|
One big message from Iowa is: who gives a crud about el Rushbo?! |
|
The only credible candidates are still Romney, Guiliani and Fred. Thinking conservatives (as opposed to those in Iowa who apparently refuse to think) will never willingly drive the party over a cliff with McCain or Huck.
Why would we do that? We wouldn't . . .
Huck won a small battle (20 delegates to Romney's 18), but can't win the war. Ditto for McCain. |
|
The real story on Iowa is Obama's big win. That pulls Independents from McCain in NH.
Romney wins NH if McCain doesn't have independents.
Rush Limbaugh will be giving McCain a RINO enema for the next 3 days. |
|
|
No matter how you spin it. Bad news for Romney. Worse news for Rudy (Where the hell has he gone?)But even more depressing news for small c conservatives. Huckleberry is anything but a conservative. I really don't know how to tag this preacher man. I guess he's a pro life johnny edwards. Whatever. I'll take even the despised McCain over this clown. If he's the nominee, say hello to President Obama. |
|
|
Huck now has 20 delegates. Romney has 18. Awfully close. If Huckabee doesn't woo them in New Hampshire, he'll have to wait a while until South Carolina. No guarantees there...Romney still has a great chance to beat John McCain in NH, Michigan, etc., and still pick up the eventual nod. |
|
I can see him now:
"But... but... my smile is nicer than his! And I have more money! Why don't people like me!"
Thank god we don't have to see Mitt in spandex or pretend to enjoy hunting. |
|
I agree with you Richard. I'm so tired of hearing Romney supporters decry religious bigotry on the one hand and then bringing up Huckabee's former pastorate. It smacks me of convenience.
Let's drop the discussion of the candidates' religion in toto. |
|
|
All these predictions that Huckabee can't win outside of Iowa is crazy talk. Do you honestly think Romney or Rudy are going to resonate better in the South and Midwest red states as convincing as Huck? He'll keep all the red states for the GOP and probably add Michigan. That's enough to win the general election. Rudy and Romney claim they can put blue states in play. Maybe, but they won't win any of them. They aren't going to out-do an actual Democrat in a blue state. Neither of them is going to put Michigan in play, but Huckabee can make a solid run there. Either Rudy or Romney would lose Ohio. Huck won't. As for the talk about Bloomberg...what red state can he win? None. Not even Florida. He could win in NY and NJ, and that will hurt the Dems...not the GOP. Mike Huckabee can go the distance and has a much better shot than Rudy or Mitt would have in November. |
|
I'm so tired of people spinning Huckabee's question to The Times interviewer. It's low and it's lame to constantly cry "FOUL" and then keep brining it up. Is the Huckabee campaign running on this? Pleae! It was not the smartest thing to say. I'm sure Huckabee would like to take it back. But who keeps brining religious bigotry to the forefront?
I am not a Mike Huckabee supporter. However, I am repulsed by mis-characterizations: of ANY candidate! So, I want to broach something that I have yet to hear anyone articulate.
During the 70's and 80's there were several movies produced about the Mormon faith. In explaining Mormon differences with Christianity, they describe Jesus and Satan as brothers. One by name is THE GOD MAKERS. Growing up a Southern Baptist, it is quite probable that this is where Mike Huckabee heard that Jesus and Satan were brothers. Belonging to a denomination that is primarily Fundamentalist, I can see where there would be no challenge to that understanding of doctrine. These movies, along with Dr, Walter Martin, have been the primary authority on the Mormon religion from a Fundamentalist Christian perspective. Whether correct or incorrect, they have been the "go to" layman's resource.
I bring up this point so that fair minded people can consider the statement a little more objectively. These movies are where I was taught the same thing. I'm not an average churchgoer. I have gone to Moody Bible Institute and believed the same thing. I would have asked the same question. It wouldn't have been to denigrate the Mormon church. It would be an honest inquiry.
Was it smart for Huckabee to ask a reporter that question? No. But, can't we let it drop. I'm sick of hearing about it. In any event, please place Gov. Huckabee's question in context. He is surely not running around the countryside talking about it. |
|
Daniel - If Iowans are a bunch of religious tribalists (read bigots), then why oh why did Mitt spend millions there trying to win their votes? Hugh assured us Mitt has a plan to win Iowa, plus he used his business skills to organize the ground game, right?
Mitt lost because he tried to sell himself as something he was not - a core conservative. Iowans saw right thru his act and were not convinced. If Mitt had presented his true self - an accomplished businessman and technocrat, he would have fared better. Playing the bigot card at this point is not becoming.
Iowans are not bigots, Dems in that state gave an overwhelming victory to Obama. |
|
Your claim that Romney's problem was a lack of substance would be more convincing if Mike Huckabee, king of the one-liner, hadn't just taken the Iowa caucuses. |
|
Absolutely right. The quote from Mitt that Hugh posted on the header of this thread sums up the theme and essence of the Romney campaign. It's not that he SHOULD be elected, only that he WILL be elected. It is a stupid, tiresome, and ultimately undemocratic game.
Huck put it best when he said that he is the guy who works in the cubicle next to you, while Mitt is the guy who laid you off. |
|
"Huckabee's statement about Jesus/Satan was crass, but at least he apologized for it. His unveiling a negative ad about Romney and then pledging not to run it was also cynical"
And, in my judgment, the two episodes followed much the same pattern. He unleashed the "Jesus/Satan" statement. Then, when there was blowback, he apologized -- very publicly, on stage -- which allowed him to raise the issue again in the news while appearing to be above it all. The same thing occurred (and, we can now see, clearly worked) with his "I'd show this ad about Romney's dishonesty but I'm too good for that and would somebody dim the lights, please?"
"Huckabee is an effective communicator."
There's no question that he's good. His one-liners are quick and funny. And glibness can be a very good quality. But the ancient Sophists were good communicators too, and so were some of the great tyrants of the twentieth century.
I'm aware of the damage that the flip-flopping meme did to Mr. Romney. I regard it as grossly exaggerated, but concede that there was enough there to make it stick beyond its actual merits.
However, I remain convinced (sadly) that the overwhelming evangelical vote for Mr. Huckabee and against Mr. Romney rested, to a disturbingly large degree, on religious tribalism. I know what's said about Mormons and Mormonism in all too many evangelical churches, radio programs, seminars, newsletters, films, sermons, Sunday School classes, pamphlets, picket signs, television broadcasts, and the like. I've read some of the things posted on Mr. Huckabee's own web site.
On another matter, to repeat myself: If Mr. Huckabee's brand of populism takes control of the Republican Party, I'll leave it within ten minutes. |
|
Danbar - Huck may fizzle out, or he may not, but he won tonight, and he won big time, and no one can take that away from him.
He delivered a possibly fatal blow to the Romney campaign (McCain will deliver the knock out punch Tuesday) and totally discredited the Hewitt attack machine. If he succeeds in nothing more, I will be grateful to him. |
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/a_hard_lo ss_for_romney.html
A large piece of the Romney campaign's failure was its unwillingness to discuss the major issues facing the country in substantive terms. He never said one interesting thing about how to defeat radical Islam in its war against the United States in particular and the developed world in general. In the midst of the greatest financial meltdown in at least two decades, he didn't offer up even the sketchiest proposal for national or international oversight of the global financial system. In the midst of a genomic revolution in biological science, one that impacts everything from energy to health care to national security, he said nothing at all.
A large part of politics is framing the context in which one's candidacy is understood. Romney was never going to be a base candidate. He's a Mormon and the base is not. Romney was never going to be the "conservative" candidate, he was the former governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the most liberal state in the country, and campaigned there for the US Senate (in 1994) and for governor (in 2002) as a moderate.
|
|
I agree with many of the posters that Pastor Huckleberry's win is short lived. The guy is an inch deep and a mile wide,used car salesman ingratiating himself to every potential voter, with a yuk,yuk, "cant' we all get along? Big government can do great things" pandering demeanor.
The purple staters have great disdain for the notion of another southern state ex-governor "liberal" (even if he does have an "R" in front of his name.) We've seen enough of this type. Huckleberry . . . you're no Ronald Reagan. The conservative punditry will eviscerate you for the Liberal Chameleon you are.
Your spinners on this blog are out of their minds.
Woody |
|
Statements like the ones Mitt Romney made tonight in that tagline above, are part of the reason why people respond positively to Huckabee and negatively towards Romney. Where is the humility in losing in that remark?
Not convinced? Compare that comment with Huckabee's victory speech. There is a big difference in attitudes and how that comes across to the voter.
Just my two cents. |
|
What's Hot What's Not
Old Republican = Romney's negative ads, Hugh Hewitt's delusional spinning, Romney trying to buy Iowa voters, MSM outlets (National Review? soooo 1990's), Rush & Rudy, Letterman, and Apple.
New Republican = Huckabee's refreshing authenticity and transparency, homeschoolers, bloggers, NASCAR moms, Michael Medved, Leno, and Blackberry.
|
|
in a couple of days. What the pudits are saying, "Polls showed more than 8 in 10 of Mike Huckabee’s supporters described themselves as evangelicals."
How is the Huck going to overcome being classified as the "evangelical" candidate going forward. Identity politics will backfire on him big time. I suspect in about 5 days the cheers from the Hucksters will turn to tears as they reflect that it was fun while it lasted.
In states with five or ten per cent evangelical supporters, I wonder how the Huck will do? Let's see if these fantastic followers start opening up their wallets and start pouring in the millions in donations necessary for Huck to compete in the next few states.
My guess is the Huck will fizzle fast. I doubt most Americans will be as gullible as this handful of religious fanatics in Iowa. Frankly I am embarrassed for Iowan's, their credibility with me is now zero.
|
|
This is as bad as it could be for Mitt. It wasn't a close finish, and it's hard to see how his numbers in New Hampshire go anywhere but south. As for McCain, granted that he couldn't lose, he had a great night. Fred decided to court Iowa assiduously whereas Mister Maverick refused to drink the ethanol, and the difference between Fred's courtship and McCain's disdain is currently one point. Most of the Thompson-Giuliani vote in NH and some of the Romney support, too, will migrate to Maverick over the next few days.
Where I disagree with Ramesh is in the idea that this provides an opening for Rudy. Assuming Huck manages a strong third in NH, we'll be locked into a Huck/McCain fight and anybody looking for a neither-of-the-above is unlikely to settle on Rudy, who'd be at least as polarizing as those two.
I'd also disagree with Ramesh's idea that this was a good night for Christians reaching across the aisle. It would be truer to say that for a proportion of Huck's followers there is no aisle: he's their kind of Christian, and all the rest - foreign policy, health care, mass transit, whatever - is details. This is identity politics of a type you don't often see on the Republican side.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2MxZjkxYjdhZDNiYW Q4Y2NlZTU3OTMxYzcwNjc2YjI= |
|
*****The truth is that the Republican party tonight is in complete disarray. The best financed candidate just fell on his face. Their big winner of the evening is opposed by almost the entire establishment of his party. The frontrunner of recent months is lost down in Florida shakily repeating '9/11' under his breath like a hobo who needs a stiff drink.
McCain's just the only guy left. And that ain't nothing. Because one of them does have to win. And I'd rather see the Dems face Romney than McCain.****
He's right, of course. Mitt is less formidable than McCain. But the larger truth is that the seams are frayed in the Republican coalition, and it is not going to be stitched back together by castigating Democrats. Personally, I think need a transitional figure, like Goldwater, in this cycle. Huck fits the bill. He may lose in the general, but it will give you folks a chance to engage in some healthy philosophic housecleaning. |
|
You hit the nail right on the head. I'm a conservative who understands the damage the current GOP leadership has done to the country and the party. They've been running the GOP into the ground. The election trends in 2006 were horrible for the GOP and millions of social conservatives and middle class conservatives have been left behind by the Wall Sreet neo-con driven GOP. A populist candidate like Huckabee offers the GOP the only hope of stemming the Democrat tide in November. Romney or Rudy can't win. They are part of what broke the Republican Party. They aren't the one's who can fix it.
Now I certainly don't see the solution coming from the Democrats...but I also don't see it coming from establishment GOPers like Mitt and Rudy.
That's reality. |
|
Romney’s only real choice was to run as a Republican Gary Hart, the candidate of “new ideas” for a party in desperate need of same. That would have at least given him the flexibility to play to his strengths; his intellectual prowess, his business acumen, his demonstrable executive skills and his admirable personal qualities. And it would have enabled him to attract a wide array of advisors and intellectuals to help him think through innovative policy positions on what appear to be intractable issues.
Had Romney campaigned as the GOP Gary Hart, he would have emerged as an agent of change, regardless of caucus and primary outcomes. Long-term, that would have given him leverage within the Republican Party and with voters generally. If you’re the “new idea” guy, almost by definition people want to hear what you have to say.
Instead, his handlers framed Romney’s candidacy in a fallacy. We were asked to believe that he was something that he was not. Iowa didn’t buy it and neither will anyone else. What people are looking for is leadership. What the Romney campaign offered was obeisance.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/a_hard_lo ss_for_romney.html
As Michael Malkin predicted, Romney's worst enemy is his best friend: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/07/mitt-romneys-worst-en emy/ |
|
"Ronald Reagan, Where Art Thou?
Yawn. None of the candidates are worthy of my vote. The real loser is the Conservative American. Ronald Reagan, where art thou?"
Indeed, where is the real conservative in this race? However, even Reagan was a transitional figure. More "Old Right" than any other Republican since Goldwater, but his administration gave birth to the execrable neocons.
Ron Paul is the closest candidate to a paleocon, but alas, The New and Improved GOP isn't interested. So the Reagan Coalition will start bleeding Old Right members to the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, while most of the Religious Right will gravitate toward unelectable politicians such as Huckabee.
Marxist-turned-paleocon historian Eugene Genovese predicted something like this in his book The Southern Tradition, a work I highly recommend. Here's a review by Andrew Bacevich:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/reviews/southern.htm l
|
|
I don't have a dog in this fight--in my mind, Rudy or McCain would be the toughest opponents in the Fall--but I think Mitt's defeat tonight amounts to a disconnect between the Republican base and its leadership. Hugh talks about the "MSM powered Huck," but the reality is that all the powers-that-be in the Republican party--what Hugh calls "the influencers"--are lined up against him. Huck's victory tonight represents a loss for the Republican leadership.
I think when you get away from inside-the-beltway types like Rush and Sean and Cheney and Kristol and Fred Barnes, you have a real recognition among conservatives that the problems facing our country are not simply the result of liberals and Democrats and Bill Clinton. I think there is a greater willingness among normal conservatives, if not the die-hards who watch Foxnews religiously and listen to talk radio, to acknowledge the Republican role in our nation's decline. Huck is aligned to that sensibility. Mitt decidedly is not. Mitt is part of the "its not our fault" clique and I think normal conservative Americans are fed up with that. Maybe I'm wrong, but tonight was a tough night for conservative leaders. Americans are still decidedly conservative, but they appear to be deciding that the conservative leadership is part of the problem. |
|
cjb56 I heard Rush on Fox too. Rush is looking for another Reagan, well, there was only one Reagan, God bless him, but this is the 21st Century and times have changed. Rush was not his usual confident self, and he certainly was not the king maker in Iowa.
If I recall Rush did not like McCain in 2000, so that leaves Mitt and Rudy. I have not listened lately, is Rush trying to sell Rudy as a Reagan conservative? Wow, that does not even pass the laugh test.
|
|
this evening proved is that the GOP is absolutely doomed.
So have your fun fighting back and forth, boys, but neither of your guys are going to win the general with numbers like this.
If it continues like this, it really doesn't matter WHO wins the nomination.
Next year, we will have a Democrat in the white house and a democratic majority in the two houses.
Lord save us. |
|
|
Tylenol - you have a good point - I wonder how many voters turned to Huck by the relentless bashing he received from Mitt's proxy, Mr. Hewitt? They are saying Iowans don't like negative campaigning, so I attribute part of Mitt's loss to this HH show and blog. |
|
|
Yawn. None of the candidates are worthy of my vote. The real loser is the Conservative American. Ronald Reagan, where art thou? |
|
|
Huckabee's statement about Jesus/Satan was crass, but at least he apologized for it. His unveiling a negative ad about Romney and then pledging not to run it was also cynical, but the fact that he could gloss over that so effectively on Leno's show proves my point that Huckabee is an effective communicator. The truth is that Huckabee didn't even need to slime Romney about Mormonism. Mitt lost because he is so patently inauthentic. That Evangelicals voters (especially those earning less than $50k) went overwhelmingly for Huckabee is probably also explained by their unwillingness to be told what to do by the Wall Street Journal/GOP establishment. Withness all of the vitriol here against Hugh for his shameless unbalanced pimping of Romney. Unless inauthenticity is a hallmark of being Mormon, you needn't feel alienated by the IOWA GOP's vote against Romney. Iowa caucus-goers had plenty of reasons to vote against Mitt that had nothing to do with his LDS beliefs. |
|
|
Rush just said the Iowa win isn't really the end all be all for Huck...because the Iowa winner doesn't have a good history of winning the GOP nomination. Really? Bush in 1988, Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000, Bush in 2004. I believe they all went on to win the GOP nomination. The winner in New Hampshire has not always got the nomination...but that is not the case with Iowa in the past twenty years. |
|
Burley said, "Pat Robertson won Iowa too. Hucksterbee is a much bigger joke than Pat."
Check your history. Robertson did not win Iowa...he finished second.
Also...Robertson wasn't a Governor for 10 years in a state where he balanced the budget every year. And Robertson never had the communicative skills that Huckabee does.
Wake up man...the Republican Party is shifting. |
|
|
a hundred miles away. Anyone who did not see this growing populist movement brewing over the past few years is blind...or a member of the beltway elite. Huckabee and Obama's wins tonight are a product of the restlessness among the majority of the population. Now here's Rush to the rescue on FOX trying to explain what happened from his cushy mansion in Palm Beach. Rush is just another one of the blind who is trying to lead the masses, but the masses eyes are wide open...and they are tired of what the establishment is selling them. |
|
Here is what I think:
McCain will win NH...BUT, Huckabee will finish second. Romney...with a third place finish in NH...will be done. Regardless of what happens in Michigan.
I think both McCain and Huckabee have a great shot in Michigan. Then...all the focus comes to South Carolina.
And South Carolina is Huckabee country....(anywhere south of the Mason Dixon line Huckabee will win, including Florida). |
|
ONE MONTH OF TOTALLY BIASED RADIO, IT BACKFIRED
YOU INSULTED 70% OF YOUR LISTENER BASE
TAKE A LESSON IN HUMILITY HUGH
WE MAKE UP OUR OWN MINDS OUT HERE
|
|
|
Daniel - You and I both. Think I'll go check the Constitution Party's web site. |
|
I think more people out there "get it" than don't. The money in the Republican Party comes from a very small group. The actual voters are middle class and working class folks, and they are the huge numbers that make up the GOP. Huckabee will play very well to them...and not because they are stupid. It's because they have the common sense the chattering class lacks.
The Huck detractors on here don't seem to realize how skilled of a politician Huckabee is...and he will keep every red state for sure, including Ohio and Florida...and that's enough to win the general. |
|
|
Just because America in general has a smaller percentage of evangelicals than does Iowa does not mean that Huckabee can't do well in upcoming primaries and the general election. Being a conservative Christian didn't preclude George W Bush from winning twice. Nor did GWB's profligate spending (Medicare drug benefit). Huckabee even has appeal among Democrats. He had generally-liberal audiences on the Daily Show and Leno eating out of his hand. (The most likeable candidates won in both parties tonight.) The rabid Huckabee haters seem to be reacting more to a caricature of him (Gomer Pyle, Baptist minister) than to the real candidate. He is smart enough (and authentic enough) to endear himself to people with his "aw shucks" manner while proving to be a thoughtful candidate. Reagan was widely considered to be a dunce. So was Eisenhower. They prevailed nonetheless. At a time when the country is prediposed to vote for a Democrat presidential candidate, Huckabee's having been opposed by the entire GOP establishment could actually help him in places like Ohio. As unlikely as it sounds to some of you, Huckabee is the GOP's strongest candidate in 2008. |
|
|
Pat Robertson won Iowa too. Hucksterbee is a much bigger joke than Pat. He'll be one and done. At least he'll always have Iowa. It won't matter much now that the Iowa GOP has completely delegitimized itself but he'll still have it. |
|
Governor Romney lost. I confess that I'm less upset by that than I am by the fact that Governor Huckabee won, and won big.
I think it a dishonorable victory (based, to a considerable and shameful degree, upon the exploitation of religious tribalism, a suspicion that the apparently enormous turnout of evangelical Iowans only seems to confirm), and, ultimately, a futile one. It is a virtual certainty that Mr. Huckabee will not be the Republican nominee, and he will definitely not be our next president. Moreover, he SHOULD not be.
It is also bad news, I believe, for the Republican Party and, much more importantly, for the conservative movement. Mr. Huckabee is not a genuine conservative, and, although I still regard it as highly unlikely, his nomination would destroy the Reagan coalition -- which Ed Rollins may no longer value, but which I and many other conservatives DO.
In the meantime, I would caution the Huckaboosters not to crow too much or to behave in too unseemly and arrogant a fashion. They will, inevitably, lose soon enough themselves -- and I'm not speaking merely of New Hampshire. There are no permanent victories in politics, and there are no permanent defeats. The Republican Revolution in the House ended not with a bang but a whimper, and Nancy Pelosi is now our Speaker and in the line of presidential succession. Harry Reid is Senate majority leader. Reagan-Bush was followed by Clinton, and Clinton by Bush II. Bush II will very likely be followed by a Democrat.
Most of all, to be candid, since I think Mr. Romney loss can be ascribed to a large degree, if not principally, to the fact that he is not a "Christian" in the sense that Iowa evangelicals apparently define the term, and since I, too, am a believing Latter-day Saint, I'm wondering whether I genuinely have a home in the Republican Party. To use the once-fashionable term, I'm feeling alienated. |
|
|
I hate it when I do that. |
|
"My Happiest Moment Tonight was seeing Ron Paul get 10% to Rudy's 4%.
LOL to all the Hugh Hewitt Romney kool aid drinkers. I need to hire Hugh for my contrary indicators more often. Not such a great track record eh Hugh?"
Here, here. It'll be interesting to see how Paul does in NH, and then in the more libertarian West (minus Left Coast) on Super Tuesday.
Then whether or not he'll go LP.
|
|
cjb56 You are correct about Rush, Hugh, Hannity et al. I have voted straight GOP since Reagan '80, but I quit listening to them. Same tired old talking points, they are not addressing what's on my mind and seem to have circled the wagons with the GOP elites.
Their job is to get the rubes to the polls to vote for the candidate the party is pushing, that's why they have dumped on Huck. At least the Iowa voters were not listening, maybe I am setting a trend. |
|
|
Anno Romini...right Hugh? |
|
Here is a free word of advice to all the Huckabee supporters. Enjoy you moment in the sun while it lasts, because it never does. What you need to be reminded is that winning a presidential election is really two competitions. The first is persuading your parities constituents to vote for you. The second is running the gambit of the national press. Huckabee has taken his first step in accomplishing the first. The second will come once a certainty of the first has been assured.
The “as shucks, I’m just a simple penitent like you” guise will no longer curry any favor from the MSM once a nomination has become certainty. And when the national press scrutiny the former governor first appears, the Republican Party will then have realized that an Arkansas bumpkin and naïf can only successfully prevail in the second competition when his name is followed by a (D). One thing Huckabee has never been accused of is being gifted in the extemporaneous Q&A milieu.
To all of you Huckabee supporters I say congratulations and I hope you all enjoy your role as Colonel Nicholson. It is a compelling role and it can you an Oscar, but it won’t achieve a 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue mailing address.
|
|
|
This is a bad night for the Republican party. Huckabee will get smashed in a national election, no question about it. I agree with the general sentiment here however - that Hugh needs to stop being a shill for the Romney campaign. |
|
They just don't get it. Here's Laura Ingraham on FOX saying that Romney should go to a state like Michigan and give a big speech on the economy and what he'll do to help.
Duh.
Do you think the average Michigander...sitting in a state where the economy is a complete wreck in the Bush Era...wants to hear what a Wall Street corporate globalist like Mitt Romney says he's going to do to help? I don't care if his dad was the governor of the state back in the 1960's, if Mitt went into Michigan and told them the Bush GOP economy was working for them...he would be booed off the stage.
The GOP Beltway chattering class is so out of touch with the average American, they are beyond hope. That includes Rush, Hannity, Hugh and the rest of them. |
|
People like Professor X and other people here are making bold predictions about a nomination that has just STARTED!
Go ahead an predict the outcome of the next couple of primaries/caucuses, but PLEASE don't embarrass yourself by predicting the next President, for goodness sakes! It's WAY too early!
|
|
Crow is best eaten quickly.
Many of your fans have pointed out how uncomfortable you have made us over your having become a Romney front piece. I hope this will convince you to redeem yourself and your show.
I like Romney better than Huckabee, by the way.
|
|
Mitt Romney is a liar.
Mike Huckabee won.
Victory is sweet, Hugh. |
|
|
I'm in Ohio and I assure you Huckabee's message will play very well in this state that's been devastated economically during the Bush Era. The blue collar folks in the urban areas and the huge rural social conservative population will surely be drawn to Hucks message. It's people like Mitt and Rudy that won't play well here. The establishment GOP in Ohio is not popular, at all. |
|
Love the show Hugh but I really hope this changes the direction of your show just a bit.
I would ultimately like to see 1) Giuliani 2) Romney 3) McCain.
That being said, I get annoyed listening to your show and hear you shill for Romney on a nightly basis. Something about it just rubs me the wrong way and makes less likely to see things your way. |
|
|
Hugh knows how to pick em -- not the way Iowa does. 9% is substantial. That quote reminds me of what I don't like about Romney. Then to call the nomination his .... Will there be war between the establishment elite Republicans. I hear Hugh loading up. Mitt is not that graceful about loosing. But he has a crutch, blame it on the anti-Mormon thing. |
|
was seeing Ron Paul get 10% to Rudy's 4%.
LOL to all the Hugh Hewitt Romney kool aid drinkers. I need to hire Hugh for my contrary indicators more often. Not such a great track record eh Hugh? |
|
Please quit comparing Mittbot to Reagan.
read this Hugh
Mitt Romney is the UNREAGAN
got that? the exact opposite of Reagan... not Reagan, Phony not sincere, Fake not real, Liberal not conservative....do you get it yet?
No more Reagan comparisons okay?
sincerely,
Everyone in the world |
|
|
“A Mormon in the Dog House?” |
|
"What to do with Huckabee? He has all but stated that non-evangelicals not apply."
I don't think that's true in the slightest. I'm an atheist and I'm avid fan of Mike Huckabee. I am though, admittedly, a social conservative, and I would like to see a return of genuine fiscal responsibility, and economic responsibility within the Republican Party. That means not shrinking government for its own sake, but balancing one's budgets. It means not shrinking government, but cutting wasteful spending, and increasing useful spending, and then increasing or decreasing taxes to match. It means turning us back into the biggest creditor nation of all time, rather than the biggest debtor. It means engaging in trade policies that do not maximize the gains of trade overall but which only go to benefit a few people, but enacting trade policies that benefit the majority of Americans, particularly when the people we trade with take advantage of our inaction.
And yes, being a social conservative, my support for Huckabee more than anything means upholding and enforcing laws that recognize the dignity and rights of our fellow man. |
|
Look on the bright side Hugh. At least your getting a lot of traffic tonight! Even is all of yoru visitors are telling you what a pathetic elitist pseudo mercenary conservative you are.
Shill.
Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa
cheer up Hugh. things don't look that bad in New Hampshire. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot. Your boy Slick Willard is tanking there too.
Classic.
Now Lay off the Kool Aid Hewitt. |
|
|
I do see some hope for Huck in Florida. Giuliani is generating no excitement, and the door's open. But no, Huck won't win OH, NY, or CA. |
|
|
There is NO WAY the Republicans can win in November with the Huckster. His only support is among the Evangelicals. I go to church every Sunday and consider myself to be religious. I will not vote for Huckabee under any circumstances whatsoever. If he is the nominee, it will be the first election I will miss in over 30 years. Look at his record. I wonder who the Huckster would pardon if he is President. I hear Charlie Manson found God tonight. |
|
With five or so hours to go till the Iowa Caucuses, Mitt Romney has to be judged the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, but it’s awfully hard to find anyone not named Hugh Hewitt who seems excited about the prospect. More than enough ink has been spilled on how his political inauthenticity, his consultant-ish pursuit of ideological correctness, has undermined any excitement surrounding his candidacy, replacing it with the resigned, “he’s the best we can do” thinking that undergirds the NR endorsement and others like it. (David Brooks’ column this weekend offers, I think, the last word on the subject.) For my part, though, the most alienating and off-putting quality of the Romney campaign hasn’t been what’s he’s said, but how he’s said it - the words he’s chosen and the tone he’s employed, which have made following the Romney campaign the equivalent of listening to nails drawn across a chalkboard.
... Romney comes across as Ray Kurzweil crossed with Joel Osteen. I’m talking about the way he sounded when he burst out with his famous “we ought to double Guantanamo” line - like an ad man proposing a brilliant new sales pitch, not a would-be President grappling with a difficult issue. I’m talking about how phony he seems when he puts on his most serious face and talks about the looming threat of an “international jihadist Caliphate.” I’m not talking about his flip-flops, but the graceless way he flip-flops; as Ryan Lizza wrote, “he not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances,” which makes all those (equally-passionate) old YouTube clips all the more damaging. And I’m talking about the way the off-message Mitt seems no better than the on-message Mitt: the former seems phony, but the latter ranges from tone-deaf to just plain weird.
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/ross_dou hat_on_romney/ |
|
|
Actually , McCain and Fred are about tied in Iowa as of now. John could beat Fred. Then NH could go his way. Rudy did not campaign in Iowa and might go to NH for 4 days. He probably will not do well there either unless Mitt craters as one way wrote and Huck just doesn't do well in that secular state. Fred might hang in there. It seems as if Mitt is really the guy who will be hunting for delegates while the others could be on even a small leap forward, that would obviate any new Mitt mo. Yep, if Mitt loses in NH, he is just going to win Mich, unopposed, and that might be it for Feb. 5 et al. Oh well, there might be a Cabinet job if a Pub wins in Nov. The real story of Iowa unfortunately is the Obama Change strategery which seems to be without any foundations, structures of issue orientation but it sure sounds good. |
|
I don't think Mitt can recover.
I don't think Fred can emerge.
So where does that leave us?
Will economic and national security conservatives really vote for Mike Huckabee?
Will conservatives concerned with the issue of illegal immigration ever vote for John McCain?
Will social conservatives ever support Rudy Giuliani?
Whatever happens, the old coalition is over. |
|
Hugh, We told you that you were going to ruin your career shilling for Romney and that he would lose in Iowa.
Now you have to deal with the fact that you sold out. Romney is going down and so are you Hugh.
And you rightly deserve everything that is coming your way.
Malpractice Hewitt. That's what you committed. By ignoring Romney's illegal actions as governor.
Malpractice.
journalistic malpractice and legal malpractice.
Have another chug a lug of the Romney Kool Aid Hugh. |
|
The man won because he believes in Jesus. So do I but that does not mean he belongs in the White House. He is MSM creation. Heck even the FARS news agency supports him. They love him in Iran. The Dem's want him and they want him bad. Why? because they know he will get creamed in a general election. If he gets the nomination, I thank Iowa first for our 50 state loss. Kiss the Supreme Court goodbye. Then where were will our pro-life, family values agenda go. Down the toilet that's where.
Inchdeep |
|
is an affable empty suit.
This race has just started, there is a LONG way to go over the next 6 weeks. This is not the beginning of the end; it's the end of the beginning. Huck will be gone by February. |
|
|
Imagine Huck winning in Ohio, Florida, New York or California. I can't, can you? Those are the states with the huge prizes. You can't win the nomination without them. |
|
turnaround "king" of the SALT LAKE CITY UTAH Olympics.
Has the very biggest turnaround of his life in five days.
Can he push poll that fast?
Can he change positions agin in time to "right" the ship?
Can he put together enough dirt against the field to continue his inevitble ascendency to the job he has been groomed-for all of his life?
No.
He Can't.
Get over Mitt. Maybe you don't like Mike. I do, you don't have to.
But where do you go from here, when Mitt is done?
Fred? McCain? Rudy?
Fine, Fine, Fine.
Just.
Not.
Mitt.
Not now, not ever.
Mitt *isn't* what you naively bought from the clearance aisle of pitch-perfect, poll-tested plasticity.
Never was. Please write a book about someone else already. |
|
I'm afraid the anti-Romney crowd may have created a monster in Huck. The problem with your thesis is that lots of populous states have plenty of evangelical voters - among GOP primary voters, that is.
Not NY, CA, NJ, of course, but you take the south, add the plains and midwest and parts of the west, and you have some significant GOP states.
I just don't see tonight as a big loss for Huck. |
|
I knew you could do it! May you continue with such success in future contests!
To the Romney supporters, I for one bid no ill will towards you or your candidate. Romney's an affable man, and certainly says all the right things matching up with the Reagan coalition, but on the issues most dear to me I just happen to trust Huckabee more. While I obviously want Huckabee to win, I don't think you should be disheartened. Remember it's not over for your guy because of one state. Despite struggling with McCain, Romney's still the home-team favorite in New Hampshire. |
|
I'm depressed. I'll vote for Romney, Rudy, Thompson or even McCain. If the Huckster gets the nomination, I'm staying home. I will not vote for such an unprincipaled, pardon loving, illegal alien loving, tax raising liberal like Huckabee.
This is a man who pardons murderers because they have "found God." But only if they find his God. That's worse then selling pardons. |
|
long term winners
Mike Bloomberg - biggest winner
RG - second and can now continue to wait in the wings
JM - seems like the bigger winner but the brawl in NH will further thin the field and create enemies.
no rational person would vote for MH or BO as President and in charge of the military and our safety.
prediction - if MR loses NH and Mich (now very likely), he withdraws and endorses RG. Become RG VP
|
|
There's no doubt that team Rudy is popping the bubbly right now. Yes, it is embarassing they got blown out in Iowa, but they never tried anything there. (Bad move imo.) Romney's lead in NH is slipping. That means with 3 early states, nobody has a mandate. (McCain might win in NH, and Romney will take MI.) SC becomes a 3 man fight, where those 3 will bloody each other with one of them dropping out by then.
Then we head to Florida, where things get interesting, and eventually into Super Tuesday, where it still looks like a divided field amongst conservatives. Rudy cleans house in such a situation.
Now the more salient question..... What to do with Huckabee? He has all but stated that non-evangelicals not apply. He wants the conservative coalition that was built by the likes of Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan destroyed.
Perhaps people, seeing things trending democratic are just screaming to hell with it and voting for the true believer. |
|
i have been publicly posting about this of months and predicting romney would lose because hugh hewitt is cursed. whenever he makes predictions it always ends up the exact opposite.
i am not trying to be partisan here because i don't have a horse in this race but i have watched and listened to hewitt be wrong about absolutely everything he predicts.
|
|
|
Harriet Miers. If you see Hugh coming HEAD FOR THE HILLS! |
|
|
does anyone here study history? there are as many republicans who have lost Iowa and won the nomination as who have won Iowa and received the nomination. Now anything can happen. The field is wide open. Its a four man Race between Huck, Romney, McCain, and Rudy. |
|
|
It's not over for Romney yet but when Hugh decides it is over, please let him start posting a bunch of "Rudy Rising" posts. THat'll kill Rudy's chances for sure. |
|
|
I wonder if the "Establishment" learned its lesson. |
|
|
We'll have to see what happens. But, at least I have further confirmaiton in these comments that it is okay to sit out the election if Rudy get's the nomination. Apparently Hillary must not be that bad after all. |
|
|
...for book sales, don't you think Hugh? Take off your cheerleader outfit and come back to earth - Mitt was a disaster from the start. He should host "The Price is Right" rather than running for President. |
|
The two worst candidates (among those who are not insane) have been defeated tonight. One is Mittens who will now go on to get thrashed in NH and the other Huckabee who will discover that states without massive numbers of evangelicals will never vote for him.
Thank goodness. My top 3 are still alive after tonight. The only thing we needed tonight was for Mittens to get clobbered and for Fred to do well enough. |
|
I just had to come over here and let Hugh know that some of us Christian conservative can't stand Romney and his lying ways, and that despite your obvious lovefest with Romney, HUCK cloppered him. HA HA HA....
You gotta love it! |
|
Winners:
Huck
Thompson
Obama
Losers:
Mitt
Edwards (needed to come in a *much* stronger 2nd, not tied with Hillary)
Hugh
Rush
George Will
Hannity
Coulter
Ingraham
othe nameless beltway geniuses
Undecided:
McCain
Guiliani
Clinton
If the "two man" race is Thompson and Huck, I doubt if it's that simple, but I'd be ok with it. Thompson needs to get A LOT less relaxed about this, though.
NH is a very small state. SC is very interesting.
MI may be the early ballgame... (at least winnowing things down to two) |
|
There is no good news for Mitt tonight. Hugh has been flogging him on radio and the blog for months, and even wrote a book about Mitt.
Mitt spent millions and is losing by double digits.
I think the new media Hugh tells us lumpen about all the time was a factor, specifically all the you tubes with the flip Mitt compared with the flop Mitt. His defense of abortion on you tube left a mark. The voter saw this man had no core, and turned away from him. Mitt should have run as the technocrat he is, not an overnight conservative.
Wow, the Corner is almost as depressed as this blog. |
|
This makes your record of prophecies pretty bleak, don't it?
But oh, thank the Lord the GOP will put up Huckabee.
It will be a biblical defeat for this dying Elephant.
And that silence you hear is HH staring stunned at his framed poster of Mitt...falling...falling... |
|
|
Unfortunately Hugh cost Romney votes, certainly never helped him. |
|
|
The New Hampshire newspaper that labelled Romney "A phony" captured the essence of the man as perceived by Democrats, Independents and many Republicans. The ultimate beneficiary of this devastating indictment will be John McCain who remained true to his convictions. McCain will beat Romney by a wide margin in New Hampshire and Romney will be done. |
|
Who will never, ever, vote for Huckabee. Romney, I would vote for if forced to it, but never Huckabee. He is a scary evangelical liberal. I would even vote for a dem. Huckabee would destroy the republican coalition.
Wade Nason
Highlands Ranch, Colorado |
|
HUGH HEWITT AND RUSH LIMBAUGH ARE BOTH LOSING THEIR LISTENER BASE. They both are an embarrassment to the Republican Party and Americas conservatives. They are becoming more and more out of touch with their conservative base every day. Perhaps they are connected among the political masons. Their ship is sinking and they have lost credibility. Their arrogance and pride precedes their fall.
The Shift in Momentum IS FOR PRESIDENT HUCKABEE in 2008
Mike Huckabee is presidential material and is alone able to defeat Hillary & Obama. I am now convinced that those wealthier donors to Romney's, Giuliani's, and Thompson's campaign have wasted their money and if they continue, are wasting their hard earned money on candidates who do not have voter appeal or substance. As a member of the younger generation, I will tell you point blank, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson DO NOT connect with us.
ROMENY has run out of gas. He has been the worst investment money could buy. His persecution complex makes him so defensive, weepy and wimpy that he cracks under pressure. His fake, calculated tears make him look like a BIG WEENIE before now Czar Putin in mother Russia and rest of the world. Romneys negative campaigning reveals his unprofessional desperation and that he is really an unkind angry old man. BOTH Romney's and Giuliani's flip flop past makes them a liability and not an asset for republicans in 2008.
Every time Huckabee is heard his approval amongst Republicans and Democrats increases even WITHOUT major financial support. He is the Republican's secret weapon in the 2008 election. Huckabee's proven leadership can help bring America together as a team.
Huckabee is the BEST candidate because he not only attracts republicans but also democrats to his side without compromising his principles. Both side support is needed to win this election in 2008 and he has it.
WHY HUCKABEE WINS THE NOMINATION and the PRESIDENCY
http://evolutionfacts.townhall.com
|
|
|
Didn't Jimmy Carter win in 1976. Hugh's lost it. |
|
|
Man, that is some trenchant analysis there, Hugh. Not what I expected after your weeks and weeks of posturing and spinning and lecturing. I guess you've finally discovered that the majority of conservative voters aren't droids capable of being programmed. All the money and hair gel in the world won't protect Mitt from his own previous flip-flopping and political opportunism. It's all right there on the internets, after all! |
|
...second place. Just watch, Mittens' NH numbers are going to crater.
Meanwhile, Fred did respectably well and is headed down for SC for a home game.
By the way, the Detroit News (I think that was the name of the paper) came out endorsing McCain. |
|
is he can hold out for Michigan, Wyoming and Nevada and hope for the best (he certainly has the resourses to do it). But I know Romney is in it for the long fight. People say Rudy is out but I see this giving him an opening and maybe Fred too. Obviously this is very good news for Huckabee and probably good news for McCain.
I think this long march as a good thing for the GOP. And I am being gracious to Hugh, Dean, Pasadeana Phil, PC, Portlandmom, Elderscapes, HNAV, etc (even disassusioned NeoConScum). They are passionate about their candidate and I am sure they will slug on. The fight continues. |
|
This is nothing short of devastating for Romney.
Still think it's a 2 man race? |
|
|
do you? Mitt outspent Huck 20 times over and lost in double digits to Huck. It's over man! |
|
|
Looks like it's a two-man race. |
|
And Mitt and Hugh also expected a big win in Iowa. Fox now has Huck 34%, Mitt 25%, a dramatic loss. And after spending millions of dollars against a barefoot Baptist. No way to spin fast enough to explain this one away.
Mitt has lost the expectations game and has no mo going into NH. He is a flip flopper who cannot connect with average Americans.
Ha, Fred Barnes on Fox looks like the dog just ate his homework. Huck may or may get the nomination, but the voters have sent a clear message to the GOP establishment. But will they listen? |
|
...didn't I just see a blog entry here touting an upcoming "double win" for Romney in IA because of his ground game and the multitude of Huckabee gaffes?
Didn't I read months and months ago that this was the perfect strategy for Romeny because he had legions of non-pro supporters familiar with knocking on doors?
BTW, I'm not a Huckabee supporter. I really don't know how he got so hot in IA, but at a minimum it shows that Romneys early support was super soft. And once he gets out of New England and Michigan, there's a good chance his candidacy craters. Giuliani must be pleased with today's result.
And Thomson and McCain aren't out of this thing either. |
|
Looks to be breaking this way:
McCain in NH
Romney in Michigan
Nailbiter in SC (could go any of three ways)
Sill wide open after that, since nobody has the momentum
I've got to say, Giuliani's strategy is looking better and better |
|
|
|
|
At long last, have you no shame?!? |
|
|
While I despise McCain, it's not looking good for Romney no matter how one spins this loss. |
|
I actually would like to see Romney win in NH. Because if this becomes a two man race between Huckabee and Romney...Huckabee will win EASILY.
A McCain v/s Huckabee battle is a little tougher for Huckabee.
Hey Hugh...I thought you said Huckabee was finished like a week ago???????????????? |
|
|
many in the building at the convention said they made the wrong choice by electing Ford over Reagan. They went with the establishment over the future. And they lost. Let's not make the same mistake in 2008. |
|
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. ::catches breath::
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
|
|
If he loses to McCain in NH, then he's toast. Sorry. |
|