lot, probably more than they bother most people, even ones who don’t support Romney. Mitt Romney is quite possibly the smartest, most capable man I’ve ever met. He has an understanding of the issues that would impress the least hygienic wonks. By nature, Mitt is drawn to substance, not sizzle. Not only were those hollow applause lines beneath him and lame, they’re contrary to his nature. This is an era that cries out for a serious candidacy. Those weren’t serious positions. Mitt is better than this – I know it, and that’s why I support him. But the rest of the country hasn’t known him for over a decade. If the rest of the country gets to know the guy I know, he’ll be a political force. If they get to know a guy who talks about what side of the coin “In God We Trust” should go on, it will be a different story.
Mitt’s not the only Republican candidate with issues. Fred Thompson spoke in Mackinac on Saturday night. Freddoso said he was dull. Again, I wasn’t there. But this squares with most every report that’s come from any and every Fred speech over the past 5 months.
As is the case with Romney’s stumbles, this is mystifying. Fred can read a script; we know that. And the heart of giving a good speech is delivering a carefully crafted text in an impressive manner. Fred’s been at this for five months, and he’s still putting people to sleep on the stump. What gives?
And then there’s Rudy. What was up with that cell phone thing? The middle of a address to the NRA isn’t the time to show your warm, uxorious side. Obviously. This conduct is just flat-out strange, in addition to being strangely unprofessional.
BUT HERE’S THE BAD NEWS. Hillary hit the Sunday talk shows yesterday and performed pretty much flawlessly. Look, I’m never going to be a fan of the former First Lady. Her phony laugh grates on me, as does her penchant for answering an easy question when asked a hard one. But say this for her - she’s a pro. As such, she doesn’t make any of the amateurish errors that our guys do.
Last night, I had the pleasure of being a guest on Boston’s Pundit Review Radio with Kevin Whelan and Gregg Jackson. We had two guests from the Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last and Bill Kristol Jonathan noted how much Hillary has improved as a wholesale politician since her first senate campaign. She may still be a glacier, but she’s a markedly less frosty one than she used to be.
Bill Kristol came on, and I began one of his segments by mocking the maniacal laugh that Hillary used to kick-off her interview with Chris Wallace. We had used the laugh as a running gag for the whole show. Bill wasn’t impressed with the laugh or much of her performance, and he wondered if I was. I told him that of course I’m not going to vote for her, but at this date she has more game than any of our guys.
I hate saying that. But it’s true. February 5 is four months away. On February 6, we’ll have a presumptive nominee who will have his every utterance ruthlessly scrutinized for the following nine months. John Kerry couldn’t endure that kind of scrutiny. That’s why he lost to an unpopular incumbent presiding over an unpopular war.
Our guys have been rehearsing for nine months or so, and now have four short months to get themselves ready for Broadway. It’s not time to push the panic button yet, but it’s getting there.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
If a candidate flubbed on this little-known intramural meet, so what.
Only us nerds who slog thru the underbrush of TH even know it happened!
We'll forget, the voting public will never know that Fred was boring, Mitt was corny, etc.
But they will note who: 1) will enforce the borders, without reservation or evasion. 2) put America's self-interst first, without reservation or evasion. 3) protect property rights. 4) protect your paycheck from taxes. 5) protect your children from the ACLU and the NEA
Any need to continue the list? How many details do you need?
The GOP can win big, get back that mandate that Dubya squandered.
My man is Hunter, so here is my usual shameless plug: http://www.GoHunter08.com |
|
|
The ACLU is for me a barometer of what is bad in America today. I almost had a heart attack when I had to admitt the ACLU took the same position I did. But that was the first and the last time it happened. The ACLU is one of the biggest threats to our culture that we face. |
|
He quotes the National Review about Fred, Rudy, and Mitt. He had nothing good to say about any of them. Doom and gloom, right? Oh, wait. Follow the link and read what he had to say about McCain. Easily did the best. Crowd really dug him. Finished second to Daddy Warbucks in the straw poll. But hey, we don't need to hear about him because he's not "top tier", says Dean/Hugh anyway. Do you even realize you're helping elect Hillary Clinton by pushing Romney?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQwNGNiN2NhYjNkMmExZWQwYzg0ZDIwYzVjYzBlY2I=
"Attorney General Mike Cox (R) had been chairman to John McCain's Michigan campaign but dumped him last Monday. He might have been a bit embarrassed when the Arizona senator showed up, gave a great speech, riled up the crowd, and placed second in the straw poll." |
|
Think: "Ah ain't no ways tahrd."
|
|
Democrats want to do it in Iraq, sounds like some Pubs want to do it with illegal aliens. Pander to citizens of other countries illegally in our country in the vain hope they will vote for Republicans. Throw out such notions as the rule of law and citizenship, surrender and win!
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's ignore them some more. |
|
|
His super-sized ego was his undoing once before and he has not changed. He maintains regular face time by teasing about a run, but he will never do it because his negatives are out of this world, and he knows this better than anyone. |
|
The GOP numbers will firm up as soon as we get a nominee and the general campaign starts. Right now the Dems are getting all of the good news. They have the country focused on all of the Rep bad news and baggage, while they stay pretty vague on what they would do.
Hillary has a ceiling. The only way she can win is to rev up her base. Unfortunately, it is revved but the party can be split on several issues once the general starts. |
|
Fred: it is clear he can deliver a line, the question is can he formulate one?
Mitt: a long time ago we visited a small museum in St. George UT. It has several volunteers offering tours and information. All of them had this smile plastered on their face. If botox had been around then... still, I watched one man come out a door and cross a hall to enter another door. Both doors were unmarked and that smile never changed. I always thought that museum was the headquarters of the bodysnatchers....Mitt has that same smile....petty I know, but I can't get the thought out of my head every time I see him.
Rudy: I don't care if he has been divorced and remarried, but I do care he moved his mistress into the Mayor's residence while still married. It shows EXACTLY the same mindset as someone getting a BJ in the Oval Office. I agree he was good in a crisis - but, this is going to sound strange - he was too close to it. His hands on approach to 9/11, perfect for that place and time, would be out of place as President.
McCain: The Columbia fiasco had NOTHING to do with free speech: you don't give a known arsonist a can of gas and put him in a vacant building; or a skinhead a microphone and a podium in front of a Synagogue. We honor the immigrants that have come to this country, that doesn't mean we honor everyone that appears in our midst from another country.... There ARE limits to freedoms, McCain has forgotten...
Who can win against the democrats? Ask me on January 2nd. Which democrat will be the candidate, I don't care, ask me on November 1, 2008.
Our biggest potential mistake is thinking about who might beat the democratic nominee when we should be thinking about who is the best republican nominee.
So far.... |
|
|
...at some point or another about the battle that must be fought in this election. Dean, if you didn't ever get nervous, I would worry. Don't let it get you down, though. Go get some rest or chop some wood (Romney too) and come back rejuvenated and in gear. I think this goes for all of you who have the same anxieties about any of the Republicans. We shouldn't be complacent, but neither should we be fatalistic and depressed. I still like our chances. Keep your chin up Conservatives. |
|
$100 bucks McCain's way...
I know, I know, half you think he's a lost cause, and he has made some whoppers (immigration, campaign finance, etc.) But after seeing a tape of his Mackinac speech, I think he's the best CIC candidate of the lot. I know he has work to do to get back on top, and it is a long shot, but I think he can do it... McCain/Huckabee, anyone? |
|
|
Mitt so far has failed to follow up with his "new theme". Where is the "give'em hell, Harry!"? So close yet... |
|
I read Freddoso, too, and was also struck by his pessimism. But the thing is, he's only one man. I'm sure millions of Americans would have reacted to the various candidates the same way that Freddoso did - and millions more would have reacted differently. As one poster pointed out, how Thompson strikes rural audiences is very different than how he strikes urban ones (continually "misunderestimating" non-coastal candidates is a mistake that blue state conservatives seem to be unable to keep repeating).
As for Mitt, it may have seemed to you like a cynical or unworthy gesture for him to try to go for the easy applause line, but there's a reason such verbal tricks are common in politics: they work with a significant percentage of the electorate. You may be cringing in vicarious embarrassment, but somewhere there's a soppy voter lapping up these clichés. I personally am not a Mitt man, but I don't at all hold it against him that he engages in normal political behavior like the normal politician that he is.
There's less excuse for Rudy. He should and could be in the same position as Hillary. All of his mistakes seem unforced. Why did he have to get into a squabble with reporters where he stupidly insisted (incorrectly) that illegal immigration wasn't a crime? That wasn't what conservative voters wanted to hear.
There's an old expression used about someone who'd rather engage in a pointless argument than just let something go: "He'd rather be right than be president." This figurative maxim seems to apply literally to Rudy Giuliani. |
|
I read Freddoso, too, and was also struck by his pessimism. But the thing is, he's only one man. I'm sure millions of Americans would have reacted to the various candidates the same way that Freddoso did - and millions more would have reacted differently.
As one poster pointed out, how Thompson strikes rural audiences is very different than how he strikes urban ones (continually "misunderestimating" non-coastal candidates is a mistake that blue state conservatives seem to be unable to keep repeating).
As for Mitt, it may have seemed to you like a cynical or unworthy gesture for him to try to go for the easy applause line, but there's a reason such verbal tricks are common in politics: they work with a significant percentage of the electorate. You may be cringing in vicarious embarrassment, but somewhere there's a soppy voter lapping up these clichés. I personally am not a Mitt man, but I don't at all hold it against him that he engages in normal political behavior like the normal politician that he is.
There's less excuse for Rudy. He should and could be in the same position as Hillary. All of his mistakes seem unforced. Why did he have to get into a squabble with reporters where he stupidly insisted (incorrectly) that illegal immigration wasn't a crime? That wasn't what conservative voters wanted to hear.
There's an old expression used about someone who'd rather engage in a pointless argument than just let something go: "He'd rather be right than be president." This figurative maxim seems to apply literally to Rudy Giuliani. |
|
|
Dean man, you gotta have faith! Mitt is a man with a PLAN. How do I know? 'Cause Hugh sez so! And that's not all. Hugh sez Mitt's plan is going, well, exactly according to plan. Nothing to worry about, nothing at all. Pay no attention to Mitt's 9% rating in the poll cited above. |
|
A post here at Hewitt that doesn't trash the competition, especially Fred.
If all of the Republican candidates performed pretty much the same, boring, maybe the problem is not with the candidates. Maybe it's reporting and expectations. We are all hoping that one of the Republicans will finally hit one out of the park. And hopefully it will be our guy, whoever our guy happens to be. But no home runs, so we are all disappointed with singles and doubles.
Here's a hint. The Republican speeches that have generated excitement have been about Hillary or Moveon, etc. We find the polite society of the Republican primary boring.
I disagree that Hillary was flawless this weekend. She took mostly softball questions, with one exception. She recycles talking points: GWB is a liar, GWB has ruined America, health care, health care, rah, rah rah. She is neither deep nor perceptive, and it's working for her. And her speeches are mostly rants, much like I would expect her to give Bill for some indescretion. Find one perceptive, thoughtful speech that does not recycle HillaryCare, or GWB lied, or better yet, another "plantation" speech. Just one.
Obama is truly thoughtful, gives honest answers, and remains true to his vision. He reminds me of John Anderson, giving too much information, which makes him an easy target. I don't want him for President, but he at least is honest, a charge never made against Hillary.
(Edwards is worse than Hillary. In every respect.)
She has one tough question, and she gets a pass on her answer:
What are you going to do about the war?
Russert should turn in his journalism badge. He did nothing get an definitive answer on Iraq. She said nothing about her intention, and he let her skate. |
|
in a So.Cal. town hall. Did his stump speech and then took questions. There was no screening of questions... he takes all comers. Out of 13 or so questions, he did well on 12 1/2, the only weak answer being an incomplete response to the role the federal government should play in fighting criminal street gangs. (His answer was to supply the states with advanced law enforcement technologies. Not bad, but I'd have added that the feds could supply a national gang database registry.) About 9 of the questions were from ignorant doofuses asking the same questions Mitt's answered a million times in the debates and on his web site. So, he didn't have to depart much from his stump answers. One good question and answer concerned his stump topic of competing with Asian economies. He fleshed it out a little for a questioner who was most concerned with it. Very convincing, consistent with WSJ reporting on the issue, AND, it struck a chord with the guy.
One answer reinforced why I think Mitt's the right guy for the general election. A little war mom got up to the mike, voice a'quivering, and demanded to know why he wasn't for bringing the boys home immediately. (There's somebody like this in almost every crowd, and hundreds of thousands like her out there.) Her two sons had already done Iraq tours and one returned for a second one. Mitt's answer deftly disarmed her while maintaining support for Gen. Petraes's recommendations. The woman got visibly calmer and calmer as he talked on.
I maintain that Mitt is the BEST candidate for the general election because he will be able to snag a good chunk of the centrist woman vote, something that Hillary has to have all of. I base this opinion on personal anecdote, but they keep piling up. |
|
|
What do you think about Fred standing up to the religious fanatic "republicans?" I think Fred knows that most conservative's are sick and tired of losers like Ralph Reed, Ted Haggard and John Hagee. I think Fred is showing republicans that he is not going to pander to this radical fringe element that has done huge damage to the republican party. Fred knows that most republicans are not into republican mullah's. He knows there are a lot of conservative independents that will vote for a republican that steers clear of the bible thumpers of the extreme right. If Fred debates well, he will leave the rest in the dust. |
|
It's like the Dems and the war or terrorism, they need another attack in the US before they would actually come together with Republicans. The Republicans had Bill Clinton getting out of the White House to motivate them and they've squandered much of it.
Some on here say they want to see the policies of these candidates, but no one really does. Look at Fred's candidacy...what policies does he have? Mitt just published a huge book of policies, has come out with tax plans and healthcare plans, etc., but no one cares, how many of you here really look at his plans or anyone else's?
Plus, I know Dean has been a Mitt guy and it's fine to point out the negatives to gain some street cred, but those little negatives in today's media world get blown up into huge things. No one cares about policy, it's what's the next "gotcha moment" or mistake someone's made. Hillary hasn't done anything special, she just hasn't turned the ball over and because of that...she's the Dem nominee or we're conceeding the election already?
I like Mitt a lot, and think he'd be a fine President and one our nation would be proud of and would actually get things done and serve tirelessly just as he is running his campaign. But I'm willing to give Rudy and Fred a chance as well. I'm not sure others are so openminded. |
|
I agree with your assessment of the difficulties facing us and that McCain would be a good Commander in Chief. I voted for him in the 2000 primary, even though VA's primary was too late to change the outcome. I thought he was the best man at the time. If we did not have 20-30 million foreign nationals illegally in our country and he had not supported amnesty, I might now. Another amnesty will increase our problems just as the last one did. We are running out of time before we lose control of our country. People want the fence built and the laws enforced. It is the winning issue in the general.
Romney does have a sincerity perception problem. He may be sincere, but some may not believe him. He strikes many like a car salesman. He is making it worse as he goes along.
Hillary can definitely be beat, but not as long as we play to her game plan. We will never win competing on her issues. Trying to come up with better health care plans won't do it. Put her on defense with her support for amnesty. Pledge to build the fence and enforce the laws. Hunter is the credible voice on that topic. |
|
Hnav; Not meaning to be negative, that's just how the campaign to keep the Clinton's from returning to the White House looks today. The election is still a long time off, and anything can happen in the interim. But right now the GOP field looks weak, with no candidate capturing the heart of the base. Some looked to Fred as the great bright hope, but from accounts he is putting folks to sleep. Hugh man Mitt stays in the teens in national polling. Its good to have this discussion now.
One hope I have is the Clintons might be blindsided by the bloggers. MSM had little interest in their serial scandals in the 90's, but time have changed. Let's see what bloggers dig up on the Clinton criminal enterprise in the next year. Voters may or may not care about them being grifters, but that is another question entirely. |
|
By far he is the best overall potential commander in chief. Unfortunately John McCain has made some decisions that have alienated the base. I cannot see him recovering even though he would be the best candidate against Hillary (and please don't tell me he would be worse than Hillary). John McCain remains a hero to me.
Rudy is ok, I like him a lot. I think he would be a good president. So would Thompson--he is a good man (and would be an excellent VP choice if he does not catch fire). Romney would be good too if he can get enough speed. But Michigan Bob is right, Mitt has to abandon pandering (sleaze ball is too harsh) and speak from his heart. The hard sell to conservative Christians will not work and will doom him in the general (and the way things are going he will not get to the general if he doesnot expand support). Courage--say what you mean not what you think we want to hear. The question now, which of these guys can fire up the team.
While Hillary is scary and disciplined, she is also Hillary. She is very competative but beatable. She is not Bill. And while the MSM may favor her, they have the morals of pelagic sharks (they will readily feed on anything including their own). |
|
I was on the island for the conference. Fred was dull and it is unfortunate because when he started the crowd was the more silent than for any prior speaker. It was deathly quiet. It was almost as if attendees were hoping for something from Fred (like a reason to support him!). It appeared that he had a prime moment to impress a lot of GOP elites and he blew it.
As for Romney- among my friends the most commonly used phrase was "sleaze ball". He appeared to be pandering to the Christian Right (among whom many of us are) and it was a turn off. I know the straw poll gave Romney the victory but it only covered half of the attendees (and I know that it missed my entire group). I would say Rudy and John McCain were the best received speeches. McCain went a long way toward resurrecting his candidacy in my eyes, though I am still undecided. His unflinching support for the war on terror and his denunciation of Ahmadinejad's trip to Columbia got several standing ovations. |
|
Banjo:
George Soros funds the ACLU; he funds MoveOn; he funds the Tides Foundation; he funds Media Matters.......all this for starters.
Mr. Soros is radically anti-US and anti-Israel.
Add it all up and what do you get? |
|
|
The winning candidate is the one who can reverse the massive hemorrhaging of party registration happening to both parties. We know why it isn't happening with Democrats, they don't like Hillary. McCain drove alot of us out by helping Bush with the amnesty bill and Rudy has done nothing to stop that trend with his weird goofiness and insincerity. The first indicator of who has a chance is the one who can get at least stem the hemorrhaging if not reverse it. (Are you listening Joe?). We are past McCain and Rudy and would now like to give Romney a chance. How about it? I was hoping Romney's speech in Mackinac (which I have been told doesn't rhyme with Big Mac Attack apparently) was the beginning of a relentless message going after the entire status quo but it seems to be fizzling already. He could be chewing everyone's ears off protesting Congress' efforts to sneak the D.R.E.A.M. act but....crickets. We are going to have to conclude that Dean is right. We are almost out of time and no one - NO ONE - is stepping up to the plate. Just a bunch of over-the-hill transgender.. uh.. no, that's not right. I mean bisexual.. uh.. NO WAIT! I mean candidates of androgenous party tendencies.. good enough. I'll go with that. We need a solid conservative and if Mitt can't step up, let's go with Duncan Hunter! If we must lose in 2008, let's lost constructively. Losing with a democrat is pointless and afterwards, what did you expect? |
|
George Soros' grand plan is coming together.
Make no mistake, Herr Soros owns the Democratic Party; its his agenda that will come to the fore. |
|
|
Everybody who is not a left-wing lawyer or is married to one despises this organization. With few exceptions, the ACLU is on the wrong side of any issue where decency or commonsense is an issue. |
|
Richard...
"The problem is, as one might infer from Dean's post, none of these guys is Reagan. I ask - which of them is postive and can communicate the greatness of our country like Ronald?"
You missed the point...
We don't always need a Reagan. Besides the greatest Heroes are rare.
If you compared every Candidate to Ronald Reagan, no one could be worthy for the job.
President Bush won two elections, and he isn't the greatest in communication.
But he has been an outstanding President, partly because he stopped the Democrat Opposition from the position.
And that remains the point...
Every Conservative should be deeply proud to oppose the unethical Democrat Opposition we see today, and vote against their ugly effort in massive numbers.
To view these fine Men who are running for the GOP Nomination today, like Rudy, Romney, etc., with such overt negativity, simply isn't fair.
Rudy's ad and rebuke of Hillary's slander of One of Our Best Generals was indeed admirable.
So was Romney's strong stance to have the nutty Iranian President stopped from coming to the USA.
Besides, they have the big issues right, such as the GWOT, Tax Relief, strong National Defense, fiscal discipline, etc...
Again, the glass is more than half full.
Don't let the negative mindset, defeat the essential cause before we begin.
Everyone should have learned from 2006, and never let it happen again.
|
|
As usual, I find your commentary insightful, Joe. And I applaud your ability to see more than one side of a person, in this case Mitt. But I think he's a lost cause by now... Why? Because if he did follow your advice, and lose all the schmarm and the pandering, it would just be more... flip-flopping, or at least more cameleon-acting. He has hitched his train to this "conversion" act, and now he is stuck with it. Unfortunately, the conservatives (understandably) doubt his sincerity, and the moderates (like me) just feel queasy looking at him...
Oh, and kudos to Dean (again) for foregoing the cheerleader act that Hugh put on, and telling it like it is... |
|
Hoping the Irish coffee and grilling brats and Italian sausage were excellent.
I am not underestimating however, but will take the note to heart.
For example, evidence of my case, Hillary was on DEFENSE on nearly every TV Station.
She had to defend everything, even on the partisan MTP.
This is often by design, to be able to give her a chance to fire control, but it isn't working.
If Democrat Partisans truly hate the Iraq War, it will be hard for them to give her the nod for the DNC Nomination without a more clear cut explanation.
But that is the crux of her problem, as with her dishonest Hubby, they cannot be trusted, even by a vast number of dedicated Democrats.
|
|
Hnav wrote:'Reagan was great, partly because of his optimism and strength.The Gipper had good reason to be positive, because he understood the greatness in this Country.'
The problem is, as one might infer from Dean's post, none of these guys is Reagan. I ask - which of them is postive and can communicate the greatness of our country like Ronald? |
|
After reading a number of the comments, I am deeply disappointed.
The same grumbling, negative demeaning, overwhelmed logic before 2006.
NEWT? The guy who posed with Hillary in a photo op? The opportunist who never did anything about illegal immigration when he was the Speaker? The one who trashed those who bravely tried to implement his desired policy in Iraq, when it suddenly became unpopular?
The GOP is worthwhile. Sen. Cornyn just demonstrated this brilliantly again in the Senate.
If one cannot proudly vote to defeat the unethical Democrat Party after they slandered the brave US General leading the fight for Liberty, you should consider looking in the mirror.
Reagan was great, partly because of his optimism and strength.
The Gipper had good reason to be positive, because he understood the greatness in this Country.
(He didn't campaign in perfection either, even had a few debates in which he seemed very tired).
If those fighting the British had the mindset of the grim Conservatives on this board, we would still be rule by the English Crown.
Romney and Rudy are simply outstanding Candidates with some fine records to support.
The same defeatist folly was confronted by both. In Rudy's Case: by saving what the 'doomers' said could not be saved, by bringing NYC back from the grave.
Romney had a similar (smaller) problem with the Olympic mess, and managed what some considered impossible.
Part of being a Conservative is the belief in the possible, because we understand the infinite power of the individual when they are free.
Today, nothing stands in the way of rebuking the Democrats in 2008, except ourselves.
We will never have a perfect candidate, and that candidate will never be able to do it alone.
Get it together. Get strong. This is the election of a Lifetime.
The Democrat Party is a madhouse, which needs to be defeated.
And Hillary wants to take things away from us... |
|
|
What a good discussion. Nobody has much resorted to name calling or profanity, just a frank exchange of ideas without even wandering far off topic. How rare. How come we don't have more of this ( I am even refraining from Mitt and military service). |
|
Mackinac is actually pronounced "mackinaw"
I just wanted to make sure everyone was reading it correctly in their heads. |
|
you're going after his DAD?
Kennedy's dad was a "Moonshiner!" Rudy's DID TIME! Bill Clintons's? God Knows? Nixon's? A Drunk . . . . . or, was that Reagan's?
Who in the World, CARES?
Jeez! |
|
If Hunter can't fire up the GOP, what in the heck makes you think he will fire up the general election? I know Virgina Patriot and Pasedena Phil have their principals, but I am not for putting up a candidate to lose in the general.
And HNAV--I agree with you in a way (because deep down we know she is no good), but Hillary is making progress. Do not underestimate her. Dean is absolutely right with his warning. Granted I was drinking Irish coffee and grilling brats and Italian sausage (and watching fifty year old guys do beer bongs, but I digress) when you guys were watching Meet the Press on Sunday, but I caught the clips later on.
If Mitt caught fire and dropped the pandering stuff and just said what he believed (which I think is a moderate conservative policy position somewhere close to Fred Thompson's)--I would be thrilled. We have some major threats, Islamo terrorism from Iran and al Qaeda, North Korea, China, and Illegal Immigration. We need to fight al Qaeda and kill them, try to turn Iranian politics and control their nuclear ambitions, keep NoKo from going crazy, and fix our financial dealings with China. We deal with China with low taxes and low spending. We deal with illegal immigration with civil enforcement against employers and stronger port and border security. I think Romney could be very effective on these points and would love to hear him talk about them more. |
|
|
What we have is the best candidates money can buy. The candidate who can raise the most special interest money is percieved as a winner, when what they really are is the most bought. The Clinton's have had a Chinese money connection going back to Arkansas. The Bush money comes from the Saudis. |
|
|
seppo - and don't forget Mitt's dad withdrew from the Presidential race after claiming to have been brainwashed. |
|
|
I thought it was a good idea at the time also. I thought we had enough troops to occupy and secure the country properly. 300,000 or so. Apparently not. Now that we're there we can't just walk away. That would be disastrous. |
|
Hillary scares me.
And as for Mitt Romney.
I have not been Mitt strongest supporter, ahem, I have been downright critical of the guy.
But Mitt does impress me. He would probably be a very good President, but he has to get himself elected. He has a good record in Massachusetts, great business savy, he saved that institution that probably doesn't deserve to be saved, the Olympic games (he gets the Pete Uberroth Award). These are big accomplishments. Even the Romney Mass Health plan (which I am not that into) was still a pretty big deal since he pushed through a mostly private plan in Massachusetts.
Which is why his pandering makes no sense. He is not Kerry, so why act like Kerry? Brownnosing in politics does not work. I loved it when Mitt lost his temper during that radio interview. More of that and less of the "In God We Trust" policy changes would be welcome. |
|
|
|
I believe you are just that, I agree with you on so much, but I just think you're wrong about Hunter being the man who can draw conservatives. I can only speak for myself. I love the guy, he's sincere as can be, and would be a great president in most areas, but there's that big one; invading foreign nations. It's just not a conservative thing to do, and on that front Hunter's right there with GW, and it nullifies his wonderful qualities that'd otherwise make it a walk for him.
If he'd come out and say that simultaneous with immediate border control would be an effort to withdraw ourselves from holy wars and other conflicts that are clearly the UN's problem, it'd be a whole different race. But we already have a perfectly good cantidate saying that, and it'd be a flip for Hunter, and not something that someone of his character would do. He'd rather lose than flip, that's why I love him, but he's a war hawk, and that's where he loses Constitutionalists. |
|
About Fred and Rudy, I am not sure I agree with your analysis entirely. But to someone observing the pack from afar, I think you understate the cringeworthiness of the Romney campaign.
It would be nice to have a gangbusters posse of four or five really outstanding and exciting candidates to choose from, but that has never been reality in any election cycle. I was sure hoping that Mitt Romney could mix it up with the best of them, but what a disappointment.
His public posture and image is becoming set, a goody-goody who is trying always to please just enough people to advance one more step toward his goal. Silly pandering, inauthentic, wanting to check off the next goal on his resume... that's not what people usually want in a President.
Where are the bold proposals for the future? Who in the party does he not mind if he offends, beside the sleazies? McCain, Rudy, and Fred seem to say here I am, do you want to elect me? They know they have problems with some part of the party, and will have to win or lose accordingly.
The other Romney issue that concerns me is his high regard for his father. The elder Romney was an okay governor during the period when Detroit automakers were at their glory and Michigan was on a roll, but in national affairs he was a squish, somewhere between Nixon and Rockefeller, and had a reputation as a pushover. And when will Mitt definatively state that he will NOT bring Brent Scowcroft along for the ride?
It sure would be nice if all of the candidates would talk more boldly about a future-oriented agenda. Maybe Newt can catalyze something, but time is wasting. |
|
Dean wrote "So let’s assume it was carelessness; Mitt has wandered into the minefield of saluting his family’s support before. "
But Dean, family support is WHO Mitt is, he could not hide it if he wanted too, just like Hillary can't hide to whom she is married.
Wow, what an admission this is from Dean! Our guys are bush (sorry!) leaguers against Hillary, and IMHO, each has a fatal flaw or two.
All the trends are against Republicans, so Hillary has a clear shot at the White House.
What does this mean? It means hereditary monarchy instead of republican democracy.
Counting Bush 41's Veep term starting in 1980, we have had Bush's or Clinton's in the White House for 27 years, now add 8 more if Hillary gets elected. Just two families in control. What does this say about us as a people in general and our electoral process in particular? |
|
in a nutshell: those big plays to prove his conservatism. They come across as phony, largely because they are. Which takes us back to that old saw about him in the first place: who is he? Handsome, wholesome, personable, admirable for all his successes--including his lovely family--but who is he? Because he's said several different things. Until lately, when he's been trying way too hard to say the right thing. A little too hard. And poor Rudy. He keeps trying to make himself out to be just another Joe American, and not the sophisticated, singular, and singularly flawed New Yorker he is. When he had me with his promise of constructionist judges (the conservative 'hello'). Too many good guys, trying too hard. And too early. It's a wonder they're not all worn out by now. Or maybe they are wearing out. |
|
LOL !
Could not disagree more.
Her performance was simply comedic.
On Russert's show, she bobbed and spun so much, she didn't make any sense at all.
She cannot answer why she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq...
She simply lied again.
And it doesn't overcome the tape evidence which was shown prior.
Why did a partisan like Russert ask some of these things?
Because they huge...
Even the old Chinagate made it on the screen.
I viewed Hillary providing more irrational denial, an manipulative fog, than I viewed flawless performance.
Sorry DB, I think you may have been clouded with some understandable concern.
Remember, Hillary appeared on these programs, because it isn't going so well.
In generic Nationwide polls her name recognitions reigns, but it remains the votes that matter.
She is struggling to overcome the vote to use force in Iraq, desperate to shake the vivid corruption, and cannot seem to beat the overt negative response to her presence.
Hillary is looking more confused, dishonest, and desperate every minute.
I may be biased, but I was completely unimpressed with the big show this Sunday.
This is not an inspiring, interesting, charismatic, like-able Candidate.
Democrats getting nervous about giving Hillary the nomination are worried for good reason.
Could be a Titanic of Rodham heading their way. |
|
While Hugh is writing about "Mitt's rise" his friend is writing about Hillary's. Two sides of the same coin; one is to build up the evil Hillary Monster so that Great White Hope can swoop in and save the day!
Republicans have to run AGAINST Hillary because they have no record of success to run on, but I'll be staying home if they prop up another pseudo-conservative. Rudy, Mitt, Obama, Hillary, Fred, McCain? ALL socialists. To varying degrees, yes, but SOCIALISTS. Choose to eat a little crap or alot they seem to say; I'm not eating any thanks.
If this is the best we can do we've already lost. |
|
the Republicans to come out and vote for him, why would we see the masses (who are something like 35% professed Republicans) come out and vote for him?
Good or bad, it is just not realistic to think that he can get enough support in this cycle to do anything. |
|
|
(and I like him a lot) is that he better serves the country in a non-Presidential role. He may be doing the country more good in the work that he is doing right now than he could possibly do as President. |
|
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. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The so-called "top tier" 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.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
Dean, it's time for you to reconsider. You blew me off before when I suggested Gingrich. He won't make the mistake of talking about which side of the bill "In God We Trust Belongs On."
With all due respect, you protest too much about how smart Romney is. Why not take a chance and go for a candidate who's really quite remarkably brilliant?
If you're tempted to blow me off again, please explain to me what Romney knows about just how broken the State Department is, how to fix health care without simply objecting to socialized medicine, and how best to educate people about what government can do and what it can't.
Maybe the best way to come across as a substantive candidate is to BE a substantive candidate. If the gang is coming across as lightwights, maybe they are lightweights. Like him or loathe him, Gingrich is a force to be reckoned with when he enters a room.
Reminders here:
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=967
And here:
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1086
At the very least, do more than brush the possibility aside.
|
|
largely opinion and perception. For good or bad, my observation is that the more urban the audience, the less they like Fred's style. I love it and so I have to understand when various pundit write about him failing miserably, it is perception and not necessarily reality. His polling numbers reflect this.
I am less concerned about his ability to connect with the moderates as I am concerned about his ability to connect with "city folk". We will see as time goes on. |
|
says Mitt, "and, clean up your room; you've been bad children."
And, they cheer, and clap, and jump for joy.
But, I DID!
We'll look at Rasmussen on Friday. If he's still stuck at 13, I'll admit we've got a Problem. If he's moved up a couple, I'll say, maybe there's hope. |
|
|
|