Tuesday, January 15, 2008
|
|
The GOP Race In California
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:15 AM
|
With absentees being cast in the tens of thousands in the Golden State already, the Los Angeles Times/CNN/Politico poll shows:
The Republican race is far more uncertain. Among likely voters, Arizona Sen. McCain was ahead with 20%. Mitt Romney was at 16%, Rudolph W. Giuliani at 14% and Mike Huckabee at 13%. All four were within the poll's margin of sampling error. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas had 8%, and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson was at 6%. Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine did not register on the poll.
The barest of bumps for Senator McCain. Why? Because he hasn't won among Republicans yet,a nd in fact got blown out in Iowa and Wyoming among GOP voters.
A win among Republicans in Michigan today will give Romney a boost, and a loss for McCain overall would be a big blow to the Arizona maverick who is widely disliked among GOP rank-and-file. If McCain can't win in Michigan with Democrats and Independents voting, he should pack up the campaign tent.
Why don't Republicans vote for Senator McCain? From yesterday's review lesson:
Senator McCain has
--voted against the Bush tax cuts, one of only two Republican senators to do so;
--twice authored the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill with its Z Visas and path to citizenship;
--has done nothing to accelerate the construction of the border fence;
--stands behind McCain-Feingold even after the Supreme Court has struck down portions of it as unconstitutional;
--defends the Gang of 14 even though a long line of vacancies on the courts of appeal existed at the end of 2006 (and has only gotten longer in 2007);
--worked with Lindsey Graham to destroy the GOP's agenda in September of 2006 by grandstanding over the interrogation and treatment of terrorists bill;
--opposed drilling in ANWR;
--opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, twice;
--advocates a massive energy tax;
--performed poorly in three straight debates, displaying his off-putting temper on Saturday night last, and then wandering through the Sunday and Thursday debates, often losing the thread of his response and failing to answer the question, raising issues of his energy and age;
--has earned the enmity of grassroots conservative leaders across the country. "I think that the problem that nearly destroyed his candidacy last summer is still there," Horserace blogger Jay Cost writes this morning, "and it could yet do him in. The problem? Conservative leaders do not care for his candidacy." Cost has the key bit of evidence:
Examining congressional endorsements for McCain and Romney, excluding in-state supporters (as they often act more out of home state pride than ideological proximity), we find some interesting results. 34 Republicans have endorsed Mitt Romney, while just 24 have endorsed McCain. Furthermore, Romney's supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for McCain's supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states. In light of McCain's rsum, this is consequential. He should have locked up most members of the Republican caucus, but he has not. To know John McCain in Congress is not to like him.
McCain won in New Hampshire because of independents, and is neck-and-neck with Romney in Michigan because of independents and Democrats. He lost Republicans by a landslide in Iowa, and he lost Republicans in New Hampshire to Romney, as he will in Michigan tomorrow. Only the MSM's studied indifference to these facts keeps McCain's hope and alleged momentum alive.
But GOP voters have already spoken and will continue to do so between now and Texas and Ohio. Their rejection of McCain will surprise the pundits, but not the GOP. As Senator Santorum said:
John McCain will not get the base of the Republican Party. I mean, there was a reason John McCain collapsed last year, and it’s because he was the frontrunner, and everybody in the Republican Party got a chance to look at him. And when they looked at him, they wait well, wait a minute, he’s not with us on almost all of the core issues of…on the economic side, he was against the President’s tax cuts, he was bad on immigration. On the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country. He is for bigger government on a whole laundry list of issues. He was…I mean, on medical care, I mean, he was for re-importation of drugs. I mean, you can go on down the list. I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion. And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.
|
|
John Juan McAmnesty:
We wont' forget your political treachery against the GOP: Voted against the tax cuts x 2, sponsored Shamnesty bill x 2 with Teddy Kennedy, fought against and overdramatized Gitmo, waterboarding and Abu Ghraib, wants all these foreign jihadists to live in a country club at taxpayer expense, part of Keating 5, Gang of 14 and against Bush and the GOP in general, and now, we realize you are a total TOOL OF THE DEMONCRATS!
You are a septuagenarian old fool--even fellow Episcopalian Fred Barnes won't be able to save your liberal RINO rear-end. RETIRE JOHN, RETIRE JOHN, before you become like the megalomaniacal Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now" and drown the GOP in the general election.
P.S. You don't need the money--you married well, a multi-millionaress, for the 2nd time like John Francois "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry. Your kids need you! Sorry Joe Lieberman, but this great republic, however, no longer requires Juan McQuisling's services. Your belated Christmas pink slip has been handed to you!
-The GOP Management (i.e., Middle Class folks) |
|
Synthesiser and Paul W, etc.
All your hard work has really helped our efforts.... Please keep it up... We really need you to keep polluting this blog.... I believe there are few things that are helping us more...
Just take a couple of aspirin and go to bed.... you can deal with it tomorrow... |
|
|
Will the state of Nevada have an issue with the population of illegal aliens voting? According to a official report, all an individual has to do to caste a vote is to sign an affidavit of being a citizen. When you break the sovereign laws of the United States, what makes us think their will not violate our voting laws. Tell me who is going to authenticate this travesty of our Constitutional right, if foreign nationals wish to transgress our voting laws? Certainly it will not be the Casino's or Catering organisation, who thrive on the cheap labor that has tresspassed in our country. With Nevada having a huge showing of illegal foreign nationals, it will be interesting to see the political impact. This 2008 election will have a massive adverse effect on the rights and privileges of true Americans. According to an estimate of the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2005 there were an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 illegal aliens living in Nevada This estimate ranks 15th among illegal alien populations in the United States for the PEW estimate. FAIR estimates in 2004 that the taxpayers of Nevada spent $321.1 million per year on illegal aliens and their children in public schools. California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stricter immigration policies. |
|
YOU WROTE:
"I guess I am unbalanced Because I don't support Mitt Romney as my first choice..."
Once again, your not unbalanced 'cuz you support McCain. You are unbalanced--------in my opinion, 'cuz of the amount of space you suck up here. 'cuz you post redundantly about a singular issue--love McCain--dislike Romney. That's it!
I never said you are unbalanced because you don't support Romney-----once again, you are playing fast and loose.
I already showed YOU where YOU made clains of me that were not true. I never said the things you claim I said.
APPARENTLY this matters not to you.
APPARENTLY you enjoy putting words in others mouths.
I already called you unbalanced----because you chatter on endlessly about the same thing. I really don't give a crap about Mitt Romney, he's big enough to handle himself.
And before you start putting even more words in my mouth, I SUPPORT NO ONE AT THIS POINT. Just because I refuse to support McCain, does not, by default make me a Romney supporter. Should you say that again, as you said before, it is a LIE.
|
|
There can be no national security without border security. It is where national security starts. McCain has never wanted to secure the borders or enforce the laws. He still doesn't. He grudgingly says he heard us, but he needs a new hearing aid, we did not say amnesty after he SAYS the border is secure. Any amnesty is surrender, not only to the demands of citizens of other countries illegally in our country, but also to those who have been encouraging them to break our laws. Corporations have been paying off our politicians to subvert enforcement of existing laws since they were passed in 1986. We won't be bamboozled again. The jig is up. We know this is not about immigration, it is about importing cheap labor. ENFORCE THE LAW NOW. SECURE THE BORDER NOW. Maybe after 20 years of action, to make up for the 20 years of inaction we've had, we can talk about immigration reform. |
|
|
McCain's way IS the Democrat way. He co-authored the last "banana" with Ted Kennedy for Pete's sake. And he can't even be honest enough to admit it is amnesty. Any special path to citizenship is amnesty and wrong policy. It will only encourage more of the same as anyone with an ounce of sense or eyes to see what the last amnesty has wrought can recognize. If we do not draw a line, we will have lost our country. Voters without borders will be particpating in THIS election. Their loyalties are not with the United States of America or its citizens, neither are John McCain's. |
|
|
The problem needs to be fixed. If you manage to get a Democrat elected you will be facing a much worse problem. Get Fred Thompson elected (I would support him) he is honestly the most conservative candidate of the bunch. But if the Dems are in charge, I guarantee things will get much worse and in a way you will never change it. |
|
Because I don't support Mitt Romney as my first choice and like McCain. If so, at least I am in good company. I heard Lt. Col. Ralph Peters support John McCain, unequivacally, on Michael Medved today. I heard Chuck Norris say good things about John McCain (of course Norris is a Huckafan, but he likes McCain).
A Michigan win for either canidate is a good thing for that candidate. That is obvious. But Mitt is facing a very long upward battle that almost certainly not result in him being President, mostly due to self inflicted injuries done months ago. Now you may disagree with me, but Medved and Brooks and others have pointed that out too. Ironically, Hugh is actually Mitt Romney's worst enemy, something Michelle Malkin noted.
And Lt. Col. Ralph Peters was also responsible for blowing the NYTs story completely out of the water about returning Iraq war vets being nuts. I think the NYTs. used a number of 103 homocides by vets. Peters ran the numbers for the age groups involved and found (running the numbers most favorably for the NYTs) that the murder rate for vets was five times LOWER than the national average. He included women (which skewed the numbers even more) so the actually percentage of vets involved in such crimes is even lower. |
|
The Main Problem.
The RNC wants an amnesty candidate.
Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, or until they are supplanted by the La Raza Party, why doesn't the RNC know that? How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? Nominating any of the amnesty trio (McCain, Huckabee, Rudy) is a losing proposition, we will not support them. If the GOP intends to surrender our sovereignty and abandon the rule of law, they will find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP
|
|
|
I also come for the laughs and to see what new absurdity Hugh will go to. I also like to read Joe's and ColoradoConservative's posts! and McTex's (though I haven't seen him on this thread). I sure hope Mitt loses tonight... |
|
CincyGuy writes: Tuesday, January, 15, 2008 4:34 PM Keep Banging Away, Hugh
I'm in wholehearted agreement with CincyGuy. I started out as a Fred Thompson supporter, but when he sat in the starting blocks, I looked elsewhere. I considered Romney but as I listened to the verbal assualt night after night from Hugh's radio show I got darned mad. My thought process was "What damage is being done by Hugh (and Mark Levin, Mark Steyn and NRO, etc.) if Romney doesn't get the nod?" That's what has bothered me so much - the "Damn, the torpedoes" mindset of Hugh, et al, and the damage wrought to the eventual nominee.
Believe me, I have many issues with McCain, but on my # 1 and # 2 issues - the GWOT and national security - he is solid. Moreover, I want to win in November and we won't do that with Romney. I don't want universal healthcare. I don't want to pull out of Iraq. I don't want a rollback of the tax cuts (and yes I know McCain voted against them for conditional reasons). I don't want government to continue its growth. Etc.
|
|
|
as long as somebody can follow through and beat Rudy. |
|
|
whoever the Republican nominee is inherits a deeply divided party at this time, and there is not one that doesn't have a struggle uniting the party. I know everyone that comments here have different opinions as to who will struggle more, but in the end, it is a struggle that they all face. The GOP has done this, and I don't know that we will see this resolved for some time. |
|
Romney will stay in the race until at least Feb. 5th. Why? He has the lead in delegates, and will likely retain that lead today, hopeful wishes notwithstanding.
My concern is that he will come through the primaries with either (a) the bare minimum needed to win the nomination, or (b) not enough delegates, but wins enough in a brokered convention to secure nomination.
In either case, he will emerge as the nominee of a deeply divided party, going up against a money machine called Clintobama (the order of that ticket is left as an exercise for the reader). He will have trouble uniting the party because of his inherent trust issue, and will likely fail in the general, regardless of Hugh's cheerleading. |
|
|
for so thoroughly proving my point about how the spin coming out of a McCain win vs. the spin coming out of a Mitt win would be different. I expect the bulk of the media to say the same thing as you, so that should please you. |
|
|
Latest poll shows McCain starting to put distance between he and Romney in Florida and watch McCain win Michigan tonight. McCain is not my candidate but guys like you are making Republicans fall in behind him. Romney's negative attacks from before were so ineffective and poorly delivered, only serving to hurt Romney, that Mitt can't even really go after him anymore. It's left up to minions like you. You're achieving exactly the opposite of your intended effect and have done so since the beginning of the campaign. You and those of your ilk have done nothing but sour voters on your candidate who was milk-toast to begin with. Nice going. |
|
This was posted on NRO's The Corner:
Democrats for Romney? [Mark Hemingway]
NRO Contributor and Arkansas political columnist David J. Sanders just sent out a copy of an email making the rounds encouraging Democrats in Michigan to go out and vote for Romney. From the email:
So why should Dems and indies vote Romney? After his victory in New Hampshire, the press has declared John McCain the Republican front- runner. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee, who won in Iowa, looks poised to do well in South Carolina, which hosts the next primary after Michigan.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. And the more Republican candidates who are fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for the Democratic candidates, of course! In other words, we want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.
Kos talked about this last week, but kind of surprised someone is actually putting any effort into it.
|
|
If Stiff Mitt wins Michigan -- thanks, Kos! -- the funhouse here will continue for a while. At least until Mitt gets buried in South Carolina.
Relax, enjoy, and put on some more popcorn!
+ + + |
|
|
tongued one posting, so all beware.... 3:37pm. Let the flags be on the ready....can "flickin moron" be far behind?......ignore when you see the moniker....proven to be deceptive....well no...lying thats whats been proven....ignore...WARNING,WARNING... liberal, adds nothing to the debate....not an honest broker of information....WARNING, WILL ROBINSON, WARNING... |
|
My gut reaction, based on polls and the comments of the two candidates, tells me Mittbots will be cheering tonight. Even worse, Hugh Hewitt will become even more insufferable. Romney said he was optimistic and McCain only said he would be competative and was in the race for the longhaul. McCain was going to watch the results in South Carolina. He sounds like he is expecting a defeat.
A Romney win is suicide for the Republican party. This win will once again propel his establishment supporters in the media and it might well get him the nomination. In fact, I think a win tonight means he will get the nomination. This is tough to handle because he will lose 35 states or more in a general election. |
|
|
I agree with you that Hugh argues from a wishful place which displaces objective reality. It is very much the same delusional echo chamber thinking that you see, almost exclusively, on left-wing websites such as the DailyKOS and Atrios. |
|
If Romney Drops Out Of The Race,And McCain Wins... - Tuesday, January 15, 2008 @ 3:57:40 PM
I anticipate the following post from Hugh Hewitt:
In dropping out of the Republican race today, Mitt Romney displayed the type of bold leadership that made him the leading businessman in America, enabled him to rescue the Olympics, and cemented his reputation as the greatest governor in the history of the free world. Anybody can spend tens of millions of dollars on a losing presidential election bid, but only a true visionary like Romney would decide to leave the race when he realizes he has no chance of winning. This is a man who knows when to jump from a sinking ship, and with the nomination of John McCain sure to shatter the Reagan coalition with the force of a nuclear bomb and cause the GOP to go down in flames in the general election, Romney, turnaround artist that he is, will be there to pick up the pieces, and return the party to its glory. It's official--Mitt Romney has established himself as the clear frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination. Anybody who doesn't see it clearly is woefully ignorant of the Bain way. This was all outlined in chapter 3 of my book.
Posted By: Philip Klein ///////////////////////////
It has been clearly confirmed.
Hugh Hewitt, in the eyes of his contmeporaries, is a total BUFFOON!
What has 2 thumbs and called this MONTHS AGO? THIS GUY!
LOL! YOU'RE A TOOL HEWITT!! LOL!! |
|
|
how, exactly, can you be so wrong? |
|
Vince Carroll of the Rocky Mtn News takes a shot at Romney's conservative credentials. Link here: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/15/carroll-a -sure-cure-for-crime/ Cut and paste below.
More federal meddling?
In an editorial called "Straight talk about schools," USA Today praised Mitt Romney this week for telling a 9-year-old at a town hall meeting, "I'm going to make your school harder because I want you to have the best education in the world."
Romney made Massachusetts schools more accountable, the editorial argues, and appears willing to put teeth into federal education law as well.
See what George W. Bush has wrought with his misguided No Child Left Behind Act? Even Romney, the man striving to become conservatives' conservative, thinks nothing of suggesting he intends to boost federal oversight of schools.
Romney's promise "to make your school harder because I want you to have the best education in the world" would be a wonderful statement by any governor or superintendent. But do we really want Washington imposing school "accountability" across a nation of this size, or believe it's even possible?
USA Today boasts one of the better editorial pages in the land; its intelligent logic usually makes you think even when you disagree. But it's simply beyond me how anyone could claim that federal law is "for now . . . the only mechanism for pressuring reluctant schools to ensure that all children get a decent education," as if state legislatures were uniformly powerless, indifferent or corrupt.
|
|
...I disagreed with you, Hugh.
Man, you got the wrong candidate this time. There is even a rumor that Romney is a secret USC alumn ssshhhhhhh, don't tell! |
|
McCain is no hero. A hero is someone who sacrifices or takes a risk to save another person. He was a pilot flying above it all strafing and bombing. By that standard every pilot is a hero. After being shot down, he managed to survive under extremely difficult circumstances and probably lost too many brain cells in the process. Doing what is necessary to save yourself does not a hero make.
|
|
Jumping from one talking point to another, from one hope against all hopes to another.
Remember after Iowa? The bleating from the Romsheep was that only handsome, youthful Mitt could beat the charismatic Obama.
Well, Barak Hussein Obama *and* Romney both got horsewhipped in New Hampshire.
Then, the drone chorus switched to "he has more delegates". Still combined, of course, with the personality-cult Tiger Beat wierdness.
Two weeks ago, it was "anyone not for Mitt is a Kos guy". Today, it's hanging hopes for a narrow Mitt on Kos-incited democrat voters.
Bzzz.... bzzzz... bzzz...
+ + + |
|
You're right. Romney's campaign was stillborn. From day one.
He's toast.
+ + + |
|
|
The only ghost town will be the town called the Conservative Supreme Court. Why? Because if Captain McQueeg or Gomer Pile get nominated, Hitlery or La Bamba will be making the picks to fill the vacancies for the next 4 to 8 years. Snap out of it and support someone who can win. Fred, Rudy, or Mitt. In any order or combination. |
|
I have come to the conclusion the only reason that I and others continue to read and contribute our thoughts to these posts is simply this: WE WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO HUGH WHEN/IF MITT LOSES. It is the proverbial...going to the races to the see the wreck instead of the race! The Hugh/Mitt (mostly Hugh) love affair is headed ever closer to the edge of the cliff...all it will take is a Michigan loss for Mitt and it's...NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo!!! Over the edge Hugh goes. Then, it's move two spaces to Clinical Depression and a boat load of GSK's finest poppers to help the poor guy cope. Hugh has unwittingly created a subplot that threatens to overtake the main story! Pass the popcorn... |
|
We have run out of time on the illegal alien inundation. We either stop it now or we lose our country. McCain won't do it. He thinks it's impossible to enforce our laws. I want someone who doesn't.
The GOP cedes their best issues by running McCain. He agrees with Hillary on Gore-Bull warming, gays, guns, and amnesty. I want someone who doesn't.
America is worth saving. Vote conservative.
|
|
We come here for the laughs, dude. Hugh's hormonal imbalance for Mittens is hysterical.
When the campaign is over, this place will be a ghost town. |
|
Nuff said, civil discussion is not possible with some. Clarityseeker by the way are you for anyone or just against everything. Don't bother responding
|
|
There would be more meat to the argument that Romney is the only one who mischaracterizes his opponents if it were true. Just today factcheck.org is calling out McCain for his distortions in his mailer going out in South Carolina.
Huckabee has also been guilty of this.
I guess you get a lot more traction when you distort someone's record if you call yourself the straight talk express though. I also suppose if you tell enough people where they can go, people figure you will just tell it like it is. Alas, it just ain't so.
Finally, I am feeling very repetitive here, but Michigan isn't do or die for Romney or McCain folks. Plenty of McCain fans here see it as a crash and burn for Romney. Vice versa for McCain. The reality of the situation in Michigan with its primary this year makes that not so folks. Everyone lives on to fight another day. |
|
Zogby/Reuters tracking poll. 20 minutes ago. Nail-biter. Depends upon independent turnout.........Pollster John Zogby: ?Okay, so who needs interesting? Our final track, to be exact, in Michigan is McCain 27.1% to Romney?s 25.6% and Huckabee at 14.9%. Our call center made 553 calls just on Monday to get as close a read on this as late as we could. Monday alone stood at Romney 26.7% to McCain?s 26.3%. I looked at the calls that were made before 5:30 PM and two candidates were also tied ? pretty much as they were after 5:30 PM. There just isn?t any momentum here. ?McCain stays strong with Indies and Democrats, while Romney?s lead among Republicans tightened ? as did his lead in the Detroit metro area. Romney?s people are busy on the phones; McCain is campaigning heavily in his strongholds in the western part of the state, following some events in Detroit. ?We turned this into a two-day track by factoring Monday?s calls in with Sunday?s alone for a total of 824 likely voters. ?This looks to be a nail biter, unless something breaks Tuesday.?
Go McCain. Please win by at least one vote.
Stop Romney one more time.
|
|
Joe welcome to the nut house with all the rest of us folks who support anyone but Mitt.
We see a familiar pattern occurring here again and again. Any of us who have respond have been on the receiving end.
A discussion begins regarding Mitt and his performance and or positions. You present real facts on Romney’s record and you are attacked with distorted facts. You refute those distorted facts and prove the person wrong then you are personally attacked as unstable, unbalanced or some other bile.
I and many others have been on the same side as you Joe. It seems like anytime the Romney folks can't support their claims about Mitt two things happen,
Ignore the question
Attack the person, while claiming they are ANTI MORMON !!!
This is just like Mitt runs his campaign and that is probably why all the other candidates hate him.
|
|
NEWT on RUSH RIGHT NOW says "We need someone who has the courage to puch for a FLAT TAX or the FAIR TAX."
But Newt's an idiot...right?? |
|
|
I'am so excited to see Hugh's numbers on his tote board after McCain's victory tonight. Will Hugh show McCain ahead on total votes? Or will Hugh cancel his tracking of total votes and delegates? |
|
Can anyone explain it? Colorado?
I can't figure it out, but I keep reading them. They are boring at best - pathetic at worst. Just mindless shilling for Mitt and constant attacks at McCain. If anything, I think he is attracting some of us to McCain and distancing many of us from Mitt (unfortunate for Mitt because he's a good guy, he doesn't need Hugh)
I think we all have to realize that Hugh DOES NOT CARE anymore what we think about his blog or credibility. That's unfortunate, but we have to realize that.
The question is how many of us will leave HH - so far not many have, thus my question at the top... |
|
|
|
I would feel the same way Dean does.
But even assuming Dean is right and Mitt's motivations are pure (and I am sure Mitt is not completely disingenuous), his methods in dealing with his fellow republicans have not been. This is not just McCain, all the GOP candidate are not particularly warm and cozy with Mitt. It is not because he is a threat (granted the condenders tend to beat up on each other) but because he has shown a tendancy to mischaracterize this opponents and they resent it.
Medved used to support Romney, now he doesn't. It was not the immigration issue that caused that change, it was the tactics of the Romney campaign.
David Brooks summed it up: And so the burden of change will be thrust on primary voters over the next few weeks. Romney is a decent man with some good fiscal and economic policies. But in this race, he has run like a manager, not an entrepreneur. His triumph this month would mean a Democratic victory in November. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01brooks.html
It is a tragedy for Mitt Romney, because guys like Hugh Hewitt sold him how to be president and as a result he has crippled his campaign. Mitt should have run on his streghths but unfortunately chose to run as something he was not. Mitt could have been a contender...
|
|
From: Camp 2008 Victory blog Wednesday, January 9, 2008 (excerpts)
"Hugh Hewitt, a reputation is a terrible thing to waste."
Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.
When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.
However, as a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS.
In fact, Mitt Romney is not a effective candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens.
There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.
Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and cease the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.
So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).
steve maloney
|
|
Hey Joe you must be ANTI MORMON, because you don't support Romney. Just ask PC and Clarityseeker.
Seriouly keep up the well informed discussion. I am not support McCain but I appreciate your comments. |
|
This is actually painful to read because I do trust Dean Barnett and believe it to be true (at least in part):
Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign’s social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy.
This tack rang false with the public because it was false. The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping” on issues like abortion. The public allows its politicians a measure of flexibility. But the public correctly sensed something disingenuous about Mr. Romney’s campaign.
Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15barnett.html?_r =1&ex=1358139600&en=c793e22ae94f1b45&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt &emc=rss&oref=slogin
|
|
calling you "unbalanced" which I do believe, in no way eqates with hatred---not in the rational world. Well, perhaps in the unbalanced world it does. Lexiconic Leech hardly says, I Hate You.
Such a strong word, hate, Joe.
You are unbalanced. That is not hate. That is a calling for you to do a little introspection. I am nary the only person who has stated that you take up way too much space here. I have never made any comment at all about you attacking Mitt's faith----STRIKE 3 for you. |
|
|
interesting, very interesting. |
|
Oh excuse me, you are not for Romney just totally against McCain? My mistake. Well good, maybe you will support Rudy or Fred who can possibly win (at least I hope so in Fred's case).
I hope you do not hate me. I do not hate you. Of course you wrote that I am unbalanced, and a lexconic leech, and you also tried to group me with those who attack Mitt's faith. As you know, I have never ever done that and defend the LDS Church every time one of those attacks occur, because it is wrong.
You said I am against free speech because I give rebuttal for the candidate I like and point out the weaknesses of Mitt Romney. I respect your opinions. Why do you not show some reciprocity to mine? I have never suggested you should not say what you think. I do not hate Mitt, I think he is a stronger candidate than Huckabee, Ron Paul (for sure) and any of the Dems, I just do not think he is stronger than McCain, Giuliani, or Thompson and that if Mitt is the nominee the GOP will lose the election. |
|
No one has a crystal ball. Insiders and professionals are wrong about what will happen all the time. There’s no shame in it. You can keep coming back with more predictions despite your fallibility. The point is (or should be) that a good educated “guess” about the future, even if its prediction is nowhere near being a certainty or sometimes even a likelihood, is usually a lot more accurate than throwing darts at the wall would be.
Where Hugh keeps digging himself in deeper is in having made an unrealistically early, unrealistically detailed prediction of how 2008 would play out, and being determined to keep sticking to it no matter what actually occurs. No one even today can say with assurance what will eventually happen in the GOP race, much less in the general election. Certainly drawing a detailed roadmap of the future back in 2006 was not possible, even in principle.
Like Karl Marx, Hugh has fallen in love with his drawing-board theorizing. And like Marx and his apologists, he treats every challenge to his preferred narrative as an extraneous outlier to be explained away instead of just what most events are by definition: things which happened, things which are part of the story, things which have to continually be taken into account as the theory is revised and hopefully perfected.
Hugh is stuck continually trying to explain why a train supposedly traveling straight from Boston to Washington finds itself in Grand Canyon territory. Instead of considering the notion that he has mistakenly boarded the wrong train, he wants to start arguing with the conductor about whether the last stop was truly in New Mexico as opposed to Pennsylvania. |
|
Romney is very strong with older voters. He loses among 18-39 year olds (to McCain), ties with 40-59 year olds (with McCain), and wins by a big margin with voters 60 and over, the same voters who remember his father.
So before Hugh starts spouting nonsence that McCain is not popular with Republicans, that is not the case. McCain is the future. Romney is in many ways, the past. Look to the future.
|
|
in your hand? You're goin down to shoot all of those---who do not agree with your view of the world.
You are DEAD WRONG, Joe.
YOU WRITE: "You hate me because you know I am right (I am sure in the back of your mind you have some doubts about the general), but I still like you."
I do not "Hate you". You seem to want me to so you can categorize me in your narrow little world. I do not HATE you , never said I did. Life is too short for that emotion (takes too much energy)---at least for someone I only know of on the internet---not even casually. Dude, I only save such strong emotion for behavior---of those I am closest to (family, friends, etc. and you are not in this category).
YOU WRITE: "You are passionate about your candidate and want him to win."
JOE____WHAT CANDIDATE? I never made any declaration FOR a candidate. Show me ANYWHERE on this site---or in the free world as we know it, where I have opined FOR a candidate. I joked a couple of weeks ago---joked, with NeoCon about such a candidate. You did not see that. MY POINT?
You have no evidence to back up your comment about, "my candidate". I have posted several times that this whole process started way too early for me---that i was not going to participate by backing anyone. It is now mid January of the general election year. YOU----have helped put me in a position who I will NOT support. WHERE does this suggest who I WILL support. Very sad, indeed, your two, DEAD WRONG commnets. It further supports my diagnosis of your pathos. It is so predictable that you don't want to read teh detail---'cuz its really all about what YOU want and don't want. 'nuff said.
|
|
I do not know, other than the race is very close. Will Mitt prevail? Perhaps. His dad is very popular and Mitt is saying how he will team up with MoTown to revive the auto industry. Of course Mitt was for taxing SUVs and gas guzzlers while he was Governor of Massachusetts, but people change. Issues change.
I respect McCain for not pandering on the issue. I know that Mitt is ahead with older GOP voters, Mitt and Romney tie
I guess we will find out this evening. |
|
Romney's not gonna win Cali with opinion pieces like this:
Romney symbolizes GOP's problems (excerpts below)
December 26, 2007
It's doubtful that anyone needs any more reasons to explain why Americans are fed up with politics as usual. Nevertheless, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has given us one more.
Apparently when Romney said, “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King,” in his much publicized “Faith in America” speech, this was not exactly true.
It appears that not only did Romney not see this, but there is serious doubt whether his father ever indeed did march with Dr. King.
Romney now says that he meant this “figuratively.”
According to the former Massachusetts governor, “If you look at the literature or the dictionary the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I have described. It is a figure of speech. . . .”
The next sentence in the speech following the King claim was, “I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways nearby. . . .” Also figuratively?
The Detroit Free Press says it has no record of Romney's father, onetime Michigan Gov. George Romney, ever marching with King. According to the Free Press, when Dr. King marched in Detroit, their archives show that Romney's father did not participate because he said his religion prohibited him from public appearances on Sunday.
How ironic that Romney chose to insert this apparent whopper in his “Faith in America” speech. Perhaps the governor's idea of faith is what Groucho Marx had in mind with his line, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”
This kind of casualness with the truth is what has alienated good citizens across the country from the elites who are running our political machinery.
Republicans can win back the hearts and minds of Americans. But they have to get real and get honest. Unlike the former governor of Massachusetts.
|
|
In a radio interview with Kevin McCullough, way back in the Spring of 2006, Hugh predicted that either George Allen or Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination for 2008. George Allen!
Back during the Texas redistricting where we picked up a number of GOP representatives, Hugh told Right Wing News that because of this, the GOP would have a healthy majority unitl the next 10-year redistricting process. Wow, was that one wrong.
Do we forget that Hugh backed Harriet Meiers and confidently predicted her favorable confirmation?
Leading up in the last week to the 2004 election, Hugh confidently predicted that the President would carry 40 states or more.
In 2003, Hugh confidently predicted that conservatives had nothing to fear from a Schwarzenneger governorship.
Leading up to the 2006 mid-terms, Hugh confidently predicted that Republicans would maintain the edge in the House and would never lose the Senate majority.
Hugh is wrong ... a lot. I use to get caught up in the boosterism and would become enthusiastic and I credit Hugh's infectious enthusiasm for definitely affecting the 2002 mid-terms and especially here in Colorado where the GOTV effort was phenomenal. BUT, I now realize that Hugh is often wrong and often wrong-headed.
|
|
You made up your mind long before I posted and annoyed you with facts and data. You hate me because you know I am right (I am sure in the back of your mind you have some doubts about the general), but I still like you.
You are passionate about your candidate and want him to win. Fair enough, I respect that. I am not going to attack you for that. I respect Virginia Patriot and NeoConScum too for the same reasons. They are less driven by personality than by issues, but fair enough. I do not expect you to like or support McCain...yet. But if he is the nominee, you should do so. I promise you this, if Mitt Romney somehow pulls this out and becomes the nominee I will support his candidacy until we get creamed by the Democrats.
Going down in flames is romantic. But this is not the Alamo to be followed by the battle of San Jacinto. A democrat victory will be a disaster. If you think John McCain does not get it, wait till Hillary is in charge. |
|
Hugh is all in at this point. A McCain presidency will put Hewitt's book "Painting the Map Red" in the comedy section of the book store. You see, in the back pages of the book Hugh describes in detail how McCain could never win the nomination. Hugh's credibilty has taken hits over the last few weeks but a McCain win make Hugh a verb, and not a good one. What has fascinated me so much is the Romney supporters who don't realize that Hugh's %100 support of Romney is more about Hugh then it is about Romney.
Michigan do us a favor and get McCain over the hump, for the good of the country, and of course for the good of the entertainment of seeing the meltdown of Hugh's blogosphere bubble. |
|
You’re being more dishonest than usual here, Hugh.
• This is the first Politico/CNN/LA Times poll of CA. How can you assert that McCain has not received a bump when there is only one result in this poll? A single data point does not make a trendline.
• Survey USA has released multiple polls of CA. On the prior poll through 12/16/07, McCain was at 14%. In the latest release through 1/13/08, he’s up to 33%. That sounds like a pretty major bump.
• The LA Times poll only managed to query 255 likely Republican voters, making its result close to useless. The Survey USA poll was of twice as many likely Republican voters, 509.
It’s inane to pretend that McCain hasn’t picked up steam in CA as well as in the rest of the nation. The anti-McCain movement has also picked up steam, for the same reason – his increasingly higher standing in the race. Where you should stand is with those who acknowledge but deplore the McCain rise, not with those who deny it is happening at all. |
|
I heartily disagree with you. As pointed out in my above post-----Joe and synthesizer and Brian-Akita-woof-woof, have indeed formed, for me, a very solid stance against McCain.
I did not have this position prior to the forceful, redundant, persistent, argumentative, repetitive, redundant (oh, did I say that already?) "CANT" of those aforementioned.
So, you see, B2slim, you really are wrong. I cannot and will not be a party to supporting John McCain----even if it means that I repeat, adnauseum, my message of counter force, to Joe and his "team". |
|
Because I have identified your pathos (shared with others, i.e. "synthesizer", "BrianAkita-woof-woof") as manifest in your obsessive caterwalling for McCain, and, against Mitt Romney, I have made my decision as to who I am dead set against.
Any force which exerts itself as strong as you, "Akita-woof-woof", and "synthesizer", finds a counterforce----you've helped me to solidify a counterforce. Now that i feel this strong in fighting against McCain, this eliminates, for me, one additional candidate.
I could not vote for this candidate who:
1.) refuses any U.S. energy independence by drilling in ANWR, a place no human shall reside in. 2.) refused the tax cuts of 2003 which brought us well over 4 year of solid and substantive economic growth. 3.) SUPPPORTS the advocacy of the U.S. buying pharmaceuticals from Canada, a socialist healthcare system. In doing so, it steals from those U.S. companies who do ALL of the R&D (Canadian pharm. companies do NO R&D) which brings about new and cutting edge drugs. These U.S. pharm. companies SELL their drugs at huge losses already to several countries in Africa in effort to stem diseases such as AIDS, Ebola, and others. WE---the USA already subsidize drug costs in our philanthropic efforts. 4.) VAPORIZED, through "campaign finance reform" any chance for a non-millionaire, non-billionaire, to become a serious contender candidate in general elections. HE DESTROYED THIS---and brought into being the era of Moveon.org's, Mediamatters, etc. What a pathetic consequence.
I respect McCain for his military service. I respect his opinion. I have, to date, not given serious support for any single person. JOE, you have ended this for me. You and your redundantly vocal cadre of "hate-Mitt speakers", and, "vote-for-McCain" chatter has prompted me to turn away completely from John McCain.
Joe, thank you for that. |
|
McCain Hillary
are identical twins: check their voting records
EXCEPT Hillary now promises FREE FREE energy McCain is planning to tax it into oblivion:
BOTH backed the law of sea treaty Both voted against Bush tax cuts Both are PRO illegals
SO if McCain is the candidate, I will vote for the FREE FREE FREE energy: |
|
Because I have identified your pathos (shared with others, i.e. "synthesizer", "BrianAkita-woof-woof") as manifest in your obsessive caterwalling for McCain, and, against Mitt Romney, I have made my decision as to who I am dead set against.
Any force which exerts itself as strong as you, "Akita-woof-woof", and "synthesizer", finds a counterforce----you've helped me to solidify a counterforce. Now that i feel this strong in fighting against McCain, this eliminates, for me, one additional candidate.
I could not vote for this candidate who:
1.) refuses any U.S. energy independence by drilling in ANWR, a place no human shall reside in. 2.) refused the tax cuts of 2003 which brought us well over 4 year of solid and substantive economic growth. 3.) SUPPPORTS the advocacy of the U.S. buying pharmaceuticals from Canada, a socialist healthcare system. In doing so, it steals from those U.S. companies who do ALL of the R&D (Canadian pharm. companies do NO R&D) which brings about new and cutting edge drugs. These U.S. pharm. companies SELL their drugs at huge losses already to several countries in Africa in effort to stem diseases such as AIDS, Ebola, and others. WE---the USA already subsidize drug costs in our philanthropic efforts. 4.) VAPORIZED, through "campaign finance reform" any chance for a non-millionaire, non-billionaire, to become a serious contender candidate in general elections. HE DESTROYED THIS---and brought into being the era of Moveon.org's, Mediamatters, etc. What a pathetic consequence.
I respect McCain for his military service. I respect his opinion. I have, to date, not given serious support for any single person. JOE, you have ended this for me. You and your redundantly vocal cadre of "hate-Mitt speakers", and, "vote-for-McCain" chatter has prompted me to turn away completely from John McCain.
Thank you for that. |
|
No Rudy, No McCain, No Huckabee
Romney and Thompson are saying the right things now, but haven't always. Hunter and Tancredo have been working on this for years on our behalf. Longer than most of you have been alarmed about it, they have been trying to sound the alarm. Choose carefully in the primaries, your future depends on it. |
|
If you can believe Hugh. Here's Hugh's hagiography on full display from his book -
"I have never met a more intellectually gifted, curious, good humored, broadly read, and energetic official than Mitt Romney," he writes in the introduction. Hewitt also concludes that "Mitt Romney is qualified to be president. Perhaps even over-qualified."
There you have it. Mitt Romney an over-qualified candidate for the highest job in the land. |
|
For years watched him on MSNBC night after night, pleasing Chris Mathews and his audience with big applause. Now, For the republicans, he has changed some of his views, but will they change again due different cirumstances? I admire his war record, he is a great hero, he has been great on Iraq. We as conservatives have to stop listening to national polls, and what liberal media is trying to feed us. We need a strong conservative who is committed to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles. |
|
|
I'll bet he even faked his service record! |
|
I'm Romney guy. If he wins MI its HUGE - because it deflates the "he's toast and should drop out before he wastes more money narrative." I never agreed with that storyline, and won't if he's a competitive second either. But McCain is no where near done if he loses MI. Only a few days till SC. If McCain wins there - how quickly will the MI loss be forgotten? VERY. McCain is LOVED by the national MSM. They will bring him back like Frankenstein's monster if they get the chance.
RCP has McCain way up in the latest polls. What is most likely to happen, is that Huck's IA win is forgotten: he'll have gotten killed in NH, beaten badly in MI, and (assuming he's a third to Mc and Fred, or even fourth behind Romney, whose SC support seems stable, even with the ads pulled) a disappointing showing in SC.
This will be good news for Romney and Thompson. Because IMO - Huckabee voters will go to one of them, although Huck could very easily endorse McCain on drop out, and that could slow the loss.
Anyways I'll be happy to see Huck gone, he's far worse than McCain (basically all the same positions, but even worse on national defense.) And I don't see him as competent in picking strict constructionist judges. He's more likely to appoint guys that listen to their heart. (Just my opinion.)
What this means is we could have a post SC reset. With Romney likely to win in NV also, that would give him three golds and two silvers. McCain two wins (NH and SC) and two ono shows (not sure about NV for him) - and Fred on the up swing. This means the race is still congested, this means the Rudy can still get back in.
|
|
GET a reality check
NOT ONE POSTED comment in this venue will change any minds: Those who post Hate are prisoners of their wild imagination or hate filled miserable existance.
YOU ARE SCREANING TO YOURSELVES:
Perspective:
300 million citizens about half are elegible to vote: 50% MIGHT VOTE: 50% of 50%: calculate
and there are ONLY a few hundred POSTS, SOME OF WHICH are 20 by the same screaming hate peddler perhaps best case a few millon or two who read the blogs:
YOUR INFLUENCE in a post is zero: Rush has up to 20 million audience Fox a million or two give or take Hannity a few million O'Reily a few million Laura a few million Lars larson (the up coming most exciting voice from the NW a few million and so on and so on and so on:
TALK radio will influence the undecided NOT YOUR HATE SCREECH posts to these blogs:
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH: I was OK with any of the above: meaning Huckabee McCain THEN I checked their records etc. all by myself all over the internet: and NEITHER are acceptable there is zero difference between Hillary and McCain difference is HILLARY will give us FREE energy and McCain will tax it into oblivion:
|
|
That thing with the bogus mother bugs me. shades of Clinton?
nevertheless, I think we need a candidate who understands the economy and Mitt seems to fit the bill. While I agree best with Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson on the issues, neither seems to be catching on, and Mitt, who is my third choice, seems to have a chance.
I will vote for Giuliani, Huckabee or McCain against the Dems, but these are not my desirable candidates for a variety of reasons.
Giuliani is a strong leader but he is pro-choice, though I believe he would appoint strict constructionist judges. Huckabee is an evangelical and has charisma, plus I like his desire to simplify the tax code, but he's pro-big government solutions and is naive on foreign affairs. McCain... I respect him immensely for his patriotism, but he's supported so many liberal things in his career like McCain-Feingold. As far as Ron Paul - he is very smart and says some important things, particularly on the size of government, but I think he is naive with regards to Islamic jihad.
I hope Hunter, Thompson or Romney catch on. |
|
The consensus polls on realclearpolitics.com have Romney leading by 1% over John McCain, with H.R. Huckinstuff at a distant 3rd. FoxNews confirmed these polls this morning. I like the sound of that. Hope that Michigan "accurate" poll is even more correct, Boomshak. Romney is going to make us proud. He'll be a great president. |
|
|
Let's just get right to the chase. RINOs love this ticket and are hell bent to bring it about. |
|
|
|
Just as Hillary's faux tears became the focus in the final 24 hours in NH, this incident has been focused on leading up to today's primary. It was the first thing that I heard on my local DENVER station this morning. I imagine it is being played and replayed in Michigan today.
From: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7B261D18-3048- 5C12-0078B5C1558165E1 (Cut for length)
Romney photo-op was with staffer's mom By: Kenneth P. Vogel January 15, 2008 08:59 AM EST A well-publicized weekend photo-op for Mitt Romney turns out to have been missing a piece of information that might have undermined its credibility: the unemployed single mom at the center of the event was the mother of a Romney staffer.
Local and national media outlets, including Politico.com, reported that Romney was the picture of empathy as he sat at the Marshall, Mich. kitchen table of 51-year-old Elizabeth Sachs, a single mother of two who lost her job as a retail manager – as well as her health insurance – and is running out of money as she tries to sell her house to move to Florida.
What wasn’t reported – and what the Romney campaign did not reveal at the time – was that one of Sachs’ sons, Steve Sachs, is a paid employee of Romney’s campaign, organizing five counties in Michigan.
The campaign did not disclose the relationship, Madden acknowledged. But he added “reporters were given unfettered access to meet with Mrs. Sachs and talk with her when she invited them into her home.”
Ironically, when it came time to take questions from the reporters gathered around Sachs' kitchen table, Romney joked: "If you don’t want to answer any questions, that’s fine, too. What I’ve learned is, if they ask a question, you can answer something else."
"Oh, ok," Sachs responded, laughing along with Romney.
"Just talk about the general subject," Romney suggested.
|
|
|
|
Never ever just read the final numbers of a poll. You have to read the "internal" and the "sampling model" to really understand what the final numbers mean.
The Reuters/Zogby Poll is a perfect example. If you look at the sampling methodology used, you will see that they are claiming that the turnout for the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY will be 49% INDEPENDENTS and DEMOCRATS!
Of course, this is utterly mad.
However, the RCP Average has been pretty darned accurate and that has Romney up by about 3 today.
Here is the amazing part:
You will get whiplash seeing just how fast John McCain's stock falls when he loses Michigan.
The line will be, "if McCain can't win when he has independents and democrats bailing him out, how can he win in "closed" primaries.
If McCain loses Michigan to Romney, McCain is finished. |
|
Hugh's tactics on behalf of his guy are becoming well-known in the blogosphere. (Does Hugh even care of the damage he is doing to his credibility?) See blog entry below from a Romney SUPPORTER who is embarassed by Hugh's antics. From: http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2008/01/15/hewitting- in-michigan/
Hewitting In Michigan
By Oliver Willis on January 15, 2008 11:50 AM |
How does Hugh Hewitt write these things with a straight face? [Hewitt says] "If McCain can't win in Michigan with Democrats and Independents voting, he should pack up the campaign tent."
Of course, Mitt Romney - the candidate annointed by Hewitt as brilliant right before his campaign strategy began to fall apart - hasn't won a serious contest in the campaign yet. He may eke out a win today, but that comes after Iowa and New Hampshire, races Hugh Hewitt insisted Romney would win in a romp.
And remember, I want Romney to be the nominee. Nobody will get destroyed easier than Romney in the general election except maybe Giuliani. But Hugh Hewitt is wrong on everything.
|
|
Rasmussen just posted new national numbers for who is likely to become the Republican Nominee.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows John McCain and Mike Huckabee are beginning to pull away from the rest of the Republican field in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. It’s McCain 22%, Huckabee 21%, Mitt Romney 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, and Rudy Giuliani at 11%. Ron Paul attracts 2% support (Rasmussen)
Still no bump up for Romney or Thompson.
|
|
With all due respect. If the GOP thinks they can continue to import cheap labor for their donors at the expense of the citizens, they will. I will not vote for that again. If it takes crushing the GOP so a new party representing American citizens can arise, so be it. If we continue to play the game of "the other guy is worse", we will lose our country. Sorry, but I will not participate in that game any longer. The GOP power brokers think we will vote for "anybody but a Democrat" so they can continue to ignore securing the borders and enforcing the laws. I'm hoping GOP primary voters give the party elites some surprises in the primaries. I want to vote for a GOP candidate in Nov.'08, I will not vote for any of the amnesty supporters, McCain, Rudy, Huckabee.
|
|
|
Great post. All of us who are neutral on Romney could stomach him more if Hugh wasn't so forcibly pushing him down our throats! Personally, I just don't trust Romney to be anything more than an empty suit for the rich...same old, same old. The populist messages of Obama and Huckabee have some traction because the Americans who are always neglected, are finally, completely fed up with the status quo and have become activists for change...even if that change isn't perfect. It's similar to that year when the call came forth to "throw all the bums out" (of Congress) took hold but unfortunately faltered in the end. Just wish a true conservative like Thompson was 10 years younger... So here we, the core of the Republican party, sit with our hands folded. The choice before us...simply not very acceptable or palatable...yet--knowing all the time that the other side's choices are only going to hasten the rot in our great Republic. The age of our empire is surely showing. |
|
Boomshank cherrypicks polls.
The Reuters/Cspan poll conducted in the last 3 days has McCain up. The ARG poll conducted in the last 3 days has McCain up. The latest Detroit News poll has McCain up. Perhaps Boomshank's poll is picking up all of those KOS liberals voting for Romney.
|
|
Romney Takes 6%Lead Over McCain Huckabee Distant Third
Romney 35%, McCain 29%, Huckabee 12%
LANSING, Mich. — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has taken a 6% lead over U.S. Sen. John McCain according to results of a tracking poll conducted Saturday, Sunday and Monday, January 12-14, 2008. Romney leads with 35% to McCain’s 29%. Mike Huckabee is third at 12%. Rudy Giuliani (3%) and Ron Paul (4%) have both dropped while Fred Thompson (4%), and Duncan Hunter (2%) have stayed the same since last night’s tracking. Seven percent say they will vote “uncommitted” while 4% are undecided.
The telephone tracking poll of likely voters in the Michigan Republican Primary Election is being conducted by Mitchell Interactive. Mitchell Interactive is an East Lansing, Michigan and Washington, DC based national political polling and market research company. The survey of 589 likely Republican Presidential Primary voters has a margin of error of +-4.1% at the 95% level of confidence.
“As the undecided voters make up their minds, more are turning to Mitt Romney than to John McCain. We have also seen the participation among Republicans increase to 80% at the end of phoning tonight. That means that 80% of the voters taking part in the GOP Primary identify themselves as Republicans,” Steve Mitchell, president of Mitchell Interactive said.
|
|
Those who want to divert attention from John McCain's short-comings continuously re-align the wheels to avoid turning the corner on reality.
|
|
|
where's the kudlow transcript? the one from last friday when he said (1) romney sounds like a democrat and (2) mccain has some good ideas for dealing with the economy? |
|
We have run out of time on the illegal alien inundation. We either stop it now or we lose our country. McCain won't do it. He thinks it's impossible to enforce our laws. I want someone who doesn't.
The GOP cedes their best issues by running McCain. He agrees with Hillary on Gore-Bull warming, gays, guns, and amnesty. I want someone who doesn't.
America is worth saving. Vote conservative.
|
|
|
|
That was earlier last year, before things went sour and Medved roamed off Hugh's reservation:
Here's a Hugh posting from 2007 found at HotAir at: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:DdT5epxV67sJ:hotair.c om/archives/2007/12/06/hugh-hewitt-mitt-had-an-objectively- great-day-and-if-you-disagree-well-you-dont-much-matter-any way/+hewitt+man+crush+mitt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
“Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn’t matter that you don’t like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn’t matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren’t. The folks listed above [Steyn, Rush, Hannity, Dobson, Barnes, Krauthammer, Medved] matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next –the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.”
Hot Air writes: "Translation: Do you know who I am? I’m Moe Greene! I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders!"
|
|
|
I understand what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree. But perhaps Mitt will contect and become more likable (his negatives are still the highest of the GOP leaders). But I am willing to wait and see what happens. Fair enough? |
|
Even if Romney comes in second - he still picks up more delegates, and his lead there will widen. That trend for him will most likely continue. He'll end up in contention.
But your argument that people don't like Romney doesn't wash - he still has the most votes and delegates. That shows he is more generally liked than any of the others at this point. |
|
|
If Fred catches fire in South Carolina and somehow becomes the GOP nominee and our next President, I will toast you sir with some fine bourbon. I might even send you a bottle. I would be very happy about that indeed. |
|
|
Don't expect Hugh to have Medved on his show anytime soon. Hugh is afraid of anyone he can't beat down and then quickly turn down the mic and dismiss. Michael Medved has won listeners because of his reasonable presentation of the facts and trends. Hugh is so man-crush whipped by Mitt and so brow-beaten by his publishers that he has become embarrassing. Hugh's girl-chat interview with Mitt last night was like a Romeo to Juliet love letter. Just like a Clinton town hall meeting...nothing but softballs. Mitt even sounded a little guarded at the open after Hugh again overly gushed about his "special" guest. It would be great to hear someone like Medved go one on one with Hugh...if Hugh could contain himself and avoid the tendency to interrupt or filibuster his guest to death. My greatest fear is if Romney wins Michigan...then Hugh will never shut up! |
|
There's a painful truth about Romney's candidacy: Republicans in general and conservatives in particular are resisting him in droves. This was first suggested in poll after poll that found Romney stuck in the high 20s. And it was confirmed by his dismal showing in the Iowa caucuses, in which he captured only a sliver of the conservative vote and roughly a quarter of the Republican vote overall.
Here's the profile of a Romney voter in Iowa: upper middle class, urban, someone who thinks a candidate's religion shouldn't matter. That's a pretty narrow constituency, and not only in Iowa. To win the Republican nomination, Romney has to reach well beyond that core.
|
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the law. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's not ignore them any more.
|
|
...on Hugh's "analysis following today's Michigan Primary:
If Mitt wins:
The die is cast and this overwhelming vicotry heralds the ascendancy of Romney to the Republican nomination. McCain might pick up an insignificant state here or there, but clearly Romney has the momentum and conservative movement behind him moving into Super Tuesday.
If McCain wins:
Today was a bad day for Team McCain. McCain won a state he was expected to win but by a surprisingly small margin. Worse yet for his dying candidacy, McCain's victory can be attributed entirely to the manipulations of the Democrats who voted for a candidate they believed would ensure an Obama/Clinton presidency in November. Once again, McCain received almost no conservative support and much like his win in New Hampshire, spells doom for the Arizona Senator. |
|
In Michigan and, the Fact there is but One Candidate - Mrs Bill Clinton - on the Dem ballot means we can pretty much eliminate Michigan as a True measure of Republican Resolve. A battle for the "heart & soul" of Conservatism this MI primary is not.
Will Lib-Indies even come out, bad weather and all in MI to Vote For McAmnesty? Does this year's MI primary accomplish anything more than supply Every Republican Candidate a ready made excuse for not doing well?
South Carolina will prove a more accurate guage of whether or not the Conservative Core Principles of the Party still apply. Are the Lessons of Ronald Reagan and his Revolution to be brushed aside and, forgotten?
South Carolina will be First to answer and they can move the Conservative Coalition forward! I find it hard to believe there are so many One Issue Voters in South Carolina (hyper-active though they are) that the Conservative Values Voters cannot soundly thrash the "Whats-in-it-for-me" Wing of the party.
VoteSmart Vote Serious Vote Consertive Vote Thompson '08
W/O=
|
|
|
|
|
That McCain got many independent and dem votes may be a good sign, if they voted for him because they like him (and not just to mess with the Republican primary). In a general election, to win we'll need other sources of votes besides Repubs.... |
|
As far as votes we are talking New Hamsphire and Iowa (which was a caucus). Mitt is not exactly in the position yet of claiming he is Al Gore in 2000 with the most overall votes.
But lets honestly and rationally look at the head to heads:
You saw Michael Medved's analysis. Remember that Medved supported Romney and said he was the best candidate until relatively recently. Medved explains the CNN head to heads. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/56375486-5a44-49e b-b0ff-7002afd5d0bf
The same weakness is shown at Rasmussen. As I pointed out to you (repeatedly as NCS often complains), McCain puts blue Pennsylvania, blue Maryland in the GOP column. Mitt loses both to Hillary and Obama and also loses Virginia to Obama (and ties Hillary there). That is hugely risky in a tight election. Rasmussen shows Mitt losing to Hillary and Obama in head to heads too. McCain does far better. So does Rudy. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/fa vorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_200 8_presidential_election
Does Mitt have the most votes to date. Yes. Will that last much longer after South Carolina, Florida, and the rest of the big states, definitely not.
While I think Mitt is finished if he loses Michigan, I am not calling for him to drop out. So let's watch how this race develops. I doubt Mitt is going to be the nominee and I hope not because we would lose if he is. But if you are right and he does win it all, I will be relieved that Hillary or Obama did not win. I will tell you so and I will also work to get Mitt elected in the general. I just fear it will not be enough and we will lose. |
|
|
You will be crying "like a 9 year old girl at a screening of the Titantic" if we nominate Captian McQueeg or Hucksterbee. I hear the distant drum beat. Oops I was wrong that was McQueeg or Husksterbee beating beaten like a drum in the general election. |
|
|
If you read what KOS said when they "endorsed" Romney, you get their actual reasoning instead of what many here have implied. They want Dems to back Romney because that keeps the playing field wide open in the GOP and saps the resources from candidates so that they don't have them for the general election later. There are all kinds of problems with that analysis, but I don't have the time at the moment. |
|
Michigan, being the hot mess that it is is not a must win for any candidate. Romney can continue on out of Michigan, and, contrary to Hugh's posting, so can McCain.
The exit polling will be what provides anyone with anything to spin. If McCain wins, he gets a big boost nationally regardless of who gave him the win, and Joe and company tell us how only McCain can get cross over votes. Nevermind that there is no way to tell in Michigan how many of the Dems and Indep will choose not to vote GOP regardless in November. If Romney wins Michigan, the same logic will not be applied. The argument will then be that he has to establish himself among conservative voters and must therefore show very well in South Carolina or he is out.
|
|
|
How is it that Romney has the most votes and delegates if people don't like him? |
|
If the libs want Romney, how do you explain the DNC issuing 100 press releases against Romney? - more than eveyone, with Rudy a close 2nd.
How come so few for Huck and McCain? It's pretty obvious who the libs want. |
|
What Hugh said above: "[McCain] lost Republicans in New Hampshire to Romney"
What happened in reality: While the Romney campaign was banking on beating McCain among registered Republicans, CNN exit polling shows the two men roughly split the vote: 34 percent went for McCain and 33 percent went for Romney.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/nh.gop/
And in Michigan, Romney may be either slightly ahead or tied with McCain in polling within the GOP. That is hardly republicans rejecting John McCain. Republicans did, however, reject Romney in Iowa (remember when winning Iowa and New Hampshire were key to winning the race). Try not to misrepresent the truth too much Hugh. |
|
Romney's four behind in California, the single largest source of electoral votes in the country, and this is supposed to be bad news for McCain?
Only on this blog... |
|
|
the slams by his buddy Fred Barnes on FOX News yesterday, essentially saying Romney isn't a conservative? Hmmm |
|
|
If people find Romney so unlikeable, how do you explain that he has racked up more votes from republicans and more delegates than anyone, including the 2 "frontrunners"? |
|
Brand New Thread at HH? Are you slipping, my friend, spending more time outdoors or--my guess--busy on other threads at the same time??
Go, Mitt. Go, Rudy. |
|
Romney should have trounced Huckabee in Iowa, Romney lost to McCain in New Hampshire among REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. Romney should be running away with Michigan, it is the state he grew up in and his father was governor. Why would we chose the weakest candidate to go to the general election?
Michael Medved said it best (are you planning on having Michael on the show anytime soon?):
After spending more money than his major opponents combined, Romney appears more and more clearly unelectable, and a Saturday column by Gail Collins in the New York Times gives a clear explanation why. “Unfortunately, there’s something about Romney’s perfect grooming, his malleability and his gee-whiz aura that seems to really irritate both the other candidates and the voters,” she writes. “What bothers voters about Romney, as it turns out, is not his Mormonism but his inherent Mitt-ness.”
She’s right, of course. As I’ve said repeatedly over the last several weeks, the problem for Romney isn’t his faith, it’s his phoniness. It’s even worse to see that in-authenticity combined with an all-too-visible mean and nasty streak in going after his rivals.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/56375486-5a44-49eb -b0ff-7002afd5d0bf |
|
Hugh, let's get this right a loss for Romney is a win for him and a win for McCain is a loss for him. Your logic is getting more and more convoluted as days go by.
If Romney does not win Michigan he is done and cannot come back. He himself said it is a must win. He has spent $100 million and Michigan is sort of a home state. If he cannot win there then apart from Utah he cannot win.
Also he has the Kos Kidz voting for him and is loved by the liberals:
http://libsforromney.com/
For his whole career he is to the left of Ted Kennedy. He is hated by every single one of the candidates for the GOP nomination for good reason. He is a phony.
Hugh, we are not going to vote for Romney just to get you a plum administration position. The liberals want him to win because they know he would get killed in a general election. |
|
Real Clear Politics average for California has McCain at 21.7 and Romney at 14.7. I guess that doesn't work out for you so well on the absentees. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/ california_republican_primary-258.html
Mitt Romney got hurt bad by losing Iowa and New Hampshire after spending millions and months in both. Romney is likely to come in third in South Carolina. Michigan is too close to call. Obviously a win helps Romney (but does not make him a front runner) but a loss is probably fatal.
I am glad Rudy is still somewhat strong in California. I do not want to see him go. Rudy is a good candidate and Republican. I am also glad McCain is leading there. |
|
are you worried about it? You are a liberal dimocrat, so maybe we should ask why you have poked your pointy head out of your feculent ken to keen about disunity within the party you hate.
This Republican voted for Mitt Romney, but will settle for any of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul. Yes, there IS guilt in aSSociation.
Thankfully Dr. Paul and his goosestepping column of 'constipationalists,' Neo-Nazis, Klansmen,Paleo-Nazis, Flying-Saucer Bots, LaRouchies and Remote Scientific Viewers are darwing the same total vote that Buchanan got in Florida 2000. |
|
A well-publicized weekend photo-op for Mitt Romney turns out to have been missing a piece of information that might have undermined its credibility: the unemployed single mom at the center of the event was the mother of a Romney staffer...
What wasn’t reported – and what the Romney campaign did not reveal at the time – was that one of Sachs’ sons, Steve Sachs, is a paid employee of Romney’s campaign, organizing five counties in Michigan.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7895.html |
|
We're planning to dimple chads and terrorize minority voters--AGAIN!
Go. Mitt. Go, Rudy. |
|
Vote for John McCain - leader of the Ted Kennedy wing of the Republican Party.
|
|
Hugh,
Why do you think Romney has had such a hard time connecting with voters? It's obvious people have a hard time warming up to him, though he seems like a good guy. There just doesn't seem to be the _love_ of Romney that draws out people's enthusiasm. You know him better than most, so what are you thoughts? Is he more impressive in person? Has he changed during the campaign? Does he just not play well on tv? |
|
Hugh, We know what you (and most of us) WANT to happen today in Michigan, but what do you think WILL happen?
Do you think Romney's campaign and strategy of focusing on the plight of middle-class workers is a wise one? |
|
Hugh will be selling Willard Romney Kneepads after today's primary.
They make great stocking stuffers....what is that you say? Christmas is over?
Not for Mitt, elect him and he will make every day Christmas! Hell, he will promise whatever you want, "Promise them everything!"
Later today, on Hugh's show, we will hear, for the fourth time, the interview with Mitt, and the interview with Santorum, and Hugh repeating for the 95th time why you should zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
What will be Hugh's stupid excuse if Mitt loses? Or, will he cry like a 9 year old girl at a screening of the Titantic?
Answers will follow on "The Hugh Hewitt Romney mancrush show!" |
|
I don't think the strategy to play nice is helping Romney at all. All the candidates need to tell the truth McCain right now before he becomes inevitable.
Why doesn't Fred do it? Because he is widely expected to endorse McCain when he drops out.
Fredheads - so much for him being "the only real conservative"! I'd like one of you to address this. Do you like your guy taking this fallback position to help McCain?
|
|
|
|