Tuesday, January 08, 2008
|
|
Preempting Nonsense On A Deadline
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:47 AM
|
Of course I'm a Romney supporter, one with a soft spot for Rudy. You come here for commentary from that perspective, and I believe the commentary you read here it reflects what Romney supporters generally are thinking about the race. We're nervous this morning, and would like a win tonight, or a close loss that suggests momentum turned on Saturday and Syunday night and can continue forward, marking the Friday after Iowa as the low point of the long campaign.
But we are most definitely not packing our bags to go home if it turns out otherwise.
I heard one bit of punditry passed from microphone to microphone yesterday: If Romney doesn't win in New Hampshire, he's finished.
This assessment isn't asserted about Hillary, who also planned to win early. It isn't asserted about Mike Huckabee, Thompson or Rudy. It wasn't asserted about Hillary, McCain, Rudy or Thompson after Iowa.
The MSM and partisans of other GOP candidates are pushing to retire Romney early, even though as the debate showed on Sunday night that the narrowed field and the focused attention made him the most commanding figure on the stage.
"But he staked it all on an early state strategy!" is the reply.
Romney did hope for a knock-out of the field early and he may yet get it tonight, but as successful people in the world of business and government know, the effort doesn't end when strategies don't work. Strategies change when they don't work. Of all of the candidates, Romney has dealt more often than any of them with the surprise of changed circumstances and adapting to changed circumstances. Romney built large organizations and invested considerable time in Iowa and New Hampshire, Wyoming and Michigan, but he also has impressive organizations in South Carolina, Nevada, Florida, California and elsewhere. His appeal to Reagan conservatives especially the Club for Growth-types and social conservatives who care about at least three SCOTUS vacancies in the years ahead and know Huck doesn't have a chance isn't going to fade because Iowa evangelicals and New Hampshire Independents favor Mike Huckabee and John McCain respectively.
"But he's the governor to the state just south of the New Hampshire. He should have won!" If he wins the Republican vote, he will have won the key to the long campaign: The endorsement of the party members whose nomination he seeks.
Three other reasons to laugh at the "Romney's finished" chorus of analysts:
1. The Luntz focus group: Assume the reactions of those Alpha Republican activists across the country who watched it from start to finish are the same as the Luntz group. Are they going to let their best candidate be retired by Granite State independents?
2. The rise of Obama: Really, do you think 71-year old John McCain can come close to the phenom from Chicago? Even as concern over the war fades because of the success of the surge? The fall debates will see a respectful Obama listen intently to the elder statesman and promise to consult closely with him, and then he'll turn to the audience and talk about a new era of change that will include the best of the generation that has served us so well and so bravely. If McCain tries to get tough with Obama, the Saturday night McCain emerges, and the GOP is toast. If he smiles at Obama and comments on his youth and inexperience, everyone will hear their grandpa saying "When I was a kid...." and tune out. Turn out the lights on the GOP at that moment. The only way to beat Obama is with a overwhelming command of the issues of the economy and the future, the war against the jihadists far beyond Iraq, and the intricacies of entitlement overload and immigration control collapse. And to do so with energy and good humor.
3. Resources: Not only Romney's wealth --earned and to be respected as a result not denigrated as some of his opponents have done-- but his donor network and third party support. Do you think the Club for Growth is going to throw in the towel and abandon its agenda because older New Hampshire independents admire John McCain's heroism?
4. As Rush explained at length about Huckabee yesterday, and as John McCain's debate performance Saturday night displayed again, these are not mainstream Reagan-Bush Republicans equipped with the positions and temperament for a serious run in November. The Huck's departures from the GOP core beliefs were detailed by Rush. The amnesty debate and a series of other splits with the party disqualify McCain unless you believe that ideas really don't matter within the GOP. The longer those debates continue, the harder it becomes for MSM to keep up its protective shield around the two anti-agenda candidates.
Trying to give Mitt Romney the push to the sidelines makes sense for Democrats and their pals in the MSM, as well as for fans of McCain and Huck (though not perhaps Rudy). I think I speak for the vast majority of Romney supporters when I conclude that I'd rather he'd have won Iowa, and I hope he wins New Hampshire, but I didn't come to my position because of his electability in those states, but because of his ideas and his electability in November. I'd be disappointed only if he didn't vow to fight all the way to St. Paul.
Romney tried for a knockout punch, and may yet land one on McCain today. But Romney's not leaving even if all of New Hampshire's independents and all of the MSM wish he would.
It is the Republican nomination that Romney seeks. And thus far only Huckabee has assembled more Republican votes, and not as many Republican delegates. After tonight, Romney will almost certainly be ahead in both categories:
Total Primary Votes:
Romney McCain Huckabee Giuliani Thmompson
Iowa 29,494 15,559 40,841 4,097 15,904
New Hampshire
Total
Total Delegates 26 3 20 1 6
I will be a guest on Michael Medved's show in the last hour of his program, and then launch a five hour show of my own, available for folks who are their computers via streaming at www.krla870.com. Between now and then, you may want to watch these clips again, from the Frank Luntz focus group after Sunday night's debate:
|
|
This is easy Hugh.
If Romney does lose NH, his fundraising will begin drying up. He will be faced with a decision: write a 4 million dollar check to take his campaign through February 5th, with (despite all of your protestations) about a 10% chance of winning the whole thing. I'm not a great businessman like Romney, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. That's a really crappy bet. |
|
|
|
You want to see the fundamental differences between John McCain and Mitt Romney? Look at how they chose to end their campaigns here in New Hampshire. Crafting his final argument, Romney, the technocrat, came up with an itemized to-do list for his administration. McCain, the warrior, promised never to surrender in the war on terror and to pursue America’s enemies to the gates of hell. But even as they revealed their different selves, both men seemed somewhat rattled by the last hours of the campaign — not just exhausted, not just nervous, but intensely aware that soon they could be fully back in the race for the Republican nomination, or nearly out of it.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTJhZDFjOTYzZGNhYjk0YW JiNGI4NTY1MDYwOWI0ZWE=
|
|
from just a regular guy.
John McCain went through living hell as a POW. And, I'm sure he was a fine commanding officer. He's been a staunch supporter of the President in the GWOT. However, none of these things necessarily qualify him to be POTUS. He seemed to indicate, in Sunday's debate, that these were the reasons he would make a good president. Sorry, Senator, I don't agree. |
|
And he may be right about how a McCain-Obama debate would go. But I think he is dead wrong about how a Romney vs. Obama campaign would go.
If the GOP is to have ANY chance against Obama, it's in the area of National Security, because that is Obama's only weakness as far as the public is concerned. The public charmed by his persona and optimism and ready to accept liberal solutions to the economy. These are the facts we must face, and no amount of reasonable argment for conservative priciples will change anyone's mind, at least during this election cycle.
National security, however, is another issue altogether. But McCain is the only candidate able to make it, despite his age and antipathy to other conservative ideas.
It would be well for conservatives to realize that McCain is their only hope and to discard all other options before its too late. |
|
|
I sincerely hope the good people of New Hampshire don't vote for McCain! I think you have to have an extremely short memory to do so! McCain is a "my way or the highway" type of guy which is bad for foreign policy, and bad for America!!!! He pushed so hard (and continues to) for the devastating immigration reform bill that would have provided amnesty (no matter what he says) to upwards of 20 million illegals currently in the United States. He opposed and continues to oppose the Bush Tax Cuts that brought us out of a recession brought on by the Clinton era. Also, speak about his foriegn policy credentials is cheap as he seeks to hand our sovereignty over to international communities (the ICC), seeks to close down Guantanamo Bay, and seeks to outlaw any form of tough interrogation techniques! Besides all of that, the man wasn’t even faithful to his wife while he was at war and she was back at home raising his three children. These are all reasons, among others, that I believe America should look elsewhere for a people's President that will bring a conservative era back to this country! Romney/Hunter 08 |
|
...and not because of the MSM.
I just read Byron York's column at NRO:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTJhZDFjOTYzZGNhYjk0YW JiNGI4NTY1MDYwOWI0ZWE=
Not a pretty picture. Mitt Romney, v3.0, the "change" candidate, now holds his town hall meetings with an unfinished agenda list? And he just added, "Balance the budget" to that list, when a voter pointed it out to him? Really? A conservative who has been running for President for 2 years needs to be REMINDED to balance the budget?
This stuff makes any thinking person sick. The transformation of Mitt from Iowa to NH has happened at whiplash-inducing speed. He has suddenly discovered the importance of relating to voters, one-on-one, and to listening to and hearing them. He has gone from moderate Mitt, to arch-con Mitt of the three-legged stool, to the New New Mitt, the agent of "change." I will give him credit; he is a quick study. But with each re-invention, Romney digs himself deeper into the credibility hole, where the only constant is his overarching desire to win the Presidency. |
|
Huckabee at 28%, John McCain at 21% and Mitt Romney at 15%http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_republican_primary
And Joshluke2003, don't drink Hugh's koolaid. Most of what you have said above is a mischaracterization of the truth. I would love it if Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter caught on, but they are not doing that yet and more importantly they would lose to Obama or possibly even Hillary. |
|
|
|
Time for the one-month commemorative anniversary of Hugh's take on "The Speech"...
---
There you have it: every single pundit whose voice actually matters has joined me in being swept into the rapturous epiphany that any unbiased, objective review of Romney's unforgettable words will induce. I will give a more detailed objective review of The Speech in next month's issue of Mitt Beat magazine, along with an exclusive interview with Mitt where he reveals his favorite foods, secret heartbreaks, and what he looks for in a dream pundit. Plus a giant pull-out Mitt poster!
Yes, there are a reportedly a few outliers in the shadowy cesspools of fringe "conservative" websites who were not with this group of enthusiasts. Whether they are cynical jaded panderers, or beltway media elite double agents, or simply insane, is a question I will leave to the historians who will be studying The Speech for generations to come. But now that the reactions are in and counted, there is simply no rational basis for considering the Romney speech other than the greatest triumph of spoken thought ever uttered, one whose influence will resound through the firmament and across the cosmos for all eternity. Even if it does not regain him the lead in the Iowa caucuses.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/12/in-my-objectiv e.html
---
InTrade this morning, still horrible for Mitt.
McCain 83.0 -0.5
Romney 16.0 +2.5
C'est fini. C'est le toast.
+ + + |
|
Far as McCain and Reagan goes. Mccian is good for our fighting forces and some spending limits. BUT that's it.
He kisses up to the Dems & the MSN. Mr RINO is his name for sure. |
|
He's going to be a one-hit wonder.
You can't fool conservatives, Joe. McCain is not one. |
|
Don't forget McCain has been prolife for his whole career.
But what is Mitt good for? Lists and groups of experts. I guess he should not have listened to those "experts" when they told him to do an extreme conservative makeover when he had a career has a pragmatic moderate fiscal conservative republican. That was the beginning of the end for Mitt Romeny. Listening to Hugh. |
|
|
|
THE UGLY TRUTH:
There is NO EXCUSE for Romney losing!
He has spent the money, the time, the energy, and the organization to win...and has yet to do so.
The general populations in those 2 states have GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO REJECT HIM!
The worst indication is that in the state that would know him best NH, they brought MCCAIN BACK TO LIFE JUST TO OPPOSE ROMNEY!
What about this isn't getting through HUGH?
Romney has done EVERYTHING to get the attention, the press, the information, the energy, the organization pointed towards him...and he is rejected every time!
And don't blame the MSM...this is the most INFORMED ELECTORATE EVER due to the NEW MEDIA and the internet.
Simply.
We.
Don't.
Like.
Him.
If you and Romney are so smart, why can't you figure that out??
Go wherever you want Hugh, the story will be the same.
You're an extreme representation of what has happend in the conservative radio movement...ALL of you RUSH, HANNITY, etc. have shot past informing us and moved to TELLING US.
And somewhere along the way you started believing we were stupid and couldn't see through what you were doing.
Conservative radio isn't popular because you're all so smart...it's because WE are SMART ENOUGH to KNOW the TRUTH! |
|
"Romney did hope for a knock-out of the field early and he may yet get it tonight, but as successful people in the world of business and government know, the effort doesn't end when strategies don't work. Strategies change when they don't work."
Translations: Change position when getting pounded. In two words, flip flop.
"Of all of the candidates, Romney has dealt more often than any of them with the surprise of changed circumstances and adapting to changed circumstances."
Translation: Romney has changed his postion more than any other candidate.
Hugh, you're just helping your candidate to take on water. Will you go down with the ship, or abandon?
+ + + |
|
"And Romney made it clear Monday that he intended to continue, regardless of the outcome."
Oh, good. Some of us were concerned that we'd have to go elsewhere for train-wreck gallows humour!
"From here, we're going to go on to Michigan and South Carolina and Nevada," he told reporters. "This is not a one- or two-state campaign. This is a 50-state campaign."
YEEEAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!
+ + + |
|
Is a strong defense unconservative?
Are spending limits and smaller government unconservative?
Is being prolife unconservative?
Why is Mitt so much more of a "conservative" than McCain, because Mitt changed everyone of his positions to the conservative one over the past 2 years? All that has done for Mitt is brand him as a flip flopper and doom him from being elected in the general. Even Victor Davis Hanson notes Mitt's latest deportation pandering will probably doom the GOP in the general election:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDBkNzQwOTgwZmQzN WNiMzQ2MmQ0Y2E5NDI3NzliM2Y
I wish Fred Thompson would catch fire. I hope he agrees to be VP. But ultimately I do not want to see the Dems win in 2008 and the candidate with the best chance of winning against them is John McCain |
|
If there is ANYTHING in Mitt Romney's life that is CONSISTENTLY Republican and/or conservative besides being a successful wealth accumulator, I'd like to know what it is.
Life issues? He claims "epiphany," but lies about how Reagan was adamantly pro-abort, which he never was. He's even claimed that Henry Hyde was once pro-abort, which he wasn't. And RomneyCare has subsidized abortions.
Same-sex marriage? Youl can pretend to ignore it, but Romney had no basis on which to impose SSM in Massachusetts, as THERE WAS NO LAW, just a court ruling "instructing" (i.e., "suggesting") that the state legislature pass enabling legislation. In MA, the Supreme Judicial Court CANNOT unilaterally impose its will on the leg. or exec. branches. Romney, simply put, sold out, and he did it to keep a campaign promise to Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 not to get in the way of the ruling everyone knew was coming. Romney violated his oath of office and the MA constitution, and as such is objectively unfit to serve as President.
Oh, and there was someone just after the SSM ruling in 2003 in MA who said that Romney should ignore it. His name is Hugh Hewitt, and he said so in the Weekly Standard.
Taxes? Up.
Health care/RomneyCare? Falling apart. People who don't join the "grand experiment" are being fined $912 or $1824 for not doing so!:
The list is endless.
There's NOTHING consistently conservative there.
Add to that the fundamental personal dishonesties, such as dissembling statements on things like the MLK march, the videotaped yard-sign swapping, and the false Fred Thompson rumor that Bob Novak says can be traced to Team Romney. Then throw in the fact that what's left of the GOP in MA has never been so down and demoralized.
What possible reason is there for any conservative to be behind this guy? |
|
This is the big clue on Hugh's 'post Romney' future:
"with a soft spot for Rudy"
Some of us have been interested to see what the next upwind tack would be. If Romney loses in NH despite lots of money will Hugh roll over to Rudy?
Better move quickly since Rudy is now falling behind in the national Gallup polls. (Huckabee, 25%; Rudy Giuliani, 20%; ... Mitt Romney, 9%;) Once Romney's fate is decided fiscals will need to coalesce behind the other fiscal, Rudy. If you add Romney 9% to Rudy 20% the fiscals go back to the top of the page. But the Huckabee numbers are still rising nationally.
|
|
|
Im sorry but I find it ridiculous that liberal republicans and "independents" in New Hampshire of all places are choosing the GOP nominee. Whatever happens tonight Mitt is not done, this is the last primary where non republicans have a say. If he cant hold Michigan, hes done, no question and that would be a serious loss for conservatives. Because if its Huckabee or McCain who are LIBERAL republicans, many will stay home and say hello to President Obama. |
|
|
The nonsense on these threads from the anti-Romneyoids is truly getting tiring. |
|
It is fine and good to talk of "attrition" by slowly and incrementally rounding up illegal aliens as they come in contact with government agencies and need various licenses, papers, statements, etc., but you are still talking about deporting millions, who are currently working and crime-free, rather promptly. The odd thing is that should illegal immigration cease at the border, the pool of illegals here, properly screened, would become static, and not be replenished, and, if the past is any guide, within a generation melt into the American pot.
So it seems that while "amnesty" is a political death sentence, so is mass deportation-the only element of the immigration debate that would play into the hands of the Democrats who otherwise lose big on the issue.
Far better it would be for the Republican candidates to talk of securing the border first, weeding out those who just arrived, have been convicted of crimes, or never worked, but then talking of an earned citizenship program, that has rather clear markers like learning English, paying a fine, and passing a citizenship test — while still working and residing in the U.S. If the border was secure, all of that need not morph, as in the past, into a rolling amnesty.
Bottom line: Republicans have to be careful that they don't turn a windfall issue (the Democrats are mostly open-borders and captive to the identity-politics wing of the party) into a mass deportation albatross.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDBkNzQwOTgwZmQzNW NiMzQ2MmQ0Y2E5NDI3NzliM2Y |
|
If there is ANYTHING in Mitt Romney's life that is CONSISTENTLY Republican and/or conservative besides being a successful wealth accumulator, I'd like to know what it is.
Life issues? He claims "epiphany," but lies about how Reagan was adamantly pro-abort, which he never was. He's even claimed that Henry Hyde was once pro-abort, which he wasn't. And RomneyCare has subsidized abortions.
Same-sex marriage? Youl can pretend to ignore it, but Romney had no basis on which to impose SSM in Massachusetts, as THERE WAS NO LAW, just a court ruling "instructing" (i.e., "suggesting") that the state legislature pass enabling legislation. In MA, the Supreme Judicial Court CANNOT unilaterally impose its will on the leg. or exec. branches. Romney, simply put, sold out, and he did it to keep a campaign promise to Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 not to get in the way of the ruling everyone knew was coming. Romney violated his oath of office and the MA constitution, and as such is objectively unfit to serve as President.
Oh, and there was someone just after the SSM ruling in 2003 in MA who said that Romney should ignore it. His name is Hugh Hewitt, and he said so in the Weekly Standard.
Taxes? Up.
Health care/RomneyCare? Falling apart. People who don't join the "grand experiment" are being fined $912 or $1824 for not doing so!:
The list is endless.
There's NOTHING consistently conservative there.
Add to that the fundamental personal dishonesties, such as dissembling statements on things like the MLK march, the videotaped yard-sign swapping, and the false Fred Thompson rumor that Bob Novak says can be traced to Team Romney. Then throw in the fact that what's left of the GOP in MA has never been so down and demoralized.
What possible reason is there for any conservative to be behind this guy?
|
|
|
Do you have a job? Do you go to it? A life? Do you live it outside your computer. Just wondering, Dude. |
|
|
|
|
This phony needs to leave the race, so the candidates with strong (real) opinions can get more attention. Hopefully the flip flopper gets smashed tonight. |
|
|
I don't "drink Hugh's Koolaid"...nice line though - did you get it from the Huckster? It's not versions of the facts - they are THE FACTS. Those are factual stances that he had and continues to have, he defends those ideas too, in a completely unrepentent way with ill regard to America's voice. I don't even trust him with the little that I agree with him on because he's a cheater with a snarly smile. Bottom line is the surge wasn't his idea, just because someone is one of the first to endorse that particular idea doesn't make it their's. On the initial invasion, Cofer Black (one of Romney's closest and trusted advisors) said right away that we needed to do what we're doing now with the surge, and he was ignored. I believe McCain is from the same cut, he is an "I know best" type of Presidential candidate. I think Romney said it best when he said, "I would rather be right than consistently wrong"! His Guantanamo view and his anti-humane torture view, coupled with the global communities that he endorses (with global warming and the International Criminal Court), show he is not ready to be the conservative leader this country desperately needs at this time. I've done my research. The only reason people support him is because of his foreign policy and defense policy, which I feel is very inferior to the conservative strength that Ronald Reagan championed on those fronts!! Romney/Hunter 08 |
|
|
Jus wondering if you'all have better things to do other than go on gambling sites to see who has the 'odds'. Romeny is not a gambler, neither am I. WHAT IF he picks up delegates in HN, and is STILL the frontrunner in delegates? Jorge, will you crawl back in the hole? Oh, what if he also wins MN, Nevada, Utah (given), Idaho and MT? Lets see... that would make him what? the FRONT RUNNER? Oh yea. I guess my simple math is hard for you Romney haters. I think the guy has what it takes, hands down. Which is why everyone is working so hard to defeat him. If he was so bad, why is it that he as THE MOST delegates? You men voters in Wy are dumb and Iowans are smart? LOL. get real folks. It's mccain who's whislting past the graveyard. |
|
I used to cut lawns in MA, but since the campaign started, the work has dried up.
But, it's not about me, dude, it's about Mittalicous!
+ + + |
|
I can rarely stand to read through your blogs and columns anymore, Hugh. Every time I do, I have to tread through some gushing report on Romney or some smear attack on his rivals. You have been one of the worst analysts in the last two election cycles. Your condescension and one-parameter style is reminiscent of a part of the greater problem in the Republican party today.
Still, I think townhall.com is a viable resource thanks to your fellow commentators. There is still a diverse conservative opinion here, and I think that is what keeps Townhall afloat. Plus I'm not opposed to hearing differing points of view, even if I think it's fallacious. |
|
The WSJ? conservative bastion..dinging Romney and assisting Romney..
http://www.eye0n08.com
Hugh - if Romney does lose, as any smart CEO knows he needs to do a lessons learned. I bet one of the things that will come out is he may have gotten some bad advice from a certain talk show host on what areas to focus on (message wise).
Ofcourse, let the game be played first.. |
|
|
|
|
One of the first times Romney came to South Carolina, I was present at the townhall meeting of about 80 people and all he talked about was change! This isn't new - it may be new in the media, but this message by all means is not new!!! Way to believe everything that is written by the liberal media! |
|
These declassified details notwithstanding, Romney elevated Black to run his counterterror advisory board. Despite deep, official dismay with Black’s pre-September 11 tenure, it’s been onward and upward for Black on Team Romney.
Few heads rolled after 9/11, despite the incompetence that allowed al-Qaeda to massacre 2,978 human beings. Cofer Black kept his head, and now uses it to advise a White House contender who promoted him in September, and praised him on CNN in late November.
This news should keep Republican primary voters wide awake at night.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDc1MDRmYmNlYTRkN2Y0ZT VhOTE0NDA0Y2RhNzIzOWQ=
And as for the surge JoshLuke2003, when Mitt Romney was hedging his bets on Iraq, McCain was the the Republican out there calling for a new strategy and change and bringing in more troops to salvage a situation we almost lost. |
|
"Strategies change when they don't work."
Or, in the case of Romney, policy positions change when they don't garner votes.
All the money in all the world is not going to buy Romney a nomination. If it does, the Republican party--and America--have much bigger problems than this election. |
|
|
|
Huckabee released > criminals than the combined total of every AR border state(TX,OK,MO,TN,MS,& LA)
When the AR Supreme Court ruled that AR’s public school funding was “inequitable,” Huck took the ruling as a mandate to raise taxes in order to increase school funding.
During his 10 yrs as gov, state $ more than doubled($6.6 bill-$16.1 bill),higher education & public schools got big >, as did social services. The state added about 8,000 full-time workers to its payroll, a 19%> (Bureau of Legislative Research).
He was a disaster on immigration . Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens.” Roy Beck, pres of NumbersUSA, a grp that played a major role in rallying the phone calls that helped defeat this yrs Senate immigration bill.
During his tenure,Huck accepted 314 gifts valued at > $150,000, according to documents filed with the ARs’ Secretary of State Office.
The Huckabees set up wedding registries at local department stores as he was leaving office(eventhogh married for 30 years). State ethics laws prohibited Huck from receiving gifts of > $10,but there was an exception for wedding gifts.
Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group dedicated to fighting government corruption, listed Huck among their 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of ‘07. He was 1 of only 3 Republican politicians to make the list
“I would hope he could be trusted to secure the borders, but given his track record in AR, I don’t see the conservative he has portrayed himself to be in Iowa.”Jake Files, former AR state rep & current chairman of the Sebastian County Republican Party
“He destroyed the conservative movement in AR, & left the Republican Party in shambles.” Phyllis Schlafly, pres of the national Eagle Forum
|
|
The base won't come out for McCain, Joe. Sorry. Same for Huck.
The base is only gonna get excited about Romney or Rudy. They are the only choices left. Fred isn't catching on. I kinda wish he would, though. |
|
"If Romney does lose NH, his fundraising will begin drying up."
How so? Could it be that *real conservative* Republicans, like me, who are greatly alarmed at Sectarian Mike's win in Iowa (thank you "Anyone-But-A-Mormon" Iowans) and I-Hate-Republicans McCain's rise in New Hampshire (thank you "We Love Crotchety Mavericks" Independents), might be feeling desperate enough to start kicking some $$$ Romney's way? I've yet to contribute, but I'm getting a generous feeling now, especially if McCain wins Iowa. I can't see either Huckabee or McCain as my nominee. Period.
The amount of spittle and rage that flies at Romney on this blog from the usual cast of trolls (Jorge, Joe, Sarah, Synthesizer, regtroll, and their ilk) in post after post after post and their fawning over Schmuckabee and McCain tells me there's some Leftist disruption at work here. It's almost a *full-time job* for some of these people.
Full-time job. Hmm, could it be? |
|
Let me ask you something. When Bill Clinton was cutting our armed forces left and right, where was McCain.
When it came to the border and Bill Clinton, where was McCain? |
|
In the private sector I have found that when addressing concerns, people rarely tell the truth the first time. People don't dislike Romney because he is a phony. If that were the case there would be incoherent postings about every viable candidate-especially Huckabee and McCain.
They hate Romney because he has acheived what they envy. Stability, success, wealth, and above all, happiness. These are angry people. Some are angry with his religion, some are angry that he has created success, some despise his intelligencia. But most of all, Mitt Romney destroys the notion of entitlement. Most of the anti-Mitt crowd relate to the fiscally liberal Huck and McCain because their populist approaches resonate with them. It comes full circle. "I am not a multi-millionaire because the elites and Wall Street keeps me down." It's a sad state of affairs when professed republicans think the best way to bring about equality is by brining everyone down to the same level instead of affording everyone opportunity to move up.
Behind the big desk in the Oval Office Romney would be a force for temperence and wisdom in decision making. We don't need Beltway Hack McCain, we don't need another 4-8 years of the idiotisms from Huckabee. As much as you hate Mitt, he will be the best shot you have at getting the tools that will help you overcome that which you hate most, yourselves. |
|
loses in NH, but the road becomes very tough. He is weak in the south, and he has to have big-time momentum to win those primaries. A public loss in Iowa and NH won't build that momentum.
The Hillary comparison is not exactly the same thing. Hillary has led the national polls for Dems until very recently. Romney never led the Republican polls. In fact, he never reached 20% in Rasmussen. Hillary has one bazillion dollars, and access to more. Romney has been forced to use his own. Hillary still has the machinery of the Democratic party behind her. Romney has not done so well with Republicans.
Face it. Getting beat by Huckabee was a surprise. Huckabee had little money and less organization, and he stomped Romney, the Organizational Man. One might say that the pro-Huckabee vote was really an anti-Romney vote.
McCain has been pronounced DOA so many times he still has the tag on his toe, and he may beat Romney in NH. Again, less money, less organization.
Never say never, but things get very tough for Romney if he loses NH. |
|
Lets face it, McCain is getting his support from the middle & left. He's moving up in two very lib states.
Let's see what happens when McCain has to deal with real Rep. His fun ride will come to an end. |
|
The ultra RINO McCain needs to be taken out tonight. Enough of this liberal who is worthless to the GOP. You think he is good on the war?
Well, if closing Gitmo and banning waterboarding is good on the war, then McCain is your guy... so is every Democrat who spouts his some nonsense.
Vote for Mitt tonight and knock McCain out once and for all. He has screwed the party over for years... lets retire him. |
|
OK, the fate of Western Civilization rests on the election. BUT, will Hugh sing the LSU Fight Song to open his show today?
All America waits for this large plate of humble pie to be swallowed by the smashed-mouth flak of the Big 10 who proved the stunning superiority of the SEC in back-to-back losses. |
|
|
|
|
slams Romney, big time, for his flip flopping all over the place. As for his performance in the Sunday debate, Hugh keeps saying how "Romney hit it out of the park," while the Post says he contradicted himself plenty of times and had no solutions. He's going down in NH. |
|
Another piece of total hackery by Hugh Romney. I actually don't care that Hugh supports Mitt, but I do care that he has turned his site and his radio show into the media arm for Romney. At least Rush has attempted to remain neutral. He did call Fred Thompson the real conservative yesterday though.
Let's just get one thing clear about Hugh. He is not a conservative. He is a Republican party loyalist. He proved that with the Harriet Miers debacle and he proves it day after day as he props up the big government conservative, George W Bush.
If you need any more proof that Hugh's not a conservative, he said he has a soft spot for Rudy. Rudy! What about Rudy is conservative? Is it his pro-choice stance? Is it his anti-gun position? Is it his pro-gay stance? His entire tenure as governor was spent using government to settle old scores.
Mitt is new to conserrvatism, but it's not fair for Hugh to shut out a real conservative like Fred just because he might hurt Mitty boy. |
|
"I'm a Romney supporter, one with a soft spot for Rudy. You come here for commentary from that perspective"
NO! I do not!!
I come here looking for what I had in 2006 and 2005. I come looking for political commentary that at least every other post is not about the elections. I look for a majority of comforting political commentary that isn't about kissing some Republicans' arse or denigrating one Republican for not being Mitt Romney or even being viable anymore (which of course runs him down and him 'less viable'). It's not a very nice thing to do a Conservative activist protest candidate and that's the rot that Hugh pulls.
I still come here looking for classic-type stuff, like your confrontation with Andrew Sullivan and fun with Lileks. I am not finding that. Screw! off!
|
|
If you think I and others are anti Romney because he is too successful, you are frankly nuts and as delusional as Hugh has been. I admire Mitt for those successes.
Had he run as the moderate pragmatic fiscal conservative he was, I might very well be a Romney supporter. But Romney shifted hard on every issue to prove he was the most conservative guy out there. Romney will say whatever he thinks we want to hear to be president. That does not fly for me and frankly does not fly with a lot of Republicans. And that is why Mitt is losing.
That is why Professor Bainbridge calls Mitt a: http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/romneys _a_flip_flopping_pandering_idiot/ |
|
|
The SEC is an overrated conference. What happens when the SEC comes to the PAC-10? They are always shocked at the high level of athleticism and intelligent player that emerges. The SEC sucks sucks sucks. Quote any stat you want, the only reason they are even allowed on the football field is because they are money makers for the BCS, thus automatic bowl bids. The SEC is barely on par with Notre Dame, and that is not good. Suck suck suck. |
|
In fact, Mr. Romney's approach is name-calling masquerading as policy debate. For as he made clear, he has not formulated a coherent approach to dealing with a central fact of the immigration problem: the 12 million undocumented foreigners already here. Challenging Mr. McCain on the 12 million, he asked: "Are they sent home? Are they sent home?" But minutes later, when Mr. Romney was asked by Charlie Gibson of ABC News whether it would really be practical to sweep up 12 million people and send them home, he answered with another couplet, this one more honest: "The answer is no. The answer is no."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0 1/07/AR2008010702633.html
|
|
|
Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. If you ever need a job in janitorial services let me know. |
|
Huckabee is a closet populist (legislate CEO salary limits?). He might be conservative in his religous beliefs, but he cannot say the same about all his positions.
Romney is a weathervane and moves as the wind blows. One moment he is liberal. The next a born-again-hard core conservative. Will the real Mitt please stand up?
McCain is a maverick/RINO that does not toe the party line. "Conservatives" say the base will not come out for him. I will.
IF McCain wins the nomination (long shot) the base had better come out an vote for him, or face 4-8 years of Obama or Hillary. In other words, they will have no one to blame but themselves for a Democrat in the White House. |
|
since you are such an expert on conservatives. If you want Fred to win or have ANY chance, you need Mitt to win tonight. The main goal tonight for consrvatives is to put an end to McCain.
So Whacker.... how would you pick between Mitt and McCain? |
|
|
before I go to work (which is somewhere you go to provide services for monetary compensation) Romney is winning among Republicans behind Huck only. After today he will most likely have more Republican support than any candidate. Bummer for your premise, huh? Happy mopping? To cool off drink some of your kool-aid. |
|
Black is one of the best advisors one can have on defense. Maybe you should check his credentials. I personally find it unnacceptable that the national review take "facts" from a Commission that threw certain lessers under the bus. That article is very disheartening simply do to the fact that it implies guilt as you have obviously done to Black because of his involvement in the CIA at the time. I honestly believe that if you do more research, you will find that Black went to the White House and laid out compelling evidence that an attack was imminent, with a plan to take action, but feet were drug and the rest is history. The fact is that McCain's policy isn't as tough as people assume, given the various facts that I stated and Cofer Black's relentless toughness in defending America is clear and unwavering. He is one of the best advisors one can have and I'm glad my guy has him on board as an advisor!
And betting on Iraq? Give me a break. Before President Bush came out and endorsed the surge, Mitt Romney came out and said he believed it was the correct course. All of your accusations are baseless.
You know the difference between the two of us? You can't defend your guys views because they are bad policy, and I can because all you have is baseless accusations against Romney! Romney/Hunter 08 |
|
I hate Romney because my instincts tell me that he's trying to pull the wool over my eyes and get away with something and I resent the hell out of that.
He's no Conservative and he doesn't seem to have a philosophy beyond a strategy to woo right-wingers and that people treat him like he is a Conservative because he says some of the right things and because he willfully ignored the desires of the leftists who elected him in Mass and ignores the promises he made to them.
McCain isn't a Conservative either. His right-wing views on national offense and abortion mean nothing when his views on national defense equal open borders, amnesty, disassembling the Gauntanamo base and giving the foreign nationalists American rights are so bloody left-wing. McCain-Feingold was a blow to the First Amendment. McCain-Kennedy was an anti-security bill. McCain-Lieberman is a push to embrace expensive government action inspired solely by junk science.
Rudy isn't a Conservative.
Who's left? He may not be "viable" but I support Fred Thompson. I truly believe that a lot of you are not actually looking for an actual Conservative. I know National Review wasn't. |
|
I notice Mr. Hewitt happily quote the "dinosaur media" when it suits his case.
I've followed Mr. Romney and rooted for him. But he is not "the man." He cannot rise to the moment or close the sale. This was exemplified when George Stephanopolous pressed him about McCain's amnesty and his own viability in the face of twin defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Alternately lawyerly and "upbeat", Romney missed his moment, mediating the life out of the moment. I've seen this again and again. Romney spent $50 million and campaigned virtually alone in Iowa and NH for more than a year and faded at the end in both. Nice guy, smart, full of capability, but not going to be president. |
|
....how many times has Hugh watched the Luntz focus group?
The fact is that Romney has spent the most by far in NH....he has run over 7,000 ads (McCain has run 3,000), sent a ton of direct mail, paid for tons of telephone calls, etc.
And, the people of New Hampshire still don't like Willard! He is not connecting with people in NH, just like he didn't connect with people in Iowa. All the money in the world will not buy him credibility with normal people. Mitt's ceiling apprears to be 25, maybe 30% everywhere.
Sorry, Hugh, but your guy is going to receive another devastating blow tonight.... |
|
|
|
[Hewitt]"the effort doesn't end when strategies don't work. Strategies change when they don't work."
Lord, Jeffrey. 11 December 2007. "What Would Mitt Do?"
http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=12419
Lincoln is staring at a sheet filled with numbers. The numbers are of Union casualties in the ten most casualty-filled battles of the Civil War thus far. The banality of ink-on-paper belies the horrific human impact behind the figures. Over thirteen thousand Union casualties at the battle of Shiloh, sixteen thousand at Second Manassas, twelve thousand at Antietam and yet again at Stone River, seventeen thousand at Chancellorsville, twenty-three thousand at Gettysburg. And so on in one battle after another stretching over the past three years.
So as our ghostly Romney studies this "data" -- now what? The conservative fear, of course, is that the "super pragmatic" Romney who places such faith in the process of data and trends would say to Lincoln exactly what the Democratic nominee of 1864, a battlefield general of the war, was saying in his campaign against Lincoln. The war is a "failure," said George McClellan. Stop it -- right now. The numbers, the kind of data so prized by a possibly future President Romney, are unmistakably ghastly. Union kids and Confederate kids -- Americans all -- are being slaughtered on a scale that dwarfs the imagination.
But what of principle here? What of the passion for the principle -- and passion plays no small role in Lincoln's adherence to principle -- that no man, woman or child should be a slave in America? What about the fundamental principle of human freedom? What about keeping the Union together? The startling thought occurs that Romney would be whispering to Lincoln that the data speaks for itself. Passion should yield to process. And that would be that, if Romney carried the day as Lincoln's adviser.
|
|
McCain has changed his mind.
Obama has changed his mind.
Huckabee has changed his mind - as recent as today with announcing he'll deny birthrights citizenship to illegals. Welcome to the party, huck.
Romeny has changed his mind, and gets grief for it.
I've changed my mind.
FYI - Rudy won't win today, either. But Mitt might win, and even at second seat, he'll get more delegates, more votes than ANYONE in the GOP field. Don't hate him because he's successful, pretty and LDS. He'll kick Obama's butt in any debate. Hillary would be just a snack. |
|
Joe wrote:
Mitt is a mess on immigration
"...when Mr. Romney was asked by Charlie Gibson of ABC News whether it would really be practical to sweep up 12 million people and send them home, he answered with another couplet, this one more honest: "The answer is no. The answer is no."
At least Mitt is being honest, even if he is inconsistant. I think we need to secure those borders now. And I mean now. But deporting 12 million people (as many "conservatives" would have the Feds do) is a practical nightmare.
For those who need a math refresher. Let's assume you deport an illegal alien every 60 seconds. If you were to do that every minute of every hour for 365 days a year, you would be done with your task in... 22.8 years. That assumes of course, that you can find them all and round them up.
Good luck with that.
I think it is better to document those people, get them in the system, track them, and have them pay taxes, etc. I would not go so far as to say let's put them on a path to citizenship, but I would say let's get them registered and documented. Guest worker program, work visas, whatever. Let's just solve the issue at hand.
Pragmatism is needed in these times. Knee-jerk ideological positions, be it left-wing or right-wing, that are not realistic should be tempered or ignored. Let's deal with the real world folks, not with emotional arguements.
|
|
Hugh,
If Obama wins the Dem nomination, the only person who can stop him is McCain, and even that is an outside chance. Romney, while a decent guy, will get creamed by Obama, who appears genuine and authentic in a way that Mr. Plastic-Fantastic Mitt cannot. McCain is genuine as well. While he may have sucked up to the hard right in the last few years, his willingness to support Bush during the most unpopular phase of the war and while putting his campaign in mortal peril shows a man who has the courage of his convictions. And that is something that Romney still has to prove. I'm reminded of James MacNeil Whistler's description of Oscar Wilde: "Oscar (Mitt) has the courage of convictions--other people's convictions." |
|
[Hewitt]"Of course I'm a Romney supporter, one with a soft spot for Rudy."
What do you like about Rudy? His stance on abortion?
/////////////////////////////////////
DanSm on December 12, 2007 9:05 PM:
Deja Vu...
What does Mitt Romney and Joe Coors Jr. have in common? Both are uber-rich: Romney - $201 million; Coors even more. Romney is and Coors was supported by NSM heavyweight Hugh Hewitt. Despite local Republican warnings, Hewitt ferociously supported Coors in 2004 against conservative Bob Schaeffer in Colorado’s Republican Senatorial primary. The beer-magnet Coors beat Schaeffer, but then lost to populist Democrat Ken Salazar. After the defeat, Hugh Hewitt disavowed any connection to the outcome of the election. Sorry, but I’m getting déjà vu.
|
|
I'm really tired of hearing that McCain isn't electable compared to Romney. Consider this general election polling for Virginia:
McCain 45%, Obama 43%
McCain 49%, Clinton 38%
Romney 41%, Obama 47%
Romney 44%, Clinton 43%
You can look this up. At this moment McCain is the most electable candidate against Clinton and Obama. Now maybe Romney could win, but its clear he'd have more of an uphill battle than McCain. |
|
John McCain is many good things and a few bad things but he is not a liberal. I came into this campaign actually thinking McCain was too conservative on some keys issues (The War in Iraq, Spending)and I though Romney would run as a moderate based on his job in Mass. Now I have been reading these blogs and I find out Romney is an establishment conservative (In favor of change no less)!! and McCain is a liberal. A little perspective please.
McCain is pro-life and would vote for pro-life judges. The gang of 14 was an effort to break a deadlock and get most of those judges in which succeeded.
McCain is ultra hawkish on the War in Iraq, calling for a troop surge as early as before the war and butting heads with the Donald (Rumsfeld not Trump)
McCain is in favor of a number of illegals staying in the country after paying fines etc. after securing the border (A position i definately agree he was not strong enough on) A position I believe is held by every candidate including Romney if he were actually held down for an answer.
McCain has been a spending hawk forever, continuously threatening his own party with witholding tax cuts if they don't reign in earmarks and pork. That may be politically stupid but it short isn't liberal.
McCain thinks global warming exists and that sensible measures should be done on it without harming the country. While you may not agree that it exists it does not make you a liberal if your think it is a problem.
Anti-torture is not a liberal issue.
|
|
Now here are the real reasons why Hugh and the rest of you don't like McCain:
He is a spending hawk and a balanced budget extremist.
He tried take the president's initiative on comprehensive immigration reform without being sufficiently tough on the border fence.
He is in favor of campaign finance reform. (I think he did a bad job here)
He is against torture.
He is too old!! (Actually a good argument in this campaign)
He said the religious right are extremists in 2000 (As opposed to anti-mormon bigots, oh yeah you guys say that)
Look there are reasons not to vote for McCain, but please cut out this liberal stuff. It just doesn't wash. |
|
Let's not forget, what did he just say.. ( I want to control drug comp)
Some Rep.. NOT!!! |
|
Actually, Hugh, I don’t know that anyone reads any site for the absolutely stubborn “fixed” perspective of its writer(s). Your guiding principle used to be pragmatism; it’s important for the GOP to keep Democrats out of office (until we get some mature Democrats who’ll take our security seriously). When and why did that change?
Say Mitt were the best GOP choice. Even so, backing Mitt would still just be a means to an end, with that end being conservative governance. It’s not an end in itself. Your post reads more like Howard Dean, or Bill Clinton championing his wife (or a Ron Paul supporter): we hope things go well, but even if they don’t we’re behind Mitt 110% forever.
I also don’t understand why when evidence supports your preferences, you cite it approvingly, but when there’s no evidence, or the evidence points in the opposite direction, you ignore it and fall back on rhetorical questions that you think/hope have an obvious answer favoring your point:
“Really, do you think 71-year old John McCain can come close to the phenom from Chicago?”
Okay, it doesn’t matter what we “think” or feel or guess when voters who have actually been asked consistently indicate that the 71 year-old is in fact the strongest GOP opponent that Obama could face. I don’t want to believe this either. I’d rather believe that Fred is the best GOP hope to beat Obama or Hillary. And I could ask incredulously, “Do you honestly think that a lightweight like Huckabee or a liberal like Rudy would be more of a challenge to Obama than Fred would?” Yet as honest as my disbelief would be, viscerally, it wouldn’t prove that Fred is a better GOP option for a win than MH or RG. |
|
I have extreme respect for Bob Dole the Senator, but made GOP Presidential candidate because it was his turn put a serious hurt on the GOP.
Regardless of the Gang of 14 or other policies that I disagree with we can ill afford another Geriatric loser to face the kid who is an energizing a generation X rock star.
The Hate Billary vote has crossed to the Dem side of the aisle so the GOP no longer has the option of matching a "Conservative has been" against the formerly presumed inevitable "Democrat has been."
"I was a war hero" or "I am a Preacher" don't exactly sell against the platitudes of change delivered by an American Idol wannabe! We can expect that our next President must be able to put meat on the platitudes of change before this campaign is over and provide evidence of ability to work with both sides of the aisle while preserving his principles.
Accordingly, Republicans today have a choice. Go down in flames in support of beltway insiders or get behind the candidate that lives in the future and the Can Do world.
Your choice is simple. Follow Hughes lead and get behind Mitt's experience, intellect and judgment or concede to Obama's inexperience, untested administrative ability and slick speech.
|
|
or at least the worst this comments section has ever been.
Duane, Hugh, somebody: MUST we have to sift through so much veiled trolling to find a little adult discussion?
Bounce these jerks who jump on every post with hatred.
They've accomplished a lot by keeping many of your readers from even opening up the comments, much less joining in.
|
|
Lets see, he just talked about controlling Drug Comp... yeah not lib...
McCain/finegold... yeah not lib...
Caught up in the savings nightmare... I'm not a crook.
And yes the people who cross the border.. Sure they will pay a fine.
You better read up on that one. It's been a no go from day one. It was a joke and will never happen. |
|
(1) if judges are your issue, is mitt the best candidate? no. he appointed numerous democratic judges.
(2) if you're most concerned about social issues like abortion, is mitt the best candidate? no. indeed he's one of the least credible on these issues.
(3) if your issue is national security, is mitt the best candidate? no. which foreign policy "guru" has endorsed him? which general? which former secretary of defense?
(4) if your issue is border security, is mitt the best candidate? no, unless you really believe him when he says he'll make all illegal aliens leave the country.
(5) if taxes is your issue, is mitt the best candidate? it depends on the meaning of "fees."
unlike hugh, i am not persuaded that a guy who is not the best on any of these issues is somehow the best on all of them. |
|
Hugh, I disagree greatly with your assessment of how Romney and McCain would do against Obama.
If we are going to beat Obama, we are going to have to attack him on his weaknesses, not his strengths.
Obama's got the whole "change" and "energy" thing going on right now. There is NO WAY that any of our candidates can go up against him on that and win. We have to attack him where he is weak, and that is on national security.
If Mitt is the candidate, you can be assured he will flip off the conservatives and go back to being Moderate Massachusetts Mitt in an attempt to appeal to independents. Mitt has no foreign policy credentials of which to speak and neither does Obama, and that takes foreign policy out as a top campaign issue. The issue will then become "change" and domestic issues, and we'll get crushed. Obama will win BIG. There is just no way we can defeat him on that front.
With McCain as our nominee, foreign policy and the war on terror become the MAIN issues of the campaign. And that is one area where McCain can just slap Obama around silly. McCain may look old compared Obama, but he can stress, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a war. This is not the time for on-the-job training." There are plenty of opportunities for Reaganesue "I will not stress the youth and inexperience of my opponent" moments.
I like our chances against Obama MUCH better with McCain.
|
|
I do not know about the drug company line. Can someone on the blog explain without calling me an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that McCain has a few conservative stances, but the liberal stances to me far outweigh his Conservative views. Sure he is good on the Iraq war, but so are many advisors currently in Washington - that doesn't make him a good President. Fiscally, minus the tax issue of course, yes he's good. Earmarks are bad, we know it, and he knows it. But punishing Americans who are feeling the impact of high taxes by not voting for tax cuts is not a way to reign in liberal spending sprees. That shows bad judgement! Quite frankly, I believe that involving the United States in global organizations that would undermind our soveriegnty is bad policy. I believe that his campaign finance reform bill was extremely bad policy, as was his McKennedy immigration reform bill. These are positions that he is unrepentent for, even after America voiced their dismay with them. That is liberal posturing, meaning he is acting just like dems that say "I know best". I want a President that doesn't talk about using the line item veto, but that has used it (in Mitt's case over 840 times). I want someone who has had to lead in the past and who has had extremely positive results, not someone who just talks about it and has dreamed about Bush's term to be over so he can get his second shot. I want someone who has cut taxes and reigned in liberal spending, not someone who talks about wanting to do it. I want someone who will give America a voice by being transparent in spending bills and listening to America's voice by vetoing bills that we overwhelming oppose. Mitt put it best, "I'd rather change to the right position, than consistently hold the wrong ones". Romney/Hunter 08 |
|
|
Please focus. We in the GOP are faced with very, very imperfect candidates. All the posters have spent time blasting our guys. The Dems, in Nov., will simply have to quote our guys plus any bloggers who have ripped the GOP a new one. Dean, yesterday, made rhapsodizing comments about Obama but never told us who he thought could actually beat Obama! Take a look at a Human Events article on Obamamania. It gives the GOP point by point reasons to best this EmptySuit for CHANGE. Rudy was right; change can be good or bad. Obama seems more like an EU candidate than an American. If we simply blast away, wishing against all hope that the conservative guy (Thompson ) will win, that is a dream. Period. He is not and could not beat Obama anyhow. That leave Mitt, Rudy, John. OK, all are imperfect. Then who can keep the Red States and nip a Blue state or two? Perhaps all 3 of these guys could. John might but his flirtations with Dems, his age, his stands on illegals and free speech I think will hurt him nationally. That leaves Rudy or Mitt. We might not like that but there we are. It is what it is. Obama is the real enemy now and so far, no Goper has points to upset this faux leader. When that occurs, I suggest we unite and go with that guy. |
|
|
on abortion, no matter how much I dislike him, The Huckster got it right. It's not a conservative vs. liberal issue, it's an American moral issue. |
|
|
That's very good news for the "insurgent" candidates, Obama and McCain. And probably great news for Paul. |
|
|
That is good for Mitt. Independents are going Obama. |
|
Anybody who thinks Mitt isn't conservative enough, yet would vote for Juan McCain is off their rocker.
Juan McCain's disqualifiers:
Joining the Dims with the Gang of 14.
Joining with Kennedy on immigration.
Joining with Feingold on campaign finance.
Opposed to tough interrogation tactics for terrorists. (joined the ACLU?)
Wants to close Gitmo (joined CAIR?)
Rejected the Bush tax cuts twice.
Why do the MSM want to crown him the winner? So they'll have 2 Democrats running for the same office!
Juan McCain...not a conservative, not a Maverick, a Democrat.
CasualConservative.com |
|
Huck has a new position on immigration, one that he hasnt talked about in any debate.
Heading into South Carolina, where illegal immigration appears to be the biggest issue among Republicans, Huckabee is going to support a constitutional amendment prohibiting birthright citizenship? Did I not hear him in several debates, including on Sunday, admonishing those of us who've long opposed birthright citizenship, about God's children coming out of the shadows? Is this not the same man who only a few months ago supported McCain-Kennedy?
Romney has explained his conversion on abortion — the day it occurred, how it occurred, and why it occurred. We have to make judgments about the credibility of a politician making a conversion, based on their records, recent statements, and ultimately, character. You can accept it or not. But for Huckabee to throw on the table such a dramatic shift of position from one day to the next, just before the South Carolina primary, without ever indicating such a view during any of the debates or in any of his many media appearances since the beginning of his run for president, is to me as cynical as it gets in a season of cynical acts. |
|
York, Byron. 8 January 2008. "McCain and Romney: The Warrior and the To-Do List"
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTJhZDFjOTYzZGNhYjk0YW JiNGI4NTY1MDYwOWI0ZWE=
On Romney’s left was a large blue poster with the message WASHINGTON IS BROKEN.
On Romney’s left, an equal-size sign said TO DO, and beneath it were the numbers 1-15. Number one was MAKE AMERICA SAFER, with — in true Romney fashion — three sub-headings
==
Romney explained that he had been keeping track of the topics people brought up at his “Ask Mitt Anything” meetings, and they formed the basis of the TO DO list. The list was literally unfinished, Romney said, which was why the last two positions were empty. He also confessed that number thirteen, BALANCE THE BUDGET, was not actually printed on the poster board but was lettered on blue tape, so hastily was the graphic put together. “You see at the bottom, it says BALANCE THE BUDGET and it looks like it was taped on?” Romney said. “It was. That was added yesterday, because I was in a meeting just like this in — where were we?” Someone said Nashua. “Nashua. Thank you. I was in Nashua, and someone said, ‘How about balance the budget?’ I said absolutely, so we stuck it on there.”
You want to add a policy priority to the Romney administration, should there be one? Just say the word.
|
|
Then Mitt Romney was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by Hugh Hewitt. After fasting forty days and forty nights, his campaign coffers were empty. Hugh Hewitt came to him and said, "If you are the savior of the GOP, you must become the most conservative on every social issue and you will be fed by the greatful party."
Mitt answered, "Okay[a]" And Mitt's campaign coffers were filled.
Then Hewitt took him to Des Moines, Iowa. and had him stand on the highest point of the Capital. "If you are the Savior of the GOP," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written by Dean:
" 'He will command caucus goers concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone or lose to a Huckabee'"
Mitt answered him, "Okay" And then Mitt's hopes in Iowa crashed. Hugh said, no matter, maybe Dena was wrong.
Again, Hewitt took him to a very high mountain in New Hampshire and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
Mitt said to him, "Okay"
Then the voters in New Hampshire rejected Mitt and even Ohio State lost in the national championship.
But Hugh said. . . there is always Michigan (even if South Carolina looks pretty darn bad)...
|
|
Mitt Romney’s saturation attack ads (played every few minutes in Iowa and now in New Hampshire) have not only poisoned the campaign with mischaracterizations of the records of his opponents, but also set the agenda for horribly unenlightening and awkward debates that harmed all the candidates, very much including Romney himself. Instead of explaining his positive plans to deal with the very real problem of more than 12 million illegal immigrants living and working in this country, Romney and his rivals devoted lavish time to finicky finagling about the details of McCain’s former plan that already failed in the Senate.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/ 2008/01/08/will_the_gop_contenders_break_their_suicide_pact
|
|
I didn't call you anything.. gezzz get a spine.
You didn't watch the debate on Saturday?
(McCain) |
|
|
|
Can somebody explain to me why if Juan McCain wins N.H., he's the new golden child? (Golden Girls would be closer to his era.)
If it turns out that way, Huck and Juan are both one and done...they won a state, but have no money and no support left.
To me this thing still seems wide open...don't tell me that somebody who won ONE state is now the guy we should all rally behind!
CasualConservative.com
|
|
While I applaud all of you who have voiced your opinions on who you believe is "most electable" or who has the best chance of beating Obama or Clinton - with all due respect that's NOT what it takes to get my vote...
Just as with the elections of 2006, I REFUSE to reward Republicans who are RINOS.
Voting for Giuliani, McCain or ANYONE for that matter, simply because you think they will beat the Democrat candidate - what's the point (if they govern Liberals)?
I don't fault ANY candidate for changing their position - especially when they have changed TO a position which is more in sync with GOP ideals. However, if the change of position comes with a history of untrustworthiness, then I have no reason to trust their new found epiphany.
Sorry, John McCain has slapped the GOP in the face far too many times for me to believe that he cares about ANYTHING other than getting into The White House (dittos for Hillary). McCain will NEVER, EVER get my vote (even if that means President Obama or President Clinton-II). Oh, and what “Foreign Policy Experience” does John McCain have?
I also don’t have a problem with a Mayor or Governor who implements the laws of his city or state (or orders of the courts therein), but when one takes unilateral actions (such as the pardon of criminals) – then they must justify their actions (to me) as to how those actions are in sync with GOP principles (still waiting for Huckabee or any of his supporters to do so).
Finally, I don’t give a Rat’s rear end what 1.5% (Iowa + New Hampshire population) of U.S. Population thinks (especially when so-called “independents” get a say in MY PARTY’s candidate).
|
|
|
Hope Romney gets off the vacuous "change" mantra as fast as he got on to it..we know there's no Reagan in this bunch, but let's not make it so obvious. |
|
Novak, Robert D. 5 January 2008. "Mitt's Divided Strategy"
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/01/05/ mitts_divided_strategy?page=2
Published reports that Fred Thompson soon will withdraw from the Republican presidential contest and endorse Sen. John McCain have been traced in part to Mitt Romney's campaign, trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson.
did Romney push-poll himself?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apZu1SZtDKs
|
|
Since Ohio went to Huck, and Wyoming went to Mitt, let's say N.H. goes to Juan, maybe S.C. goes to Fred, then the REAL winner is....wait for it...
RUDY! (remember him?)
Rudy is the one player who hasn't even entered the game, and he definitely has a huge advantage going into the states where he's right up there.
And since nobody has talked about him for the past month, you'll hear what a huge "comeback/surge" Rudy is making going into Super Tuesday.
Add the fact that he has stayed out of the mud that has been flying between Huck, McCain, and Mitt, and I'd say Rudy's in a pretty good position at this point.
CasualConservative.com |
|
|
|
[Big G on January 8, 2008 1:53 PM]"Yeah Synth
did he?"
Who is "he"? Did "he" do what?
[CDubber on January 8, 2008 11:14 AM]"The amount of spittle and rage that flies at Romney on this blog from the usual cast of trolls (Jorge, Joe, Sarah, Synthesizer, regtroll, and their ilk) in post after post after post and their fawning over Schmuckabee and McCain tells me there's some Leftist disruption at work here."
Did you oppose the killing of Terri Schindler Schiavo?
Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115741978.8204 40.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.3949 27.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
"It's almost a *full-time job* for some of these people.
Full-time job. Hmm, could it be?"
Is the Romney camp offering me a job?
///////////////////////////////////
jakelaw on December, 31, 2007 11:22 PM
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/Medved/default.aspx? mode=post&g=4e9d379d-881d-453a-a56d-816d0acc1dac&comments=t rue&submitted=trueec5f0699-41f4-4caa-bdcb-8c8cc8c057b6#comm entAnchor
Mitt's robots
It is clear to me that many of these Romney robots posting on this and other blogs must be paid workers sitting in some boileroom dining on Mitt donuts and kool aid. The posts are oh so similar, and bely the fact that 48% of Americans would not vote for Mitt under any circumstance.
The fact is that McCain and Huckabee have responded to Mitt the Pit's lies and distortions.
Medved is light years ahead of Hewitt in intellectual honesty and concern for the real America, not the America of CEO's,corporate lawyers and hedge fund managers that Hugh is most concerned about.
|
|
Well said Joe"
"Had he run as the moderate pragmatic fiscal conservative he was, I might very well be a Romney supporter. But Romney shifted hard on every issue to prove he was the most conservative guy out there. Romney will say whatever he thinks we want to hear to be president. That does not fly for me and frankly does not fly with a lot of Republicans. And that is why Mitt is losing."
Couldn't be more true.
Michigan will not go for Mitt if he loses NH. EVERY independent here will be voting on the Republican side, and many Dems, too. There is NO race on the Dem side: Hillary is on the ballot; Edwards, Richardson, Obama are not. So every independent who wants their vote to matter will be voting on the GOP side. My wife, who supports Obama, will be voting on the GOP side...
Mitt will attempt to re-reinvent himself as the "change" candidate between now and next week; but I think his window to do so is closed. |
|
Citizens Lobby on January 1, 2008 2:15 AM at
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/Medved/default.aspx? mode=post&g=4e9d379d-881d-453a-a56d-816d0acc1dac&comments=t rue&submitted=trueec5f0699-41f4-4caa-bdcb-8c8cc8c057b6#comm entAnchor
jakelaw
I promised the Romneybots that I would accuse them anymore of what you just wrote, but many of us (that have even bothered to stick around on Townhall.com) have had this suspicion for a long time. I will tell you what I DO know:
Being a long-time member of the GOP, I have been to many of the candidates' events here in my state.
Romney is literally trying to BUY the nomination. He has hired the State Party leaders onto his staff and pays them a great deal of money (more than they make from the party, that's for sure.) He buys endorsements and favor.
At every Mitt event I have been to, it appears more like a movie production than press coverage. He brings in paid 'supporters' and they are coached and choreographed. Mitt's team does this right in front of the media. They are fully aware of this, but never cover it.
At our state straw poll, Romney paid for everything for his supporters (actually, a bunch of high school kids) and paid them $50 each to vote in the straw poll. It is his supporters that manned the straw poll and counted the votes.
We talked to several of them on camera and found this out. They knew nothing about Romney before that weekend.
So the question is this: If Romney has been literally buying the nomination, what is that going to do to the Republicans in the general election? If his support is almost entirely fake, who is going to vote for him besides the absolute party faithful?
As grunts in the GOP, we are very offended by this and that our party leaders are a part of this. I almost think they feel the GOP has no chance next year anyway and are trying to pocket a little cash while they can. |
|
Citizens Lobby on January 1, 2008 at
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/Medved/default.aspx? mode=post&g=4e9d379d-881d-453a-a56d-816d0acc1dac&comments=t rue&submitted=trueec5f0699-41f4-4caa-bdcb-8c8cc8c057b6#comm entAnchor
And
most of these kids were too young to know that this isn't how it is normally done. They honestly didn't think there was anything 'wrong' with what they were doing. They were told "this is how politics work." So not only is Romney buying the nomination, he is corrupting a bunch of young kids (mostly high-school age and almost always from the LDS youth groups.)
*Disclaimer: I am not making a big deal about Romney's religion. I couldn't care less about that. I am just pointing out that this IS a big deal to his OWN religion to get him elected and 'trust' him. I can guarantee you that 98% of his 'supporters' on townhall.com are Mormons.
In plain sight
All of this is happening outside of the media. Yet, they are completely, 100% aware of this. Why have they been so silent about this?
Wouldn't this be a big deal?
Are they just waiting to use it?
I am afraid of Romney winning the nomination only because I have seen this with my own eyes and know what is at stake here for the party.
The corruption is just disgusting this time around.
/////////////////////////////
_How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative_
http://www.amazon.com/How-Rig-Election-Confessions-Republic an/dp/1416552227
A must-read article:
30 June 2007. "The Making of Mitt Romney
Ambitious goals; shifting stances" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ar ticles/part7_main?mode=PF
On the evening of Jan. 3, in the custom of departing governors, Romney took his final walk out of the State House. Like so many Romney events, it was a masterpiece of political stagecraft.
With cameras recording....
|
|
Didn't know they voted already.
I think you meant Huck won IOWA. Although you were close: they both have four letters, and start and end in vowels |
|
I hope Romney stays on the Change mantra because it shows the distinction between himself and Juan McCain. McCain is old Washington, old political style, and well...just old.
The utter rejection of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill should show everyone that the old way of politics doesn't work today, and never has.
[Overheard in Washington last year]
"Okay, Teddy, let's come up with an amnesty compromise that will be hated by 90% of Americans, call it a bi-partisan bill, and shove it down their throats! And if they reject it, call them racists!"
"Sounds good John...(hic-up) let's go have a cocktail and pat each other on the back! We'll flip a coin to see whose name is first! Heads it's McCain/Kennedy, tails it's Kennedy/McCain! (burp.)"
[coin flips]
"What does it say? I'm drunk so my eyes are a bit blurry!"
"I don't know I don't have my glasses...what were we talking about anyway?"
CasualConservative.com
|
|
And/But/So wrote;
----------
"Joe for Prez 2016!"
----------
I couldn't support Joe for President, because I don't want to see Andrew Sullivan as First Lady. |
|
Peak Oil,
What "epic finacial crisis at our front door"?
Are you referring to allowing people who clearly had no business taking out a loan to do so? Or are you referring to the RECORD 52 Consecutive Months of Job Growth or the 10 consecutive quarters of economic growth (DESPITE the Democrats' attempts to prevent the demonstrably effective tax [rate] cuts - which have resulted in INCREASED tax revenue).
And what "worst foreign policy disaster in US history"? You mean the war in Iraq? The one that Hillary (and almost EVERY Democrat in congress voted FOR)? The one in which "the surge" is demonstrably EFFECTIVE (even John Murtha had to agree)?
Dream on, Neville Chamberlains of the world...
|
|
|
what about the "change" from a mushroom cloud over a major US city..Then we'd all remember the purpose of government...make the bad guys go away and put out my house fire. |
|
|
|
|
What happened to 'Romney Rising'? |
|
I have a lovely Mrs. Joe to be first lady in 2016, thank you very much.
Andrew Sullivan would only be appointed WH blogger and annoyer of Hugh. |
|
I guess McCain would want to "change" our interrogation methods. That has to count for something!
Even though those methods have helped to prevent (as deef wrote) a mushroom cloud over any US cities so far.
A wise man once said, "If it ain't broken, don't try to use it as a topic to distinguish yourself from the Republican candidates, thus aligning yourself (yet again) with the Democrats."
CasualConservative.com
|
|
Joe,
It's good that you're finally being honest that your priority is to attempt to annoy Hugh.
But come on, bro, you don't have to lie to us about Andrew Sullivan being your First Lady !
Don't worry, you know I'm voting for a candidate who will prosecute the war and fight Jihad.
I don't care what you do in your personal life.
|
|
Here's the down-side of McCain winning the nomination.
No matter who wins, A LIBERAL WILL BE PRESIDENT!
All this talk of Pennsylvania or Michigan being in play is secondary to having a Republican who can run against the Democrat.
Even if McCain "may" have a better chance of beating Hillary or Obama, then what? Conservatives lose either way.
CasualConservative.com
|
|
It always comes out when some little troll doesn't have the capacity to defend a position.
At this point Obama doesn't have any positions to defend besides "hope" and other key buzz words, so I understand your frustration.
|
|
|
Rural PA are gun ownership nuts...the only way Obama wins PA is if he dresses up like Elmer Fudd and goes wabbit hunting... |
|
his #1 issue is protection, National Security. Because of it, from the beginning, my 1st choice has been Rudy. He's still my guy, today. But, i must say that this continuous, never ending, Romney bashing from many who post here, have almost convinced me that Romney should be my 1st choice. Irregardless, Rudy and Romney are clearly the two who the left does not want to face. Why is it so surprising that Hugh Hewitt would also, see their viability and therefore, use his blog to advance both candidates? It seems to be the obvious thing to do. So much so, that those who do criticize him, would be those who do not have the best interests of the party.
Yesterday, there was a poster who announced that Romney was out stealing yard signs, that's right, yard signs. For crying out loud, the inhumanity of it all!!! He proclaimed this horror on 3 or 4 different threads with 2 or 3 postings per thread. This, it would seem, is how the left acts, in a childish, girlish manner. Gee whiz, let's get real, this country's safety is far to important to leave it in the hand's of liberals.
Rudy or Romney, they both beat Osama come November. |
|
|
Romney or Rudy, Rudy or Romney, you are correct in doing so. They are the most viable at this time. I would be thrilled if FDT would wake up, but i don't think it's going to happen. Keep pushing our 2 "bulldogs". They both beat the "empty suit". |
|
Hey Peak Oil,
I've got news for you...
If the Presidential election (November, 2008) comes to McCain versus Obama, I MIGHT vote for Obama (if I decide to vote for POTUS at all).
I WILL NOT pull the handle (punch the chad, stamp the ink, or whatever voting system du jour they use this time around) for McCain.
Republicans are not racists (at least not "The Base") - Look at Powell, Thomas, Dr. Rice. WE (the base) RESPECT and SUPPORT them.
If Obama is the Democrat candidate, the GOP WILL "attack" his position, but WE will not be the ones suggesting that he was selling drugs - THAT is the kind of mud Democrats sling...
Where's the list of prominent blacks in Bill Clinton's cabinet?
You want to talk about RACISTS? Let's list the Southern Democrats who were OPPOSED to the Civil Rights legislation (like Al Gore's father). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Assume the reactions of those Alpha Republican activists across the country who watched it from start to finish are the same as the Luntz group."
Ooo-kay. Alpha Republican activists across the country who watched the debate start to finish are going to share jilted Granite State voters' antipathy towards Thompson? You should open your windows when you cook your meth, Hugh.
"The only way to beat Obama is with a overwhelming command of the issues of the economy and the future, the war against the jihadists far beyond Iraq, and the intricacies of entitlement overload and immigration control collapse. And to do so with energy and good humor."
And this is precisely why the GOP is wasting its time with Romney. He's terrible on taxes, he's a phony on immigration, he oversaw an entitlement expansion in Massachusetts, and he has shown no understanding of the war against radical Islam.
Early returns showing Romney losing by 8 points in New Hampshire.
|
|
|
|