|
National Review is one of the bigger names out there on the right, perhaps the biggest. And because they're not known for being ideologues, this endorsement indicates that the editors of NR likely think that Romney has a legitimate chance of winning the general election. |
|
|
But no mention of Jim Gilchrist endorsing Mike, Hugh? I wonder why. |
|
Mitt is the best candidate in the field!! This is why the DNC attacks him the most!!
[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:
Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]
The G.O.P. can't afford to nominate the aww shucks I'm just a goober candidate in a change election.
Go Mitt!! |
|
|
Drudge will move this to a screaming headline in red font...maybe even the ubiquitous flashing police light! |
|
|
Yes, that is a big deal, I respect the National Review's opinion. Let's see if it can get Mitt some more traction than the Speech. From the polls coming out today, Huck is still on the upswing and getting all the attention. |
|
|
|
That's the next President of the United States and we need someone in office who is a financial genius!!
Who understands market dynamic and doesn't play class warfare like Huckabee. |
|
|
They are struggling with Giulaini and Thompson and McCain seem like they are lagging. It is a big deal for Romney. |
|
There is probably no more venerated voice in movement conservatism than National Review.
National Review was the intellectual home of the Goldwater movement and the Reagan campaign.
This is a VERY big deal. |
|
|
Another big deal, huh Hugh? Last 2 big deals for Romney (other than his speech which has been followed by further erosion in his support) were the endorsements of David Keene and Paul Weyrich. How have those big deals turned out for Mitt? |
|
After all the attacks it's about time. I believe the media is focusing all their attention on Huck in order to hurt Mitt in Iowa. This way it will help their true choice Rudy. Too bad Rudy needs Huck's help to win.
Go Mitt! |
|
I agree. The timing is suspect. First Hugh, then Drudge, now NRO is trying to stop the Huckatrain.
The funny thing is that the NRO endorsement is probably just going to tick off Rudy readers and give Mitt backers warm fuzzies. It's not exactly as if gobs and gobs of undecided voters read NRO..chances are their readers made up their minds months ago and so it's just going to affirm minds that are already made up.
Seriously, think about who subscribes to the NRO...hard core politicos.
In fact, per the IA Rasmussen poll fresh out today. 55% of voters will not change their minds. 57% of Huckabees will not change their minds. That puts Mike's base at 20% in IA and if Mitt loses IA he's pretty much toast. |
|
|
While your financial genius was in office MA went from being the 9th most taxed state to 7th. |
|
|
Well, I am impressed (I always said the man "hunk" would get the nod) |
|
|
|
|
I am so tickled with this endorsement becaue I agree with it.He's across the board the best candidate. The DNC is denying they leaked the "Glass Jaw" the story to Drudge. That's funny considering the DNC has only had a couple releases against him. I've been saying for days it's damn peculiar the gays haven't attacked Huck over that story. The DNC told them all to shut up.The cable channels aren't reporting the Drudge story or the NR endorsement. |
|
NR has a subscription base of 155,000. It is also a money-losing proposition, having lost approximately 25 million over its lifetime; it is kept afloat by conservatives with deep pockets. Hmmm. Sound like anyone we know?
Anyway, in the parallel not-pro-Mitt universe, check on this from the WaPost 12/10:
"Of all the candidates, both Republican and Democratic, the former Massachusetts governor is most vulnerable to the charge of being a "flip-flopper." He has attempted to immunize himself from this accusation by making a virtue out of necessity, and acknowledging his most blatant U-turn, on protecting the right to abortions. But an examination of his record shows that his positions have changed on a wide variety of other issues, from immigration to gay rights to gun control."
Read the whole thing:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/most_re vealing_fibs_mitt_romne.html
|
|
|
Mr. Hewitt's shilling for Gov. Romney knows no end. Last week, Mr. Hewitt gushed that Gov. Romney's speech was "magnificent." Then, Gov. Romney's number began to sink like the Titanic. No magazine cover will help the slowly dying Romney campaign. Give it up Hugh. You're as bad as the MSM you rail against. |
|
|
Question is how much incremental votes will this bring for Romney? See, even without this, most of them were likely for Romney anyway, so methinks that this is no big deal. If Hugh said it was a big deal, you know the opposite is true. Like when Hugh said everybody is talking about the speech, he only linked to his own posts! yeah..thats everybody alright... |
|
If you read the article, they barely even mention him.
The problem is that the average guy on the street that is voting Huck doesn't read th National Review.
Populists have won the lst 4 elections. There is a reason for that. This is where Huck's true advantage lies.
Oh well, I hope Mitt can pull it off. We'll see. |
|
|
To stay in through Feb. 5th. There's a long time in between for him to recover or someone else to emerge. This thing is a long way from over. Iowa isn't representitive of the entire republican party.These people are hardcore they voted for Pat Robertson at one time..I think Huck is shocked at his standing. I believe he would have been happy with the VP. he could have just sat on his butt for 4 years.I have to admit he takes a blow pretty good.Then again that's because the left has been gloves off so far. |
|
I never thought that National Review would suddenly get a yellow streak. Glad my subscrption runs out soon!
Why, oh why would they endorse a RINO? I guess if Pat Robertson can tout Rudy, NR can do this.
I'm voting for Fred, cause he ain't no RINO! |
|
Can someone offer any evidence that endorsements matter any more? Good for political type to talk with each other about, but do they generate any votes?
Does anyone here go vote because such and such endorsed a candidate?
Mitt has Bush 41, Hugh, Drudge it appears, and now National Review. So why is Huck surging and Mitt struggling? |
|
|
|
|
... that Romney on the cover of that edition of National Review looks like Luke Wilson from Idiocracy? |
|
He's up 4 points in one poll and 5 points in another poll. Rudy is the one dropping like a ton of bricks.
Huckabee is a social conservative and the buck stops there. He's a liberal ion fiscal issues who uses class warfare. |
|
But all the liberal commenters (AKA the rabid DNC pot stirrers) on this blog think Romney is terrible!
Hmm...
My proposal: Romney (R) vs. Huckabee (D) in the general.
@ Jim: how exactly is an endorsement by the National Review "shilling" by Hugh? Seriously, you people have lost touch with reality. Get over yourselves and your constant griping about Hewitt's *opinions*. Do us all a favor and find a blog where the author favors your candidate of choice - I'm sure there are plenty out there. This isn't North Korea - you have plenty of choices for information outlets. Find one you don't have to spend all your time griping about.
There's way too much noise in here and a pitiful amount of substantive discussion. |
|
|
I'm glad the media is hyping Huckabee, this will make the Romney comeback unstoppable!! |
|
|
|
Sheesh
If anyone is so naive to not believe this was all orchestrated and organized together...redstate, Drudge, NRO,...to try to help Romney BEFORE the Caucus..
well, let's just say you must have to think to breathe.
The "Country Club Republicans" endorse...a "Country Club Republican".
shocking.
Since the speech extracted a collective 'yawn' from the voters, this should be the equivalent of a snort of breath.
The word for today kids is...panic.
|
|
It is sad - when you read the article it sounds to me like they are greater proponents of Fred Thompson, but won't give him the nod because he lacks the press...then again - giving him the nod would give him press.
Doesn't sound quite right. I think that it is easily recognized that FDT is the most conservative and the only one with actual suggested solutions to issues; instead of pandering. Between Hugh's complete disregard of him and shilling for Romney, and even Republican media ignoring him, I am losing my understanding of the point of the primary. I thought it was to put up the best candidate...
The polls are +- 4% - there is still hope. |
|
I think the only thing this does is signal that the right is taking Huckabee seriously now, and playtime is over. Most the time people just ignored Huckabee, sure they didn't like his ideas, but he wasn't viewed a threat. Now that he is a threat, the big names on the right are beginning to fire their guns at Huckabee. It started with Bob Novak, then Charles Krauthammer, now National Review, the editorial page of the WSJ, conservatives from all stripes are going after Huckabee. Combined with Huckabee's statements on AIDS victims, and his even worse explanation of why he made those statements, Huckabee is not going to get much positive press amongst Iowa voters before primary time.
The one person is right that only diehard politcos read National Review. Yet diehard politcos are those who vote in primaries. Huckabee's victories (if there are any, which I still doubt) will be phyrric. By the time the general election comes, if he's the nominee, he will be a nominee with no allies. While they won't run against him, they won't lobby for him. If Huck wins, he only wins a battle and loses the war. |
|
|
That picture of him on National Review is creepy. If he ever got cut, I think we'd see his robotic workings. |
|
The GOP Coalition consists of two major components that Ronald Reagan joined together in 1980 for a majority:
Rural Social Conservatives
and
Urban, Business class, small government people.
Rudy appeals to the latter.
Huck appeals to the former.
Unfortunately, neither of them grabs the other's consituency. Rudy is too far out on life, guns and gay marriage. Huck is too far out with is tax increases, positions against China, CEOs and soft side for paroling criminals based on their "conversion" to Christ.
Romney has run a good campaign (not a great one - but a well thought-out, well run one). More than that, Romney can "cross the aisle" within the GOP to get both the rural, social conservatives and the urbanites.
Romney is the only viable cantidate at this point who can keep the coalition alive (barring those blinded by religious prejudice - and I for one am not willing yet to surrender the party to those folks).
Thus the logic behind this endorsement. |
|
Isn't that a piece of brilliant rhetoric. Let's bring up that he is a Mormon and that it doesn't matter. That way if you don't vote for Mitt it is because you are a bigot. What option does that leave me?
When did you stop beating your wife? |
|
I'm very much looking forward to holding the supposed standardbearers of conservatism to account for endorsing a bloodless serial prevaricator who'll get smoked in the general election by any one of the Democratic candidates.
|
|
|
Is getting a gazillion hits a day lately.Everybody goes there for the latest news. Even if NRO only had two subscribers,the gist of the article can be read on Drudge. Yes ,I would love to see that police siren for this.We'll see what this does to Teflon Huck. |
|
You may have noticed that FoxNews HATES Mitt Romney and (lurv, lurv, lurv's Huckabee). They can barely speak Romney's name without sneering.
If they ever do have a story on Romney, it is negative.
Tonight, they had a big piece on Romney's "negative attack ad" against Huck. (First of all, that was a "comparison ad" and not an "attack ad".)
Anyway, they do this whole piece, basically denegrating Romney for going negative and being desparate, but do they mention the National Review Endorsement?
Nope. You could bank on them not mentioning it. They hate Romney. |
|
|
67% of Republicans haven't made up their minds.Evidently they haven't drank the media Huck Koolaid yet. |
|
tion numbers indicate. Much more.
NROnline also has become a very large presense on the political internet. Good Strong Stuff, this endorsement. |
|
|
All the news channels are reporting the ad as "negative". The reason is supposedly people in Iowa hate negative ads,so they hope it backfires on Romney. I think it shows Mitt will throw a punch. Huck's reaction was it was like tattletale in the 3rd grade.Now they're hounding Mitt for a reponse.Huck's religious zealotry may help him in Iowa but most republicans don't want religion shoved in their face. Mitt's hands off approach will play out better as time goes. |
|
some people correctly note that NR does not have a large subscription base, though it does have a highly informed and politically active base. and, more importantly, its influence is felt much wider than its subscription base; it's opinion is very well regarded in the Republican party.
Here's why it's important.
1 - Thompson and McCain didn't get the endorsement. NR has effectively said "the time of watching is over. It's time to give up hope on McCain and Fred, the top candidate has emerged." That's what's most significant. Thompson has a lot of support that could break Mitt's way. So does McCain. The fact that it's Romney deprives McCain and Fred of some desperately needed oxygen. It really leaves Mitt as the only Conservative (since the other 2 top tier guys are Rudy and Huck, a social liberal and an economic liberal).
Conservatives are beginning to wake up and realize that it's going to be Mitt or a quasi-liberal. This wakeup call could do big things for Mitt.
2 - NR has a lot of name recognition. This endorsement will be played up in National Ads. When you put the words "Romney" next to "National Review Endorsement" (the words will probably be "the leading conservative publication") it will be a big counter-action to the MSM meme that he's not conservative . . .
This is very, very big indeed.
He may well get the Weekly Standard nod, too. Dean Barnett is over there, and from what I've read they're still wide open on that side. If Dean has any pull, you know he'll be pushing hard for Mitt. |
|
Likes Rudy. That's why they're lukewarm on Mitt (I wouldn't say they are cold on him).
But Hannity and Colmes took a huge bite out of Huck last night . . .so I wouldn't say they're warm on him, either. |
|
Before FDT entered the race, I was pretty depressed about our candidates. I've never understood Romney's appeal; a Northeastern country club Republican from a liberal bastion state. To me, he was compromised from the beginning. Dig into his record, and you find a centrist flip flopper playing conservative for the election. I can't believe he got NR's endorsement.
The alternative is a tub thumper from Arkansas who apparently lost a lot of weight. Huckabee's appeal escapes me as well; he's bad on law and order, bad on social policy (nanny stater), and horrible on immigration. How on earth can he be surging? His record on immigration alone should doom him.
Neither one of these guys has any across the aisle appeal, and neither is a conservative.
Although I prefer Thompson, it looks like he's fading, which leaves Rudy. I don't like many of his positions, but I think he would be good on foreign policy and a good leader. I also think many of the things that make him unattractive to conservatives give him greater across the aisle appeal in the general election. In short, I think Rudy is the only candidate that could prevail.
I don't agree with NR in this case as Romney isn't the most conservative candidate. As bad a candidate as Hillary is, I don't think he could beat her..and no, I don't hate Mormons. I just don't like country club Republican flip floppers. |
|
|
If you want to oppose Mitt on his record then say so. No one has EVER called anyone else a bigot for opposing any candidate on his record. It's when the religion is mentioned as a reason that a person exposes them self as a bigot. |
|
What would all you disappointed Huck and Rudy supporters who are pooh-poohing the significance of this endorsement be saying about that if your guy had won NR's endorsement?
That's what I thought. |
|
So, I guess Hugh is not the only intelligent person who thinks Romney is the best choice. Those of you who are ripping Hugh every day will most likely still be doing it when Romney wins the whole shootin match against Shillary! Some people are soooo hard to please!
Huck is going down - mark my words. Heh, heh. I'm lovin this so much. Romney's slow and steady will win the race. |
|
I'd be depressed too if I saw Mitt that way. I believe he has honestly become more conservative. So, the flip-flop accusations don't work for me. He has legitimate explanations for his change of heart and there are exactly what we would expect from a person who did have a heartfelt change in conviction. What's important is that he has all the positions we need him to have. He has always kept his campaign promises and there is no evidence that he wont govern as he is promising.
And you're mistaken about Fred. His history as a lobbyist and attorney, along with his questionable distribution of campaign funds, make him a prime target for smearing. His personal life is a train wreck, and he'd never get elected after regular folks find out about it. |
|
|
THANK YOU!! You are the first person I have ever read who understands the fable of the fox and the grapes and uses it properly. |
|
"He has always kept his campaign promises and there is no evidence that he wont govern as he is promising."
Easy to do when one has only successful campaign under the belt... but still not accurate.
Ran as pro-choice, turned into pro-life. |
|
|
Look closely. This isn't actually the cover of the "National Review." It is the cover of "National Rev," a magazine about electronics. This month, they highlight the recent progress made in animatronic robots... So lifelike! |
|
They bought into the Romney panderfest.
Bet they wish they came out a month ago, before Romney began to panic......
Stick a fork in him, he is done
LMAO
|
|
If the DNC has talked about Mr. Magnificent more, it is only because Romney has been campaigning for years. One has to wonder why this "financial genius" would spend so much money on this long shot campaign... especially since he was a social liberal just a couple of years ago.
To be honest, after looking at this collection of Repub candidates, I'm not sure who would be better for Obama or Clinton. All of them have major weaknesses (as do the Democrats). I would advise the Repub Party to pick the person who is most honest. That's always the best thing to do. The problem is, that's not easy to do among the Repub candidates. |
|
The second paragraph of the NR editorial begins:
"Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest."
We can agree on his platform, that it's unalloyed conservative. However, he remains somewhat elusive as a person, a persona. There doesn't seem to be depth or nuance to his personality.
His recent speech was solid and eloquent and that did advance his cause. But he ought to work on letting us know what makes him tick. Think of Reagan during the debates--a real person emerges, with wit, self-effacing humor, and, yes, visceral values that animated his thinking.
Combined with his questionable electoral strength in the South, I remain skeptical.
Best,
Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com |
|
This on MSNBC today . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSK4LVgo_yI
But is anyone really surprised that Huckabee's been playing fast and loose with the truth?
A bad 4-5 days for Huck, and no end in sight . . . |
|
PC, we are not ripping Hugh every day because he endorses Romney, but rather he has lost all objectivity. This is not the ole Hugh I listened to in the past. He cannot see Mitt's faults and cannot see past any other candidates weakness. Remember that most of our candidates are NOT going to win the Primaries and we need to stand behind the winner. That will be difficult with all the things that people like Hugh have said and all the non-Romney Candidate supporters he has insulted.
Hugh's actions may well be handing the Presidential election to the Dems!! |
|
|
He never promised not to change his opinion. What he promised was that he would not erode the laws already in effect. He kept that promise. IMO, that is what I want in a candidate. A guy who knows when to lead and when to get his personal feelings out of the way. |
|
|
..to the Oval Office. That's wny he is fighting like a bearcat for Mitt. He probably just figures he'll make peace during the long stretch between the effective end of the primary season and the general election. In the meantime, its no holds barred. Someone said that Hugh claimed he is not interested winning arguments--which is why he doesn't read the comments. He just wants to win elections. You MH and RG and FT and JM supporters are just getting a taste of what we Democrats have to deal with every election. But it should give you pause when you think about the relative level of truth in Hugh's assertions. He sees himself as a "conservative influencer," so you always need to ask yourself when is he "influencing" (i.e. manipulating), and when is he giving it to you straight. He's a smart guy and he's got some insight--he just isn't, and it pains me to say this, an honest broker. |
|
American voters don't trust chronic flip floppers. Sure, everyone is free to switch a position here and there, but too many changes of heart and you risk offending the country's sense of integrity and fair play. George Bush's 2004 victory over John Kerry is a great example. My Democratic friends groan when I remind them of this line: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry's ability to convincingly connect with average Americans was undermined by their suspicion that today's press release was tomorrow's fish wrap.
More troubling to me, though, is Mitt Romney's denunciation of key political beliefs he professed during his campaigns for public office in Massachusetts. Flash back to 1994 and 2002, and you'll see a very different candidate. Then, he was a typical Massachusetts Republican -- conservative on fiscal issues, progressive on social issues. He pledged to be more effective than Ted Kennedy on gay rights. He backed the Brady Bill Assault Weapons Ban. He even supported the so-called "morning after" pill. Invoking his trailblazing mother, Romney made an ironclad commitment to Roe v. Wade.
But a funny thing has happened on the way to the White House. Today, Mitt Romney is campaigning on his record as governor; yet he has become unrecognizable to the citizens who voted him into office.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Jane+Swift %3a+If+Republicans+nominate+flip-flip+Romney%2c+they%27ll+l ose&articleId=57d312b8-d0e1-4bf7-a529-970bbb5e6499
|
|
Once elected governor, however, Romney began his transformation of consciousness. His flip flops on social issues are well documented. But Romney also raised taxes -- more than $700 million per year in increased fees and corporate taxes. A 2003 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that Massachusetts imposed the highest fee hikes in the country.
As his national ambitions grew larger, it seems Massachusetts grew smaller in Romney's rearview mirror. The governor who promised to be the salesman-in-chief for his state's economy instead toured the country using us as the butt of his jokes.
It is no surprise, then, that Massachusetts still continues to struggle to reclaim the jobs it lost during the post-9/11 downturn. A recent report published by MassINC, a nonpartisan think tank, revealed that in recent years Massachusetts ranked last in job creation when compared to its 10 economic competitor states. It is the only one of those states not to recover the jobs it had during the 2001 peak business cycle and only one of six states nationally.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Jane+Swift %3a+If+Republicans+nominate+flip-flip+Romney%2c+they%27ll+l ose&articleId=57d312b8-d0e1-4bf7-a529-970bbb5e6499 |
|
Sorry, but I am not going to support Mitt Romney no matter what NRO says. I know they liked Fred more but caved in to the pressure....money pressure, that is. So sad.
I will support Fred as long as I can because he is the ONLY Conservative of the bunch.
I hope Rudy asks Fred to be his running mate because that ticket will beat the Dems.
Romney...no thanks. He is too slick and way to robotic never mind that I disagree with Mormonism.
|
|
"Say what you will about Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain, but judged purely on their accomplishments in life, they're much more impressive figures than, say, a Barack Obama. (And I find Obama's accomplishments impressive!) I don't expect that general-election voters will judge on resumes alone, which is why I expect the Democrats to take the White House." http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/a_race _nobody_can_win.php
And I am sorry, but some flip answer of voting for a "real conservative" does not cut it either. We all agree Duncan Hunter is a very admirable guy yet he is polling around 1%, among Republicans. Duncan Hunter is not the answer to the GOP's problems.
Actually the only GOP candidate who beats Hillary and Obama today is. . . John McCain. |
|
|
The way Romney campaigned has been disected ad nauseum. He GOVERNED conservatively, and that is what's winning hearts, along with the competence factor. He has the best complete package of the top 4, and his past statements are really just incidental. He's proven his credentials. Besides, every single candidate on our side has flip-flops. |
|
Minuteman head backs Huckabee
COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa (AP) — The founder of the Minuteman Project, the anti-illegal immigrant group, endorsed Republican Mike Huckabee on Tuesday, while Huckabee dismissed a presidential rival's immigration criticism as the work of "the tattletale in the third grade."
At a news conference hastily arranged to cope with a crippling ice storm, Huckabee brought out Minuteman head Jim Gilchrist, whose private group patrols the Mexican border on its own to keep out illegal immigrants.
"For months now, I've been searching for a candidate to support for president of the United States," said Gilchrist. He said he settled on Huckabee as the candidate whose plans were most likely to halt "this illegal immigrant invasion problem."
Huckabee has soared in the polls recently, jumping into the lead in Iowa where caucuses in less than a month launch the presidential nominating season. Rival Romney, who has spent millions in the state and for months was the leader, began running a TV ad Tuesday assailing Huckabee on immigration.
"It's the first one of the season and we're honored to be in the middle of it," said Huckabee. "I think the people of Iowa, who have been through this so many times, will vote for somebody who has a plan for the future of America, not just somebody who is looking around and saying, like the tattletale in third grade, 'let me tell you what this guy is doing.'"
"We didn't like it when we were in the third grade, I don't think we like it electing a president either," said Huckabee
|
|
|
But I'll have no problem voting for Romney if he's the nominee. I just hope that all the evangelicals flocking to Huckabee will support Romney in the general if he ends up getting the nomination. I don't care if you think Mormons are heretics, you're going to get a heck of a lot better policy on social issues from him than you would from any Dem. |
|
|
|
The fear is Romney cannot win the general. That has been my fear all along. The strongest GOP candidate is John McCain, but many on the GOP do not like him. So it is a choice of Rudy, Mike or Mitt (unless Fred Thompson suddenly explodes). All three of them have huge weaknesses. In head to heads Rudy is stronger than Mitt, Mitt is stronger than Huckabee, but all three of them lose to the Democrats (if the election were held today).
And that is the sad truth of all of this. I hope I am wrong. I really do not want to see Hillary Clinton become president (and if you look at her national poll numbers she is holding steady at about 39%, ten points above Obama). |
|
|
National Review is the intellectual gold standard on the Right. This endorsement is even more important than Senator Judd Gregg's, which pretty much iced New Hampshire for Mitt. It's bigger than David Keene on behalf of his million-member American Conservative Union and vast NRA influence (he's next in line to head it up) endorsing Mitt. It's bigger than the leading Evangelicals endorsing him. In fact, Mitt leads in major endorsements over all the other candidates, and won The Los Angeles Times National Republican Insider's poll last summer. Not to slight Hugh, who hasn't endorsed Mitt, but this endorsement would make his seem insignificant by comparison. We're going to bring Huckabee down....take it to the bank. |
|
'Mr. Romney and a group of his supporters also contributed a total of about $10,000 to a nonprofit group affiliated with National Review. Over the past two years, he contributed $35,000 to the Federalist Society, an influential network of conservative lawyers. And in December 2005, he contributed $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative research organization.
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. '
NYTimes March, 11, 2007 |
|
Is anyone swayed by these endorsements? Not me. I'm still not convinced that the flip-floppin' duo of Huck-n-Mitt are conservative enough to earn my vote.
Sure wish Duncan Hunter could get some traction... |
|
"I don't know anything about foreign policy, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night" and now a serious question abuot his credibility as "tattle taling" It's been said all along that Huckabee just wasn't serious enough to be President. Comments like these demonstrate it. (The Holiday Inn Express remark has been said on more than one occasion whenever someone asks about his foreign policy).
I guess I just find it hillarious whenever huckabee fans accuse Romney of being a flip flopper. People in glass houses..... Huckabee raised taxes, there's no dispute about that. (One can see the video where he tells Congress all the taxes he's willing to raise.) How long has he been supporting the Fair Tax? How about ever since he started traveling down the Road to Des Moines. The same with immigration. He was a backer of Bush's "Comprehensive immigration reform" (i.e. amnesty) and providing entitlements to illegal aliens. Now that he's on the road to Des Moines, he's trying to act all Pat Buchannanish.
Part of honesty is admitting when you held mistaken beliefs. Romney has been willing to say that. Huckabee has not retracted his previous positions, which are in stark contrast to his current ones. So yes, both flip flopped, however one had the integrity to admit it and change. |
|
|
Track record of competence as an executive. No skeletons in the closet. Well spoken. Seems like the obvious choice. |
|
Drudge: DEMS HOLD FIRE ON HUCKABEE; SEE 'EASY KILL' IN GENERAL ELECTION
Huck has a "Glass Jaw"
Huckabee: "He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill,"
Light weight Huck on his own Foreign Policy experience: "I did sleep at a Holiday Inn"
Huck-a-Boomlet is over...
|
|
"Who knows what the future will hold?" Romney said in 2005. "Most likely, we'll all stay as governors or find other offices, but we need to make sure that we have a strong person who can take the baton from President Bush, and Governor Huckabee is certainly one of those individuals. He'd make a fine president."
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/12/08/news/120907dcp oliticalnotebook.txt
Of course, Mitt isn't saying any of this now...
|
|
I have no idea why Duncan Hunter can't get traction either. The party is settling on Mitt, Huck or Rudy. With Duncan there is no "settling."
Mitt's a mess. I believe NR is rationalizing.
|
|
Huckabee's a nanny stater - no thanks!
Fred talks a good game but really has no executive experience or (it would seem) drive for the job.
I can't stand McCain except for his support for the GWOT.
Giuliani lacks the discipline needed to avoid being tripped up by the Dems in the campaign and in the White House.
Which leaves (ugh) Mitt ... |
|
...nor is anyone else. And he doesn't claim to be objective either. This is his personal blog, duh! He isn't representing a supposed "objective news organization".
My favorite Hugh line: "I'm not interested in winning arguments, but winning elections." And he doesn't read these comments very often either (and I stopped reading them except this post was so fascinating, I had to read and I was pleasantly surprised to see the overwhelmingly positive comments despite the regular anti-Mormon, anti-Hugh commentators.
This is HUGE for Romney and I am very happy to see the NRO endorsement. With 2/3 of republican voters still undecided, this is a significant endorsement. That front-page picture is awesome! |
|
|
|
All this fighting amongst ourselves is distressing. Come on guys, we are on the same side. I am undecided between Romney, Thompson and McCain. I do not care for Huckabee although I respect him a lot. Granted, I have been very disappointed by Hugh's bias, but he is still a conservative. Democrats should be the focus of our disdain. Queen Hillary Chavez should be our focus. She must be defeated!
BTW - yes NR loses money because it was meant to. It was started as a movement periodical, not a People maagazine. To an undecided conservative like me, NR is about the only endorsement I might listen to. In fact of any publication, I would put the most weight to an endorsement by NR. Yes, it is a HUGE deal. The only endorsement that I would have considered more would have been made by Reagan. While I am still undecided, it does move Romney higher on my list.
Undecided '08 |
|
In their editorial they stated that Rudy would lose the SoCon wing of the party. But they also said that they always select the rightward most viable candidate, and the timing of their endorsement suggests that they no longer consider Rudy's campaign to be viable. Rudy's current focus is on Florida, but there are 6 states before then. It's easy to see how momentum works by watching the Huck surge, which all came as a result of the publicity that his rise in Iowa generated. What, then, are the odds that Rudy could lose 6 states and hang on to the 7th?? Mitt, by contrast, is positioned to win more than his share of those 6 states, and since he represents all 3 wings of the party, and Huck only represents the SoCon wing, it was an easy choice to support him.
BTW, Pat Buchanan noted that the guy who devised Rudy's strategy of starting with the February 5th states and then working backwards has to be the kind of guy who likes to play Russian Roulette with 4 bullets in the chamber. My sentiments exactly. |
|
regtroll,
You mention Redstate as part of the Mitt machine. For the record, Erick Erickson, one of the principal bloggers at redstate is a Fred Thompson guy. |
|
|
|
|
CDubber, yes, that's why the photos caught my eye, they obviously are not press photo ops. |
|
|
Why did they put Luke Wilson on the cover? |
|
Huckabee and Romney do more poorly than McCain b/c of name recognition.
that is changing and both of them are performing better than they did months ago in the head-to-heads.
they're still not winning them, but they're unknown relative to the dems they're being matched against.
this changes as candidates get known.
that a REPUBLICAN is leading democrats is a very good sign. |
|
Mitt (a good man, a good Republican) gave Hugh special access to Hugh for his book and Hugh in return gave Mitt his love and devotion. And I know my choice of words here.
Hugh was courted by the White House to support Harriet Myers and same think, Hugh was talking about her as if she was going to be the next Thomas.
Senator Kyl really gave some attention to Hugh and just like a dog who knows who will slip it scraps under the kitchen table, Hugh started schilling for the Amnesty Bill. Granted, Kyl had to let Hugh pretend to write some new language for the bill, but so wagged happily Hewitt's tail. |
|
You have got to be kidding us, right? All these months of moaning and crying about Mitt and chickenhawks and sons on and on ad nauseum! One photo and you've flipped or flopped???or flipped......dude?
|
|
No Rudy, No McCain, No Huckabee
Romney and Thompson are saying the right things now, but haven't always. Hunter and Tancredo have been working on this for years on our behalf. Longer than most of you have been alarmed about it, they have been trying to sound the alarm. Choose carefully in the primaries, your future depends on it.
|
|
seehawk, I'm not flip flopping, I'm evolving!
Don't worry, I will be back to my usual moaning and groaning soon enough. We are in the middle of an early cold snap here in MinneSoCold and maybe its getting to me. And by the way, I have also said all along I will vote for Mitt if he is the candidate; I always voter straight GOP. |
|
|
The flip-flopin country club republican rhetoric is really getting old. Sounds an awful lot like cut and paste talking points from liberal plants if you ask me. But then you din't did you. ;>} |
|
|
|
|
Back to the mormon thing? Yawn |
|
|
What do you think about Huckabee's new endorsement that came today: http://hubpages.com/_21icqppflxlzb/hub/minutemenendorsehuc kabee |
|
richard_223
You are right - the photos got emailed to me by a local Romney family friend here in AZ. There was no media and I dont believe any security detail (or at least none that stayed) - he worked alongside a group of Mormon missionaries who were all doing volunteer work helping the fire victims. Can you imgine how Hillary would handle the same situation - a media pack to film her 5 minutes of help with her leaving as soon as the cameras were gone.
The Huckabee boom will start to reverse itself but it will take a few weeks due to the time it takes to make the polling calls and collate the results. The polls showing Huck's surge mostly predate Mitt's speech and the recent attacks on Huck from a broad range of conservatives (Buchanan, the Powerline guys, Politico, guys at NRO, Krauthammer, McKinnon, Club for Growth, Hannity etc) while Mitt got largely good coverage from his speech and scored big warm fuzzies from Rush AND Dobson after the speech.
The NR endorsement crystalises the combined wisdom of some informed commentators on the right - that Romney covers the 3 conservative bases (social, fiscal and foreign policy) better than all the GOP candidates and significantly better than Huckabee and for that reason, he gets my vote. That said, if Rudy prevails, I will happily vote for him |
|
|
What do you think about Huckabee's new endorsement that came today: http://hubpages.com/_21icqppflxlzb/hub/minutemenendorsehuc kabee |
|
|
sorry, I messed up the link... [url=http://hubpages.com/_21icqppflxlzb/hub/minutemenendorsehuc kabee]Huckabee endorsed[/url] |
|
|
http://hubpages.com/_21icqppflxlzb/hub/minutemenendorsehuc kabee |
|
no flip/flopping only evolving, oh man, I am so relieved, I can't tell ya....whewww!
yeah it's cold here to, and I don't have 4WD!long day..... |
|
This is just too funny.
I don't think I am the only one that sees what is going on here. NR, and other Romney supporters, are panicking. Huckabee continues to rise in the poll, even as the Romney wing of the Republican Party attacks him. This wing is made up of people who are use to getting their way but right now, they aren't. The more they scream at Huckabee, the more he goes up in the polls. What we are seeing is the beginning of the old guard of the Republican Party being replaced. This will continue to happen in the coming months.
I know Romney will spin this as a strong endorsement, but in effect, it isn't. It shows how bad his campaign is going. The fact that NR has to endorse Romney in hopes of helping him win Iowa after all the money Romney has spent in Iowa...should tell us all something.
Romney's campaign is finished. This race is between three candidates: Huckabee, Rudy, and McCain. Period. |
|
Not since Buckley got too old, fired Joe Sobran, their best writer, and left what was left in the hands of pampered and spoiled Ivy league kids
who have never worked a day in their lives- like Rich Lowry.
|
|
TS, you claim that Huckabee has weathered the storm. In truth, the offensive against Huckabee has only started since after Mitt Romney's speech, and only really picked up steam this week.
I'm just curious though, what exactly constitutes the "old gaurd" of the Republican Party, and how is Huckabee the "new gaurd." And McCain, Huck, and Rudy? Gimme a break. McCain has about as much chance as Ron Paul. Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant.
It is still not evident that Huck will win Iowa. but say he does, how does he deal with the fact that every conservative commentator of note is going after him? These guys aren't uniform in their views. National Review and the WSJ editorial page just got done with a nasty catfight that lasted several months over immigration reform. The two sides aren't even on speaking terms after that. Yet both sides agree that Huckabee is dangerous.
Mark my words, not only is Huckabee going down, but he won't get to Super Tuesday with momentum |
|
And we wonder why they endorsed Romney?
LOL |
|
He has, is, and will continue to weather the storm.
Look at his poll numbers. The more he is attacked...the more he goes up. You need to understand something...attacks are not always a bad thing. When you are being attack, people start to notice you. They visit your website...they investigate you, etc. That is why Huckabee's website is having record numbers of viewers right now.
Remember Clinton in 1992? Unknown Governor from Arkansas...darkhorse. Got attacked like crazy with his affairs...what happened? Did it sink his campaign? Nope...it got Clinton's name out there...AND Clinton was able to weather the storm because Clinton could communicate well with the American people. (Huckabee can also communicate very well with the American people. They like him...thus they will give him a lot of room to GROW as a candidate, just like they did with Clinton.)
Huckabee isn't being hurt by these stories. The more he is attacked, the more it helps him. Unless the media finds something truly shocking on Huckabee, they won't stop him. (i.e., an affair would destroy Huckabee because his campaign is based on him being a "good guy".)
And you don't think it is evident that Huckabee isn't going to win Iowa? Ok, keep thinking that. Mark this down: Huckabee will win Iowa by a landslide, will finish no lower than third in NH...and then will win Michigan, SC and Florida. At that point, the only candidate that will be left will be Rudy...and he will have to pray for some late miracle. (McCain has an outside chance if he can win NH...and then win in Michigan)
Romney is finished because he won't win Iowa. |
|
You have Hewitt down cold.
Many of the so called conservative pundits play the dog in return for access (Hannity) or let the audience (ratings) determine the view (O'Reilly).
The one who stands out in not succumbing to either pressure is Rush Limbaugh, and his appeal is unassailable. He's been on TV and abandoned it for those reasons. And rare is the guest who shares his mic with him. And that's why we love him.
Also, NR has been moving away from the views its founder Buckley might approve of, but then what does an old man, credited with founding the conservative movement, know about survival in the business world.
Read NewsMax...Ruddy is a fine editor. |
|
|
get endorsements from smittened republicans and a National Review that has either not Reviewed Romney's Record or doesn't care about Romney's Record - but the average voter is not buying this magazine or reading the nonsense written by Mitt's Missionaries about other republican candidates on the web - and that is very good news! |
|
|
Moral Values? And how can shifting values be trusted? |
|
|
Do some research if you're curious about what Mitt's made of, why don't ya? The man has led a stand-up, stirling life. He's a straight arrow, family guy with no dirt sticking out of his sleeve. Value that. |
|