Sunday, October 28, 2007
|
|
The GOP's Two Man Race: Giuliani Or Romney Will Be The Nominee
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:04 AM
|
Fred Barnes has a piece on the real GOP race in the Weekly Standard.
On Friday's show, Fred, Morton Kondracke and I kicked around the realities of the Republican presidential contest. (Transcript here. Audio here.) The reality is dawning that a vote for anyone other than Romney or Giuliani is a diminished vote, one that assists either Romney or Giuliani. A vote by a McCain supporter for McCain instead of his or her second-choice Giuliani hurts the mayor. A vote by a pro-life activist for Mike Huckabee helps Giuliani by not helping the pro-life Romney. Clarity over the nature of the race and the dead-end nature of the Huckabee/Thompson/McCain efforts should begin to impact the early races in a decisive fashion through November. The key exchanges:
HH: So I wanted to start there, especially on the Republican debate on Monday. Fred Barnes, who won? How is this race stacking up right now?
FB: Well, certainly, Rudy Giuliani always does well in debates, he steps forward immediately to try to win the crowd. It’s a different strategy than the one Mitt Romney has. Mitt Romney’s been solid and prepared in every debate. So I would say they both did fine. McCain had one great line, that helped him. I think Fred Thompson tends to fade in these debates. Mike Huckabee’s a myth, and the others don’t count.
HH: Can we pause for a moment? Mike Huckabee’s a myth. Would you explain that?
FB: Well, there’s the myth that Mike Huckabee, the great conservative. And I think we’re quickly learning from pieces by John Fund and Quin Hillyer, who actually was an editorial writer in Little Rock during the Huckabee governorship, that Huckabee’s not really very conservative at all. He is on social issues, like most Baptist ministers, Southern Baptist, anyway, and yet he raised taxes and kept many Clintonistas in his administration, and did not govern the way, say, Romney has, did in Massachusetts, or Jeb Bush did in Florida, and we can think of the other conservative Republican governors, Bill Owens in Colorado, and so on.
HH: Morton Kondracke, do you agree that Huckabee’s a myth?
MK: I just don’t think Huckabee’s going to go anywhere. He’s personable, he’s likable, he’s got a populist streak. He does realize that there are people suffering in this economy, and expresses it. Now I’m not sure that the fair tax, which is his signature economic program, is going to do much for those people, because it’s going to raise their sales taxes to, what is it, 23% or something like that in order to eliminate income taxes, which I think probably net benefits people who are upper income. But at least he talks a good game about that. I don’t think, I think he’s got a chance to surprise in Iowa, you know, maybe finish second or something like that, maybe. But after that, he’s done, I think.
HH: It seems to me, Fred Barnes, that the Giuliani folks, and the Thompson folks, want Huckabee to be alive through Iowa to bleed Romney a little bit, and a vote for Huckabee’s really a vote for Giuliani and Thompson in the early contests. Is that a good analysis?
FB: Well, it is for Giuliani. It’s not for Thompson. I mean, Thompson, look, if Huckabee beats Thompson in Iowa, where Thompson’s competing, Giuliani really isn’t, or shows no evidence of it, if he beats Thompson there, that’s an embarrassment for Thompson. It might help Giuliani marginally, but I think…
MK: Which is an interesting point. For the life of me, I don’t understand why Giuliani doesn’t go compete in Iowa.
FB: Well, you know, he’s the mayor of New York City. With all that entails, that’s part of the reason, though he has a great story to tell about having changing it. But he’s a social liberal, and New Hampshire is much better for him, as is…and he’s doing well in South Carolina.
HH: Do you think he owns a pair of jeans or boots, Fred?
FB: Hmm?
HH: Do you think Rudy owns a pair of jeans?
FB: (laughing) I’ll bet he does. Look, even I do, but I just never wear them.
HH: How about, Morton, do you think he’s got overalls somewhere in the closet there in Manhattan?
MK: I’m sure he could find some.
HH: Let’s turn back, then, to the Romney-Giuliani race, which is really what this is all about.
FB: Indeed.
HH: Morton Kondracke…
FB: That’s why there’s a story about this, we’re going to be talking about this on the Beltway Boys tomorrow, that it’s essentially a two man race at the moment.
HH: I’m glad you’re talking about that tomorrow, because I agree, but I cannot get, for the life of me, a lot of conservatives to focus on the fact they’ve got a choice…
FB: Yup.
HH: And it doesn’t involve these other people. So Morton, is that going to clarify in time for those two guys? I’m sure they both want it to clarify that way. Maybe Rudy a little bit less so. What do you think?
MK: Well, I mean, it sort of depends on what the polls indicate about Thompson. You know, Thompson is not going anywhere. I mean, he just not breaking through, and in any particular state. I think he’s, I forget exactly where he is, but he’s, you know, he’s not leading in any state, that’s for sure. So if he doesn’t go anyplace, then it will clarify that it’s a two man race. I think it’s developing into a two man race, because Thompson’s not going anywhere. Unfortunately, McCain is gaining in various places, but I don’t see that he’s got the money to do much if he did score well in New Hampshire. I don’t know where he’d go with it if he had.
Read the whole thing.
|
|
The inside-the-beltway pundits are at their arrogant little game again, tell us who to to vote for and who is "going" to win. Don't they realize this will backfire? The "inevitability" argument for Hillary on the Dem side should have taught them a lesson. No one likes to be dictated to.
Huckabee has the evangelical vote. They will not vote for a Mormon or a social liberal if they have one of their own to vote for.
Huckabee has momentum. Everyone likes to hear him speak, and most of them are now seeing him as a viable candidate.
Huckabee can bring the Reagan Democrats, and perhaps even the old populist Buchananites. He "gets" it that this isn't about filling the pockets of the rich anymore, the GOP has GOT to be about helping the MIDDLE CLASS.
I was skeptical at first, but I think he could easily go all the way - damn the pundits, full speed ahead!!! |
|
Once I remembered his remark re the 9-11 dead of a couple weeks back,I stopped giving the vaguest ***t about the piece of phlegm.
He tinks The House of Lords is a good training ground for executive leadership.You know,high powered decision makers like Biden and Obama and Clinton.BWAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHH!
S/A86,Dusty and I are taking him to Egypt for some rendition.How cool is that! |
|
|
I'll grant that despite being 5th nationally, Romney has a great chance to win, due to the momentum of early states. But to discredit the chances of Thompson and Huckabee at this point is naive. Thompson does lead in all polls by reliable pollsters in South Carolina. And if he wins here, he will be one of the final 2 almost assuredly. |
|
"1- He is a man of Faith and strongly believes in God and that Jesus Christ is his Savior (forget what flavor of faith for a second--for those that have a problem with his brand)"
You forgot to leave this little fact out. This is typical MTC deception. This is why myself and 10's of millions of Americans will never trust Mitt Romney. |
|
Sorry buddy - my earlier post wasn't claiming IA & NH have a successful track record of picking the nominee - so when you say IA & NH are 2 for 4 in picking the nominee, you are not refuting anything.
My point was this:
It is VERY RARE for a candidate to win the nod (and yes - this is historically accurate) without taking at least one of those two early states. History also proves it is vary rare for a person to lose the nomination after winning BOTH of those early states. That is quite a different statement than saying IA and NH have a track record of picking the winner. These states split their decision more than once - but still...the ultimate winner was a candidate picked by one of those states almost without exception.
In 2000 Al Gore took both early states. In 2004 Kerry (who polled 13% nationally) took both early states. In 2000 Bush took IA. In 1996 Bob Dole took IA. See a pattern here? I could keep going. Historically - the candidates who win the nod just happen to be candidates who won one or both of these two early states. Given Romney has a decent lead in both states - Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain have to be pretty worried about that trend.
If Romney wins IA and NH...his chances (historically speaking) are very good at winning the nod. If Giuliani takes one of those states - it ups his chances a lot (and steals momentum from Romney.) All other candidates...well...bummer.
If I support Fred (with a second choice as "anyone who can beat Rudy") some early victories for Mitt would cause me to abandon Fred and vote for Mitt. You need to factor in the unique situation we have this year - that many GOP voters want Giuliani defeated more than they want "their candidate" to win the nod. This is unprecedented.
This all stacks up in Romney's favor if he gets some early victories...the chances of that scenario look pretty good for Romney. |
|
I think you've waterboarded him a might too long,Sir Neo!His/her head spinning at that velocity has even knocked his Reynolds Aluminium
Hat off.Scary.Very scary.
Who in the world,except John McCain,has any executive experience with Foreign Affairs?Funny.
The Committee droids of the Senate have NONE. |
|
"I know you don't like Mitt or Mormons."
You know nothing about anything. My post was about the election calendar; for you to read anti-Mormonism into that is pretty desperate as well as stupid. I just hope you’re a troll and not a truly representative Romney supporter. I’d hate to think that 11% of Republicans were as pathetic as you are if you’re being serious.
Hewitt has a lot to answer for for aggressively starting and pushing this meme that anyone who is pro-Rudy or pro-Fred must perforce be anti-Mormon. It’s a disgusting tactic. |
|
Thaale knows what he's talking about....
Sorry buddy, I know you don't like Mitt or Mormons. I just hope you (and a whole lot of other folks) can get over that prejudice, or we'll have another Clinton presidency.
And at this juncture in history, that would be a complete disaster. |
|
Myth: You can run poorly in the national polls but in some mysterious way run well in enough individual state races to make up a winning hand. False. An 11% weighted national average which includes a few states at 20%-30% support simply indicates that a candidate's average appeal in the other ~45 states is under 10%.
Myth: Iowa and New Hampshire are the kingmaker states. False. IA and NH have each been 2 for 4 in choosing the GOP nominee in the last four cycles without an incumbent president. South Carolina is 4 for 4.
Myth: There is a snowball effect from winning early states, i.e., the "Big Mo" that George Bush the elder claimed to have after winning Iowa in 1980. False, obviously.
Myth: Not exactly a myth, just a point often missed. In the general election, every state save NE and ME awards its electors on a winner-takes-all basis. The primary process is different, and it’s typical for a state to award three delegates per each Congressional District won, plus a set number of delegates to the winner of the state as a whole.
Myth: Voters in other early states will be almost totally influenced by what happens in IA and NH. False, as too many historical examples to cite go to show.
Myth: Voters in other early states even CAN be almost totally influenced by what happens in IA and NH. False. The calendar is fairly crowded, and most states’ votes are open to mail voting, absentee voting, and/or early voting well before election “Day” itself. IOW, when I’m voting early in FL in late December / early Jan, I won’t even be able to be influenced by say, Huckabee’s strong 2nd place finish in IA or Rudy’s disappointing 3rd place NH result, because I won’t even know yet that those are going to happen. The same holds true for MI, NV, SC, etc. |
|
Hey, I picked the Yanks or Cubs to win the World Series this year and look where that got me.
While your analysis is certainly plausible, I certainly wouldn't put money on it (not yet at least). Too many good teams still in the race and no real games played yet.
No way you can calculate the effect of a strong showing by Huck, McCain or Fred in the early going. The fans are fickle and it's still Spring Training. And there is a sixth horse out there just waiting for a chance to cause havoc like the Colorado Rockies this year.
While it's fun to muse, we'll just have to wait to see who plays the game best. |
|
"Are you sure you want to throw in Hugh's predictions?"
I hate the Indians, OSU, and the Cav's. However, when HH predicts something that has solid evidence behind the prediction (like the upcoming primaries) I'll take that to the bank.
Consider this:
If Romney wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have history on his side. No presidential candidate in either party has failed to win the presidential nomination after finishing first in Iowa and New Hampshire--that is, since 1972 when Democrat Edmund Muskie managed the dubious feat of winning both but not the nomination. Romney also has the best shot to win the Michigan primary on January 15. He grew up in Michigan and his father George was governor. The other Republicans have all but ignored Michigan.
Even SC shows Romney is doing well - he is behind Giuliani & Thompson in SC, but Romney's poll numbers have shown solid gains over the last two months while Rudy & Fred's SC numbers keep declining...
Everything looks good for Romney. Rudy can boast his national poll numbers all he wants, but history does not bode well for someone in Giuliani's shoes. As for all others - let's just say things look much better for Giuliani than they do for Fred, McCain, Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul. |
|
|
|
BigSpoon65
National polls are irrelevant. Please expain how Clinton won the 92 Dems nomination when, 4 months out from the Iowa caucuses in '92 he was polling only 3% in 7th place with high profile NY Governor Cuomo polling a seemingly insurmountable 33%? I repeat - national polls don't matter this far out from the primaries. |
|
|
Not voting for liberal New Yorker, R or D. |
|
It's logic is incredibly sound. Rudy and Mitt have the best scenarios. You may not like it, but it's a fact nonetheless.
Frankly, I think Mitt is GOING to win Iowa. Huck simply doesn't have the money to compete there, and the recent revelations about his liberal leanings in Arkansas will hurt him too.
So Mitt wins Iowa.
He'll get a bump from it in NH - and barely beat Guiliani there. Then at that point it becomes apparent he is the only credible social conservative cantidate on the republican ticket, and he goes on to win South Carolina as a result of it. South Carolinians will realize a vote for *any* cantidate but Mitt is essentially a vote for Rudy. And do they really want a gun-grabbing, Pro-Choicer in the white house just because they're uncomfortable with some aspects of Mormon theology? No. They don't.
So Mitt wins South Carolina.
At that point the race is essentially over. Rudy does well in Florida, possibly beating Mitt, but Mitt takes Michigan, Nevada and a host of other states who realize that Mitt is the only cantidate on the ticket who can forestall a 3rd party, Pro-Life cantidate, splitting the republican and giving the office to Hillary.
You may not like his religion guys, but Mitt is the guy with the best chance at unifying the various business and socially conservative aspects of the republican party.
He is a phenominal executive to boot, so that's a plus! Get excited about it! |
|
It's logic is incredibly sound. Rudy and Mitt have the best scenarios. You may not like it, but it's a fact nonetheless.
Frankly, I think Mitt is GOING to win Iowa. Huck simply doesn't have the money to compete there, and the recent revelations about his liberal leanings in Arkansas will hurt him too.
So Mitt wins Iowa.
He'll get a bump from it in NH - and barely beat Guiliani there. Then at that point it becomes apparent he is the only credible social conservative cantidate on the republican ticket, and he goes on to win South Carolina as a result of it. South Carolinians will realize a vote for *any* cantidate but Mitt is essentially a vote for Rudy. And do they really want a gun-grabbing, Pro-Choicer in the white house just because they're uncomfortable with some aspects of Mormon theology? No. They don't.
So Mitt wins South Carolina.
At that point the race is essentially over. Rudy does well in Florida, possibly beating Mitt, but Mitt takes Michigan, Nevada and a host of other states who realize that Mitt is the only cantidate on the ticket who can forestall a 3rd party, Pro-Life cantidate, splitting the republican and giving the office to Hillary.
You may not like his religion guys, but Mitt is the guy with the best chance at unifying the various business and socially conservative aspects of the republican party.
He is a phenominal executive to boot, so that's a plus! Get excited about it! And he has zero family problems like Rudy that Hillary can exploit in the general! |
|
Krystol has a new article out making the case for a possible 5 man race. He is making some fundamental heroic assumptions.
1. Romney does not have diminishing returns in IA and NH. There are a lot of and fluid votes both states who have not made up their minds. He benefits as the race narrows, especially as he advertises. The money advantage is substantial. He can defend and also use attack ads. Rudy is the only other candidate who has the money to do that.
2. Huck does not have the money to win much of anything. He also has very real opposition within the Evangelicals which is now surfacing. He has a ceiling. He also has no GOTV.
3. Fred is doing things his way which is not working and is not going to work. His ceiling is dropping. He has little GOTV.
4. McCain can only hope that more than 1/3 of the indies in NH vote Rep and then he has to fight Rudy and Ron Paul for them. He also does not have and will not raise the money to win the nomination. There will be one liberal and one conservative and the liberal will not be McCain unless Rudy totally collapses and withdraws. |
|
jtb-in-texas, we have to sit through the hyperventilation of the MSM to tell us what we are thinking.... Make up your own mind, vote your convictions, then support the Republican PARTY!
The choices after the primary are Socialism or Democracy.
I, personally, will support Fred Thompson. Sorry to hear so many people that will vote for someone based on the way they look, over where they stand on the issues. I have always been an issue voter, but that only comes with information and being willing to look at where the candidates stand.
Fred Thompson consistently stands by the Republican-Conservative platform without all the flip flopping to position himself so.
If he doesn't win the primary, I will still support the republican ticket, and hope others will do the same. The MOST important vote will be in congressional and senate votes anyway. Those are the offices most susceptible to voter influence by way of phone, fax, email. |
|
I always remember,when dealing with the'untouched by the torture of critical thought'crowd,a wonderful line in a movie based on an Elmore Leonard novel.The sociopathic lunatic bad guy gets word that Roy Scheider hasn't done as he was instructed..."That does IT!You tell a man how it really IS...and the MOTHER****** JUST DOESN'T LISTEN!"
B-Nitwit:Read 8:20pm post by humble,sensitive neo
and then shoo-shoo.I keep forgetting that you're the creep who dishonored the Tower Dead of 9-11.
A86:B-Nitwit believes HRC has some mythical exec experience!!That,in his tinfoil world,is gained in the House of Lords...err...U.S.Senate. BWWAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhH!! |
|
you sure you want to throw in with Hugh's predictions?
Harriett Miers
Painting the Map red
Republican sweep of 2006 election
Santoram's not really gonna lose
Ohio State (twice)
Cleveland Cavaliers
Cleveland Indians
etc etc etc
you might wanna rethink this
dirL |
|
Hugh is calling this dead on.
If Romney really takes the early states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina...and Giuliani still has a lead in the national polls by February 5 - Hugh's prediction will be even more clear.
Voters who want anyone but Giuliani (which is a large part of the GOP) will realize at that point that their failure to vote Romney will elect Giuliani.
Hugh thinks we will see a shift in November - I think it could be later. Romney will definitely take Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. SC is possible, but I certainly see things shaping up exactly the way Hugh has indicated. |
|
or LA is not likely to do as well in Dallas...
Let's at least wait until people have started to vote before we start passing out crowns, shall we? |
|
Huckabee is a proponent of the "Fair" tax, not the "Flat" tax.
Two very different bills!
For more info, go to http://www.fairtax.org |
|
It's not nice to censor another persons comments just because your candidate, Rudy and Romney will lose to Hillary.
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.
Listed are just some of the reasons why I switched my vote to Huckabee:
1. Huckabee can think on his feet.
2. He is personable.
3. He is real.
4. Huckabee considers the poor and less fortunate.
5. Huckabee is extremely knowledgeable about various issues and communicates with confidence.
6. He is Pro-life and Pro-family.
7. He is witty and competitive.
8. As governor, Huckabee is the longest proven executive leader among all the nominees.
9. He demonstrates wisdom, humility, and self-control.
10. Huckabee is completely understandable and communicates with great depth.
11. Huckabee has a consistent conservative track record.
12. He is noble, honest, compassionate, bold, also attentive to all the questions he was ever asked about WITHOUT being all over the board and WITHOUT sounding scattered.
13. Huckabee is clearly the toughest on border and national security.
14. Huckabee speaks without annoying hesitations and does not utilize vacuous speech.
15. He has earned the respect of Afro-Americans and Hispanics since he was THE ONLY top ranked one who valued and respected them by attending the latest ethnic sponsored republican forum.
16. He is direct and uncompromising about the flat tax system.
17. Huckabee is very focused and he is all about accomplishing measurable goals.
Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. Face it. It’s all over. |
|
I would just like to say that I endorse everything that JT has said.
Romney is intelligent, talented and competent. Anyone who has studied his life and business record should conclude he is also a man of integrity. Those who know him best have used him when the chips were down. He's a turnaround artist, and this country needs to be turned around. |
|
|
read these articles by liberal Republican shills? Find a social conservative to rally behind and then we'll look for the Rockefeller (LGBT) Republican in the VP slot to share the ticket. Regardless of how delusional the Rockefeller Reublicans become, I'd give my vote to the Democrat nominee before I give it to two social liberals from the Republican Party. |
|
While I understand your points, I just don't agree.
Slick (to me) is a term used by those who think someone is well spoken but not genuine. I don't think you can be as successful in all areas as Mitt is and not be genuine in your convictions, one area or another has to suffer (i.e. if you sacrifice your family for your career to promote your selfish desires, the family suffers, if you backstab your clients just to make a buck, they remember and you don't have any clients and a lot of enemies eventually) Those who know him best would rat him out.
Mitt is calculating, yes--he has been trained to do so as a talented leader in the business world. He has to play his strengths.
Here's what I know (granted, I've never met Mitt personally--but I've read testaments time and again of what a genuine person he is)
1- He is a man of Faith and strongly believes in God and that Jesus Christ is his Savior (forget what flavor of faith for a second--for those that have a problem with his brand)
2- He has been tremendously successful at virtually everything he's touched (family, business, government, Olympics...and the list goes on)
3- He has given up everything at the drop of a hat on occasion to help a friend in need--he dropped his business schedule in a heartbeat to help a co-worker for several days/weeks find his missing daughter
4- Those who know him best are willing to sacrifice greatly to assist him in any way possible
No other candidate has got his list of accomplishments nor the dedicated family backing of Romney.
Fraud? Truly, how can you be a fraud at your core and have a strong family and a strong marriage after 38 years? I say it is impossible and the evidence of fraud would be all around you. Look at ALL the evidence and decide. I think our country needs someone like him.
JT |
|
Try to understand this: I don't care about MItt's religion! Really, I don't. If anything, it biases me towards him; most of the Mormons I know are some of the most upright, honest folks I've met.
The problem is Mitt comes across (to me) as a slick panderer. He seems willing and able to say anything in an attempt to get a vote. Like his stupid lines, "Double Gitmo!" "Move in God we trust onto the front of the coin...." etc., etc., etc. The whole abortion conversion story reeks, too. It took a stem cell scientist to change Mitt's mind? Really? He was a grown man, too, not some impressionable teenage or young adult. Face it, Mitt switched his abortion position for the same reason he did on all other issues: he wants, desparately, to be President, to the point where he tailors his "views" and "positions" on his calculus of what will get him the most votes. No thanks. |
|
Nobody trusts Mitt Romney as evident through his extremely poor numbers. He has spent more money than any other candidate in Iowa and N.H. and his numbers are even slipping in those states. Looks like he won't be able to buy the election after all. He is on a record pace to spend more of his own money than anyone else has in the history of politics. Yet he is in 5th place nationally and sinking. He is barely hanging on by a thread to double digits.
Lot's of Romney supporters will be looking for a conservative candidate after Mitt drops out. You are all welcome to get on the Fred Thompson express.
Fred has not been slipping at all. He has maintained his place in the top two since he even hinted at running. Entered the race in September, yet has had his place ahead of Romney since May.
Yes, you Romney supporters are definitely looking through rose colored glasses. Forget about catching up to Fred. You guys need to figure out how to stop the downward spiral past McCain and Huckabee. Keep thinking positive, I hear that works sometimes. ROFLMAO |
|
BigSpoon65,
Thompson has gone nowhere but down in the polls since his official introduction into the race. He spiked initially, but as more people have listened to him, he continues to drop. Why? I think its because he doesn't strike me as someone with a great desire to even run. He just doesn't seem passionate.
Of course, this is just my opinion, but your statement about Romney has no logical analysis tied to it.
Thompson does OK right now nationally because of name recognition. I predict after he loses South Carolina, he'll drop out. He doesn't have the energy or charisma to keep up in this pivotal race. He seems tired.
The deal with Romney--if everyone dropped the fact that he is Mormon from the issues, people would be falling over themselves to flock to him. I think that's the biggest hesitation folks have, but no one wants to say it because it is clearly a bigoted reason not to vote for someone. His values are clear when you look at his family--you can't fake that--not consistently at least. If he wasn't for real, his sons or someone related to him would let the cat out, so to speak. So what are you left with--"well, he changed his mind on abortion!" OK. Should he apologize? If people already have their minds made up not to vote for him because of his faith--they've got bigger personal issues to deal with.
JT
|
|
Funny how the Romniettes only like polls when they reflect well on them. Most people tend to give the Rasmussen poll the title of most accurate polling out there and they have Romney in 5th nationally. The only bounce you are likely to see is right on out of the race. As the field thins Fred Thompson will continue to rise!
"Managers are the people that leaders hire"
Classic line Fred!
Fred has by far the most contributors and the next quarters numbers will make that glaringly obvious. |
|
Bobrocky--I think you're way wrong when you say Romney is uninspiring, but then again inpiring is in the eye of the beholder...
Sounds like you may be tainted by the liberal media bias, not sure. Those who know Romney best (his family and work associates) conclude he is incredibly inspiring based on their assessment of him. Intelligent, calculating, thoughtful, yes. But to say "plastic" is to not take a serious look at his accomplishments. It also doesn't take into account those who've met with him for interviews one on one. By and large, all come away very impressed. There's something very different about getting the "feel" for someone in person and just seeing them on TV. Mitt is the real deal.
Anyway, I would heartily support a Romney-Huckabee ticket, among others.
JT |
|
|
And that's not a bad thing. |
|
Why aren't Hugh and the MSM talking about Rudy and his defrocked pedophile priest friend/employee?
If Rudy is the nominee, I won't vote in that race.
I won't be in the party then. They will have left me behind.
I'd rather have Hillary than lose the pro-life issue and vote for Rudy.
4 years of hillary is better than 8 of Rudy.
Oh and its not going to be Rudy or Romney.
|
|
"HH: I’m glad you’re talking about that tomorrow, because I agree, but I cannot get, for the life of me, a lot of conservatives to focus on the fact they’ve got a choice… "
Romney and Rudy are a choice, but not a very good one. Romney is Mr. Plastic Perfect, but he's not a draw. He's so computerized in every response he gives. Nothing inspiring about the man at all. Rudy was a mayor. I think FDR was the last Mayor we elected, but he had held larger public offices than that. Rudy has just too much social garbage. They will sink his swift boat so fast it won't be funny. Married 3 times, had his wife and mistress living in the Mayor's mansion at the same time? I don't think so.
Huckabee is the rising star. And before people just say "He's not conservative" go visit his web site and read his position papers and listen to a few speeches. He's for closed borders. He's for a fence BEFORE we talk about a doing anything else, he wants those borders closed.
He lowered taxes in MO. The taxes he raised were backed by 80% of his people. He was building roads and making sure bridges didn't collapse. We know how awful it is when we don't shore up our bridges, don't we? It's not unconservative to take care of your infrastructure. It's being responsible and it's actually a legitimate use of state funds.
Huckabee has the leadership abilities we are looking for. He's articulate and genuine. People are drawn to him. He has more executive experience than any of the other candidates. Time magazine called him one of the top 5 governors in the Nation. Check out Huckabee. You'll be pleasantly surprised. I'm a big fan of Hugh's, but he's just wrong about continuing to support Romney. He's going nowhere. |
|
He cannot win against the democrats. Why would anyone who is uninformed enough to vote for a democrat actually vote for "democrat-lite"? He'll not carry NYC; ditto for NY State. Think the NE liberals will support him? Not a chance.
Social & economic conservatives will find little comfort in Rudy. His little ditty on gun control for NYC but not anywhere else is just not credible. And then there is all that baggage with his 2nd wife, Donna Hanover; being thrown out of Gracie Mansion; dressing in drag; Gay Pride parades & all the other mess. No, he brings nothing to the table. I'd vote for him, as I will whoever runs against the democrat nominee, because not voting IS a vote for the democrat. Let's get real here. How can we expect to win if we have these sensitive litmus tests for ourselves that will simply be exploited by the media, whereas the liberals get a free get out of jail pass from their fellow-travelers in the press? It's Mitt (AKA Willard Milton) Romney, who may be our only hope here, even with his 'Mormon' question. Sounds better than another democrat in the White House. Or are we too bigoted to elect someone we are told is 'too religious' or 'different' or (heaven forbid!) not 'Christian"? What's up here? Have we picked through another candidate's religion like this? Perhaps many would be suprised to learn of the fuzzy little edges of their own religious institutions. |
|
|
Huckabee is a social conservaitve but his domestic, fiscal & border issues have more holes than Swiss cheese. He is not a conservative. And although perhaps he'd bring along the evangelical vote, there are many middle-roader conservatives who will sit at home if Huck's policies would equal those of Bush on spending. The past is prologue, guys. Hunter is good on issues, esp military & security, but needs $$ & can't beat the Clintonistis. Thompson's entry was hyped into a lathered froth into which he disolved. McCain did not get a bounce, just a nuge from the nostalgic. Paul is pure looney. Enough said.That leads us to Romney. Are we prepared to let go of our religious bigotry? A vote for a GOP hopeful who cannot beat the nasty Clinton media machine is a vote for the democrats. However, the anti-LDS Church disinformation campaign has not yet even begun. Funny thing, though: we've not heard even a peep from the Left related to their new 'patron saint,' Harry the Sleaze Reid. Go figure. |
|
Cato--while I agree with you that Huckabee is a great candidate and a great debater (and personally I wouldn't be too sad if he actually won the nomination). As I can tell though, he lacks the Fiscal and Immigration Conservatism we need to contrast to Hillary, not to mention the financial backing. However ugly it seems, it will take a lot of $$ to beat the Hillary machine...
Romney has all those things and more energy than any of the other Republican candidates (although Rudy might be a close second on the energy count).
JT |
|
|
There are a number of voters that remember being told that a vote for Ross Perot was a wasted vote. So they did not vote for Perot........After 10 years of a failed NAFTA promiss, that destroyed the Mexican economy, and reduced U.S. wages as well, creating massive illegal immigration..............................They will vote their principles this time. After the Rino/Cino's calling everyone a "biggot and rascist" for wanting the borders secured..............They will vote their principles this time. And if Hillary wins, she can torture the Rino/Cino's at guantonamo if she likes! |
|
Opening a mighty fine 'butthole in his forehead'.
The bizarre world which the boy inhabits is unfazed by rational,critical thought.Jeepers, Beave,who wouldn't want a congressman or senatewoman?Yessirrreeee-bob,those chambers give all that fine executive,kick-a** experience.God.
You ain't worth the spit to hit your shoe, numbnuts,but whilst I'm waiting for the BoSox to cream my Rockies,just a few silly lil' observations...Rudy likes to KILL Bad Guys.Dead.
That,alone,works for me.But,there is so much more.
He ran the biggest city in America and did it real good.That city,by the by,is much bigger than the state of Arkansas where Billy Bubba got all that exec.experience.He cleaned up that filthy sleaze pit and made it safe for moms to take their kids to the subways and Times Square.He so
effectively nailed the mob & bigtime mobsters that
they've never recovered their former power.Gotti,
with whom Rudy made it personal,died in solitary
in SuperMax-Life.He was a surprisingly good head administrator for NYC and cut taxes and balanced budgets.WHAT A CONCEPT for the world capital of sucking Fed Funds.
When riled,Rudy is meaner than six coral snakes.
I love the sure knowledge that his wrath will be directed at Enemies Foreign & DOMESTIC. ;-)
Gawd,I love it.Congressdweebs are executive experienced?! |
|
The man who brought us that great conservative Governor Arnold is now telling us that Romney is the real conservative.
Well, that depends on what day of the week you are talking about.
Mike Huckabee is simply a better candidate. He is not only more articulate but actually believes what he is saying.
Huckabee is probably the only Republican candidate who can appeal to those Reagan Democrats who are leaving our Party in droves. Nominating a multi-millionaire who comes off that way isn't going to cut it.
On both principle and pragtism, Huckabee is the better candidate.
|
|
|
I know alot of women, and I don't know ANY who would be opposed to Fred because he married a younger woman! And I do know men who admire him for just that. If you have problem with Thompson over this, then YOU have problem. |
|
My challenge to you was to give me an example of something in Romneys RECORD that was liberal--because you stated he had a liberal RECORD. This, to me, is a false statement, because as far as I can tell, his RECORD of ACTION as governor of Mass. is tremendously conservative by any standard.
You responded by giving me one mans opinion that Romney is a RINO because he pulled an old soundbite. I already gave you that--and requested proof that Romneys RECORD is liberal. It is not.
Now, to answer your question regarding saying something and doing something different. When it comes to conservatism, my point is I would rather someone say something liberal and do something conservative than vice versa. While it would be great and I prefer everyone to say and act congruent with their statements, it is one thing to say how one would act in theory, without actually going through an experience. It is another thing altogether after having been through an experience and saying "Wow, I really didn't think I would feel this way when all the chips were down, but this is the decision I have to make." In this case, on abortion, Romney first espoused a view based on his family experience--the relative with the botched abortion (we all base judgements on our past experience). However, when the chips were down, and he was faced with the reality of what his decision would mean--he simply couldn't do it. He went beyond the test lab/theory phase to real experience. In every case, I think Romney made sound judgements based on his experience at the time. I wouldn't fault anyone for approaching it the same way.
JT |
|
talking and then acting in a different manner is a virtue? Since when? I remember when Rick Perry pulled that in Texas, his career is over. Arnold Schwarzenegger also pulled that in California and now the Republicans hate him.
A virtue? I don't think so. |
|
|
... talking and behaving differently is supposed to be a virtue? When did that become a proper talking point? |
|
|
Romney is the best compromise for all the conservatives to come together under one candidate. Romney can unite all the Fred and Huckabee voters. Giuliani is way too liberal for the GOP. Giuliani means an end to the campaign for traditional family values. Romney is the only GOP candidate that looks and talks like a President. All the others talk like they're celebrities. The GOP may have to repackage Romney a bit when he campaigns in places like California, but that shouldn't be too bad. |
|
If he is the nominee we'll get crushed all the way down the ticket. Look for the Dems to pick up super-majorities in House and Senate.
|
|
KayMichelle,
Thank you for the response. I already gave you that he RAN as a moderate for office in Mass., but his RECORD is exhaustively conservative. Romney explained he has a relative that had a very bad experience with a botched abortion, and at that time he made the statement this drove much of his thinking. At the time he also stated he would not pursue a change in the law, but personally abhorred the practice of abortion. While some of his past TALK seems liberal (and I would argue most of it can be explained reasonably if you take all the facts and circumstances surrounding the comments and not just sound bites), his ACTIONS have always been conservative. His RECORD still stands. I will take ACTION over TALK any day.
Do you have anything liberal on his actionable RECORD?
JT |
|
...like a mild wind could topple him over. He looks sick, he is sick. He simply looks like he couldn't make it through an eight hour day.
Besides, I don't know many women who would vote for a man who married a woman 25 years his junior.
|
|
-- Do these guys take up next in their career? Acting?
It's a two man race, Rudy -- Fred. Mitt is not going to be able to buy the election. Rudy is standing still, Fred is closing fast. |
|
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
He is #8 in the "Republicans in name only" ... although Spector does rate higher, I'm not sure what an endorsement that is! |
|
Don't tell us, let us guess: AFL-CIO or SEIU?
You are a union thug, employed as a seminar blogger, right?
Don't worry, Judy, if Rudy G. gets the GOP nod, he will get the GOP vote, and a lot of the Democrat vote as well.
He is not my candidate, but he stands head and shoulders above Hillary Rod'em, Babakazama, The Son-of-a-Millworker and Ron "LaRouche" Paul. |
|
|
Rudy is a congenital liar. He said he would not root for the Red Sox even in a deal with the Devil! He also had two simultaneous adulterous affairs (Letagano AND Nathan), lied about his father being honest (Harold Giuliani was a mobster who did 1 1/2 years in Sing Sing for Armed Robbery) and Jimmy Breslin charges in Newsday that Giuliani took the Fire Commissioner away from his radio commmand truck on 9-11 for a press conference and the police warning to evacuate was never heard by the NYFD. |
|
...now that I've read that
A. It's just a two man race and
B. National polls don't matter.
This certainly assuages my fears about the Mittster who is now in FIFTH place nationally. From Rasmussen:
"Huckabee continues to gain ground and is just two points behind McCain at 12%. This is the first time all year that Huckabee has surpassed Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor slipped another point and he is now at just 11% nationally."
Just imagine what things would be like right now if we didn't all know that it was a two man race between Rudy and Mitt! |
|
KayMichelle,
You state Romney has a liberal record? While he ran as a moderate in Massachusetts, his record as a governor is anything but liberal.
Fiscally Conservative
1- Brought state out of a $3B debt WITHOUT raising taxes
2- Brought down spending and cut the fat out of the government payroll
Socially Conservative
1- Ruled on the side of life for EVERY bill questioning pro-life or pro-choice agenda
2- Fought tirelessly against a 85% Democratic majority in his state to protect the sanctity of marriage as defined between a man and a woman--but lost (this is why he supports a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman)
Foreign Policy Conservative
1- Denied request to allow Iran's then leader to have police escort when he visited the state
2- Fought to protect the state from illegal immigration using whatever means he had available as a governor--imposed federal law wherever possible
These are just a few off the top of my noggin--do you have actual liberal examples of his RECORD as a governor (I haven't even broached his accomplishments in his own home, with the 2002 Olympics, and with his nationally renowned success as one of the best businessmen of our time). I'll be waiting to see your answer--
JT |
|
business posting on Republican Candidates until the general election, and only then what Hillary Rod'em tells you to post. BJob, you are a DIMOCRAT, go kos-ifiy eleswhere. Babakazma is loose in Iowa, and Bill Clinton's 'wife' might need your pitiful assistance in fending off the ersatz black man. Get to it and shut up.
Bent might finally be right about something, but misses the point of electing Arnold Schwarzenegger: it was a stunt....despite every mistep AS may have made, getting rid of Grey Davis was worth the trouble, worth the stunt, and in no way would California be a better state with either bust-a-monkey or furianna muffington as governor. It is nothing more than REALPOLITIK.
Railing about AS does nothing. |
|
BG,
"I respect Rasmussen as a pollster but keep in mind that he is less accurate at state polling than at national polling" and the proof of this is...what? |
|
Great analysis on the GOP race as it has shaped up. If Republicans want the whole conservative package (social, fiscal, military), their vote has to be for Romney. Any vote otherwise will split the conservative field, because Rudy is the only socially liberal Republican running. He is in a class by himself while the other four of the top tier are vying for the conservative Wing of the Republican field. Conservative Republicans need to start rallying about Romney now--he's the only one with the finances, the smarts, and the background to beat Hillary.
Also--I don't understand why so many people try to key in on the whole Flip Flop non-issue. Dig into Mitt's record...he has only truly done a 180 on abortion, and even that is more of a full conversion than a 180. He has NEVER been pro-gay marriage, he has consistenly opposed discrimination against gays (homosexual "marriage" is not and should not ever be a Right). Marriage is what it is, and it should be protected at all costs. The strength of our country depends on it. Personally, I think most of the concern is rooted in Religious Bigotry based on what I've seen and heard. I can only hope people will not trust the mainstream media and do their homework. You cannot fake family credentials when you have such a well-rounded family. True, good parents can raise rotten kids, but if they all turn out good, and he has kept a strong marriage--that man (and woman) have solid core principles. Flip-flop???? I think not!! To me that is the greatest test of someone's innermost convictions.
Also--see the latest interview from "Face the Nation" with Mitt. Some eye opening and refreshing answers from Romney.
JT
|
|
|
by the MSM (and it includes Fox for its unshamed advocacy of the liberal Rudy) to make our decisions for us. They'd love to have two liberals running against each other. |
|
Ford is a liberal and pushes for Rudy. McCain's current head to head vs Hillary are better than Rudy's. Rudy's (at least in the likely voter polls) are barely a point or two better than Romney's and Fred's.
Anyone who claims Rudy is the only one who can beat Hillary is drinking kool aid. Rudy will lose. Further, Romney can and is fixing his problems slowly. His head to heads have improved a lot over the last few months. They will continue to improve as he gets better known and as Rudy's true positions become better known. There are still large numbers of Rep and leaning Reps who do not know Rudy's positions on Guns, Gays, Borders and Abortion.
I don't worry much about Fred any more. Even if he takes the right positions it does not help him. Fred's problem is that he is Fred and is going to do things "His Way". His own campaign is killing him. The more exposure he gets on live TV the faster he drops.
|
|
I respect Rasmussen as a pollster but keep in mind that he is less accurate at state polling than at national polling. The RCP averages tend to be the most accurate on state polling.
Romney could lose IA or NH but it is not likely.
Further, the polls do not reflect the power of the GOTVs. Romney has a world class GOTV in those states. Fred and Huck have next to nothing. Rudy and McCain will have decent GOTV operations in NH, so far they are not many putting resources into IA.
Romney will also have a great GOTV in SC. In close elections you win on the strengh of you GOTV and that is especially true in primaries. |
|
Romney was a moderate Gov of a very liberal state. He had conservative and moderate elements.
However, given a clear choice between Rudy who is inching to the right to get through the primaries and Romney who clearly changed positions 2 or more years before he announced, I will take Romney. We don't have 8 years for conservative to "warm to Romney". The Republican Party is lost if it nominates Rudy and it is in trouble if it does not defeat Hillary.
There is no indication at all the Rudy will not fight tooth and nail against social conservative positions if he gets into office. Further, Rudy is a lot more stubborn than Bush. Further, his idea of strict constructionist may be closer to libertarian than conservative. |
|
From Rasmussen's polling in Iowa:
"In conducting and analyzing this survey, Rasmussen Reports reviewed results for many possible levels of turnout. While the results varied modestly depending upon the turnout model, the overall dynamic was the same in all cases—Romney in the lead with Thompson and Huckabee close to each other in second. For example, our overall sample shows Romney with 25% of the vote and a six point lead. When only those who were absolutely certain they would vote, Romney attracts 24% support and leads by two."
Romney has a two point lead among people certain to vote and a six point lead overall. It's insurmountable. All hail Mitt! |
|
I turned off my TV to the Beltway Boys the day after the November 2006 election when Fred Barnes tried to blame the lack of progress on "comprehensive immigration reform" for the loss of the Republicans seats in the Congress. Now really, how out of touch can you be?
|
|
About Rudy not owning "jeans or boots"....
Romney was born into a wealthy political family. He has never been poor or had to worry about providing for his family. Rudy was born in the Bronx, and clawed his way up the food chain as a tough prosecuter. For that matter, Hugh is an effete Harvard trained lawyer, with a cush day job at a bottom tier law school. I don't like to play the class-war card, but since Hugh brought it up... None of these guys are "just folks" folks. The difference is that Romney is more willing then the others to pretend to be, as long as it helps him secure the nomination. |
|
After spending a ton of screen space ranting about how the "media elites" and "inside-the-beltway" types don't "get it," Hugh'svery next post is.... three elitist political insiders, trying to prematurely write the history of the GOP primary, 2008. Romney's lackey Hugh is in fine, standard form, downplaying Huck, dismissing Fred and McCain, ignoring Paul, and demonizing Rudy. Of course, if prognostication was a batting average, then Hugh would have been bounced from the AAA farm team awhile back - after Harriet Miers, Iraqi democracy, a "red map," the 2006 elections (in which he predicted a Republican House and Senate, even the day before), Ohio State, the Tribe, etc. etc. etc. I almost want Mitt to win, just so little Hughey doesn't have his ego crushed yet once again. Of course, it has yet to stop him from running his mouth with another set of predictions / pronouncements, so I guess no permanant damage done.
To the Mitt heads here: stop pretending that abortion is Romney's sole "conversion." Every part of Mitt's political personna prior to 2003 or so, when the White House dream began to take hold, was a far more liberal one than now. Gays, guns, taxes, immigration,... Romney is running against his own record. At least Rudy doesn't pander on EVERY ISSUE! Reagan didn't change postions on a host of issues overnight just to run for office. And when he did run for President, it took a few tries before conservatives "bought" him. If Romney is really sincere, then he should move to Utah after he loses, and run for US Senate or governor there. |
|
|
I like Huckabee. He looks like a really nice guy. However, he was still a tax-and-spend governor, and worse, he will not close the borders. The issue of illegal immigration goes even beyond the dangers of islamofascism. It goes to the identity of Americanism and, if left to fester, will create a balkanized country, where every illegal immigrant will believe he is carrying out the will of Mexico's latest El Presidente--where he is, there goes Mexico. For us, that means Mexico can use its population to grab back everything it lost in the Treaty of Guadalupe in 1848. Mexico still thinks we were wrong to wage that war. We may have been, but Mexico was still going to oppose any US annexation of Texas, even though Texicans wanted it. It is ironic that the gold and silver rushes in California, Nevada, and Colorado occurred after Mexico lost that land. Why ironic? Gold and silver were the lures that attracted the Spanish to conquer as much of the Americas as they could. What is sad about Spain--and remains sad about Mexico--is that neither realizes the sources of a country’s wealth aren’t a gold or silver mine. Instead, it is the human mind. If they want greatness again, they must educate their people for the 21st Century. |
|
That is what the problem with Huckabee is... no Conservative track record.
His stance on illegal immigration, ie, his comparison of migrant workers with slaves (slaves were forced on ships!) is simply anathema to the conservatives today. |
|
We are very well served with these fine Men.
Caught Mitt on Kramer's 'mad money' thing...
Just stumbled on it, during a commercial break.
And Mr. Romney is impressive.
Not going to increase taxation...
Understands the FREE Market.
Excellent advocate for Conservatives. |
|
All these guys are suckin wind.
http://Vets4Fred.net |
|
These guys have no problem making predictions - there's no consequence when they get it wrong. Their arrogance is just staggering.
Hey, Fred, Huckabee is moving up in the polls. He getting his message out and people like it.
Romney doesn't have convictions - he stands for whatever will get him votes in the next election.
Giuliani was a terrific mayor for New York City but he didn't even hold statewide office.
Thompson can't impress without scriptwriters and practice on his talking points.
Huckabee is a man with integrity, a Conservative track record, experience in government and out, and he can articulate his ideas. |
|
Exactly! When are these people going to realize that we are able to think for ourselves, that we want to choose for ourselves!
I think you can hear Duncan Hunter on Laura Ingram, she is a supporter of his.
I have heard Ron Paul on John Zeigler kfi640.com, you can listen to the interview there. He sounds totally sane when he isn't forced to a 5 second soundbite, and isn't rattled by mockery.
You can find these things on the internet, on the radio. I don't even watch TV news anymore. It's more like a herding pen.
Do you guys in the GOP listen to how angry the American people are? You will get this third party candidate if you keep pressing people to the center. We won't go there.
Look what it did to California. This is the future of "progressive" and "centrist" conservatism. It is simply liberalism in disguise.
|
|
|
|
|
Romney is the only candidate on the Republican side who is more organized than Hillary. He's the only conservative in the race who has a proven record of executive excellence, and, unlike Rudy, doesn't face the threat of a major SoCon revolt. He is the only guy we have who can match Hillary in financial resources this year, and he has an excellent plan to defeat her. Hillary, as noted above, has never, to use Mitt's phrase, "run a corner store." Romney has won where it should be logically impossible for a Republican to win. By contrast, winning the Presidency will be relatively easy. |
|
We do not want any more McCains, Bushes, Grahams, or any other RINO. We want a solid Conservative both fiscally and socially. The defeat in 2006 suffered by Republicans was because the voters that put them there got deserted. They went to Washington and played patty cake with the Dems. I for one want someone who has the guts to be partisan, to be a Republican first and foremost.
Rudy is simply not qualified and is too tied up in making America into nothing more than a nation state in the world order, globalism.
Other than the debates which I don't get to see every time have been my only chance to observe the candidates. The media won't talk about anyone but Rudy, Mitt and Thompson.
2006 wasn't just about the President or the war it was about Republicans who didn't remain true to their voters from McCain's gang, the amnesty shamnesty, to uncontrolled spending. Republican Senators and Congressmen went to Washington, drank from the Potomac and lost their heads.
Right now I am unable to support any of the ones I am being told are the only ones who can win. The differences in the RNC and the DNC have become almost undetectable.
Wish I could hear more about Duncan Hunter.
|
|
|
Fred is the inevitable candidate. People like him, even his opponents. He has the fewest negatives. There is virtually nothing bad you can say about him. As the pretenders gradually drop out, more supporters will switch to Fred. As usual, the "inside the Beltway" crowd does not understand the rest of the country. |
|
|
I don't see that. Romney is corporate elite, a bit on the slick side, who has a liberal record. Americans just aren't gullible enough right now to accept someone as a 'social conservative' a guy who signed gay marriage laws in their state. |
|
austin,
You said "A lot is being made of Romney's success in Iowa; he's spent enough money there to buy the entire population a car a piece. Yet his numbers have sank steadily."
Have you even bothered to look at the polls lately? In the most recent poll, Romney enjoys a 14 POINT LEAD.
Not only is his lead not sinking, it is exploding.
Do some research before posting so you don't look so silly. |
|
Simple math. Right now, he is splitting the social conservative base 3 ways with Thompson and Huckabee.
After he crushes them both by large double digits in Iowa and NH, they will be done. Romney then picks up their social conservative voters and blows Giuliani away.
What still amazes me is the the anti-Romney crowds #1 gripe with Romney is that he coverted on abortion. Yet these same people would say they LOVE Reagan who did exactly the same thing (Reagan may have actually been worse).
Reagan flps on abortion and he is a god. Romney flips on abortion and he is a liar.
Get it stariught peeps, we are trying to defeat the true evil here - Hillary and the MSM. |
|
but I am not counting Fred out right now.
And if the race boils down to just the current GOP crop and Hillary, I would not count out serious third party challenges from the left and right (and I am not talking about Bloomberg). |
|
You know, Fred Thompson supporters love to quote the National Polls. Historically, they have been useless at best.
Bill Clinton was running at 13% nationally the year he won the Presidency.
National Polls are "name recognition" only - period - end of sentence. What matters is the early individual states, and there Romney is leading by double-digits and growing.
So Fred Heads - one more time, NATIONAL POLLS ARE USELESS WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRIMARY NOMINATION PROCESS. |
|
Guiliani is another Arnold Schwarzenneger in the making. Arnold is a disaster for California, the things he has done are worse than those things we recalled Davis over. Davis only wanted to give us driver's licenses for illegals. Arnold wants to give them free medical care. |
|
Briggsy writes: "BG, Huck has the evangelicals. And that's as good as money."
Not in many of the important early state primaries and caucuses.
Christian evangelicals are strongest in the Deep South and West. But NH is the first primary in the nation, and after that you've got states like SC, Florida, California. There aren't enough Christian evangelicals in Florida or California to stop Rudy from winning those states. And NY and NJ are Rudy country of course. No way Huck could make a decent showing in those kinds of states. Romney could do battle there, not Huck.
|
|
Huckabee - his stance on illegal immigration
make him unacceptable - even EVs won't vote
for him.
Guiliani - abortion and gay rights
The people don't trust gvt enough to accept
him on faith that he will choose good judges,
not to mention his ties with Dubai, and the
Texas toll road.
Romney - he has a liberal record as governor, and
belongs to an religion that has very odd
beliefs, considered by many to be a cult.
Thompson - we have had enough of the slow think-
ing, slow talking southern drawl, y'all.
McCain - he is dead in the water because of the
disaster he made of campaign finance reform,
and amnesty for illegals.
Hunter - he can't even get a fence built that he
promised a year ago.
Tancredo - a bit of a loose cannon. Although, I plan to throw away my vote on him.
Paul - unfortunately, he is looking like a major possibility because his people are extremely motivated, and the protest vote could definitely happen. People are very angry with this government, both Dem and Repub. A win from a protest vote is entirely possible.
With an 11% approval rating of Congress, with Hillary and Rudy slinging around mud, bringing to light, corruption and foreign involvement, with a third party candidate of a Libertarian... yep, people are angry enough to do it. I believe in the American people to toss Washington on it's arse. We did it last summer.
|
|
Here are the current bets on Intrade.com:
Giuliani: 42
Romney: 27
Thompson: 11
McCain: 7
IOW, the current rough odds being offered are:
Giuliani: 2-to-1
Romney: 4-to-1
Thompson: 9-to-1
McCain: 14-to-1
Anybody else is an even bigger long shot.
|
|
|
Huckabee commuted 111 sentences as Gov. including violent offenders, murderers and rapists. Thats not conservative, thats dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
Whatever he might be saying now, Huckabee has been soft on tightening border enforcement. If he'd been in the Senate, he would have stood with John, Teddy, that weiner Lindsay Graham and others in the "comprehensive immigration reform" con job. |
|
Hugh is petrified of Thompson and now Huckabee. He just keeps repeating over and over about a 2 man race (reminds me of Dustin Hoffman saying tapioca over and over again in rainman), trying, I think, to keep anyone stupid enough to believe it from even thinking of anyone but his ubercrush Romney. And once again, if Romney should slip up and get the nomination because of Iowa or New Hampshire it would be a strong reason to change this insane system. ROMNEY CAN NOT BEAT HILLARY OR OBAMA PEOPLE !!! So all you players who keep pointing out that the national polls mean nothing, if you are right then basically Romney is buying the nomination and ruining any chance for the Republicans in the election. 2 small states that can be bought through money and specific vote buying promises should not determine the nomination for the nation.
And we all know that Thompson is cancer ridden southerner but what will Hugh's take on Huckabee be? I don't think the "myth" title is vile enough for Hugh, I am sure he will think of something more crude.
dirL |
|
A lot is being made of Romney's success in Iowa; he's spent enough money there to buy the entire population a car a piece. Yet his numbers have sank steadily. Thompson, for all his lackluster performance, has had better numbers even before he got into the race.
Romney is recognized as a flip flopper, as well as the governor of a state that gave us the Kennedy's, John Kerry, and gay marriage. He's had months to catch fire, and he hasn't. The enduring fascination of some pundits with him is reminiscent of the fascination college kids have with Ron Paul. It's simply not going to happen. If there is going to be a big choice in the GOP, it will come down to Thompson and Giuliani; conservative, or liberal republican. Romney will fade into much deserved obscurity.
Think of it this way; Hillary is being rammed down the nations throats as a good candidate. What's good about her? She's ugly, has a bad personality, won't take questions, puts her foot in her mouth when she gets off script, and is probably already engaged in criminal activity. Yet, the media sings her praises. If her name wasn't clinton, she would be a humorous footnote. Romney is an empty suit. Saying he's a good candidate doesn't make it so; he might be a nice guy but I'm looking for a President, not a guy to borrow a lawn mower from. |
|
Only Romney and Giuliani have any reasonable prospects for winning the nomination. The 2 magic ingredients are early-state success and enough money and organization to capitalize on it.
Nobody besides these 2 have EITHER of these.
Of the 2, Romney is better positioned because he has sizable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Any time a candidate wins a state, his numbers go up everywhere, and everybody else's go down everywhere. But when a candidate wins states at precisely the time most voters are starting to pay attention, the momentum effect is incredible. Pat Buchanan has estimated that these 2 victories could be worth $100 million in free publicity. The frosting on the cake is that Romney is well positioned to win Nevada, Michigan, and South Carolina. Michigan is the real key. It will determine the course of subsequent events.
One of these 2 men will be the next Republican nominee, and the time to choose between them is now. They are the only 2 guys we have who can defeat Hillary, so choose wisely. |
|
Only Romney and Giuliani have any reasonable prospects for winning the nomination. The 2 magic ingredients are early-state success and enough money and organization to capitalize on it.
Nobody besides these 2 have EITHER of these.
Of the 2, Romney is better positioned because he has sizable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Any time a candidate wins a state, his numbers go up everywhere, and everybody else's go down everywhere. But when a candidate wins states at precisely the time most voters are starting to pay attention, the momentum effect is incredible. Pat Buchanan has estimated that these 2 victories could be worth $100 million in free publicity. The frosting on the cake is that Romney is well positioned to win Nevada, Michigan, and South Carolina. Michigan is the real key. It will determine the course of subsequent events.
One of these 2 men will be the next Republican nominee, and the time to choose between them is now. They are the only 2 guys we have who can defeat Hillary, so choose wisely. |
|
Conservatives can nominate a conservative. All it takes is not acting like sheep and getting herded into nominating a northeast liberal. 49% will never vote for Hillary, only 60% voted last time. Turnout was the difference. Give Americans a chance to vote for someone who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill its most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
|
Ron Paul has about 6 million cash on hand. Huck has about $600,000. Ron Paul has a better chance at the nomination that Huck. |
|
There are only 2 guys in the race with a credible scenario for winning the nomination. Romney and Giuliani are the only 2 candidates who have the financial resources to capitalize on early-state success. They are also the only 2 candidates who have any prospects of early-state success. While Giuliani is ahead in national polls, his national numbers are down to 20%, according to the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll. Also, the only early state he is clearly ahead in is Florida, which is the last of the early states on January 29th. He has some prospects for carrying New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan, and has enough COH to take advantage of this if he wins any of these states.
Romney is in a better position. In the latest Iowa poll, he has more support than Giuliani and Huckabee (#'s 1 & 2) combined. In the latest New Hampshire polls, his leads are by 9% and 10%. Nobody in the history of modern Republican politics has won both of these states. Pat Buchanan has estimated that between the 2 of them, they are worth about $100 million of free publicity. Every time a candidate wins any primary state, his #'s go up and everybody else's go down. If Romney wins both of these contests, he will probably win Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. He's well-positioned in all 3 states.
One of these 2 men will be the next Republican nominee, and either can beat Hillary. A recent poll showed that precisely 50% of likely voters would NEVER vote for her. Both Romney and Giuliani are excellent communicators who will demolish Hillary in the debates. The time to choose between them is now. |
|
The Romney camp again mimics Kevin Bacon's classic scene in Animal House as the Deltas' deathmobile wreaks chaos on the college parade:
"Remain calm! ALL IS WELL!!!"
I sure will be glad when the primary follies are over.
Jon
http://exurbanleague.com |
|
It is not the big 5, it is either the big 2 (Romney and Rudy) or it is the Big 6. If you look at the odds Rudy is 40+, Romney is 25+, Fred is 10-11, Paul, McCain and Huck are about 6-7.
The social conservatives were suckered by elements of the MSM who support Rudy into getting on the Fred bandwagon without vetting him. Fred was honest. He said he would not and could not run a regular campaign. The So Cons bought into the "walk on water" image of Fred without a blink. That divided opposition to Rudy.
Sucker play 2. Huck ran 2nd in the IA straw poll. The Rudy elements of the MSM jumped on another chance to divide the anti Rudy vote. That lasted about 10 days.
Sucker play 3. Huck a Baptist Minister runs 2nd at the values voters conf. He should have won being a Baptist Minister. The Rudy elements spin it into another Huck boomlet.
Romney has the money and the talent to beat Rudy. Fred can't beat Rudy even in SC much less FL. Ron Paul has just as good a chance at the nomination at McCain or Huck. They all are flawed to the point that they have no chance to stop Rudy.
|
|
|
Nice try ex tex but national polls are meaningless. Bill Clinton was polling at 3% and was 7th in a race of Democrat notables topped by high profile NY Governor Mario Cuomom at 33% at about the same distance out from the 1992 Democrat Primaries. |
|
on Friday:
"Rudy Giuliani remains precariously atop the pack with support from 20% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide. Fred Thompson is close behind at 19% while John McCain enjoys a second straight day in third place with 14% of the vote. Huckabee continues to gain ground and is just two points behind McCain at 12%. This is the first time all year that Huckabee has surpassed Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor slipped another point and he is now at just 11% nationally."
I guess MOST GOP voters didn't get your MARCHIN' ORDERS yet Hugh. |
|
...all go home.
The same GOP elite that gave us George W. Bush and tried to ram 'shamnesty' down our throats have DETERMINED that...
" The reality is dawning that a vote for anyone other than Romney or Giuliani is a diminished vote,"
NO MATTER WHAT WE VOTERS THINK!!!!!!!
We sure don't need to read the TH regulars anymore see'n that they've so kindly made our decision for us! |
|
|
What a bunch of balony. I guess the Republican pundits figure that if the Donks can do it they can too. That is repeat a lie enough times and it will be believed. |
|
And Condi for VP. ;-)
Or,Mitt for VP.
(*Jeez,maybe Fred for VP? Huck?*)
SOMEBODY who gets,as Rudy does,that the World War with Islamist Radicalism takes Center Stage above ALL else.I'd throw McCain in the VP with Rudy mix,except those two 'temperments' together are a tad too volatile. |
|
|
... you inside the beltway folks aren't real good at prognosticating! Can't see the forest for the trees quite often. The American people might have a different idea than you all. |
|
|
|