Friday, December 07, 2007
|
|
Analyzing The Speech (UPDATED)
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
6:01 PM
|
I will get reactions to Mitt Romney's speech on today's program in interviews with (in this order) Michael Medved, Dr. James Dobson, Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke, Larry Kudlow, Dennis Prager, and Laura Ingraham.
Watch the Sunday shows to see how many conservative influencers are asked to analyze the speech. Dennis Prager may have spent more hours reporting on religion than any other commentator/pundit, and has not received one call from MSM for a reaction.
The audio from today's show will be available here later tonight, and transcripts of many of these interviews will be posted here later.
UPDATE: Dr. Dobson on the speech (full transcript of today's interview here):
You know, it was not a speech about electoral politics, presidential or otherwise. And it was also certainly not about Mormon theology. And if it had been, I would have written a very different kind of response. It was a magnificent speech, Hugh, and I was personally moved by it. He was addressing, as you said, the issue of who we are as a people, and what the source of our strength has been. And it’s directly related to our spiritual commitment since the days of the founding fathers. He was passionate when he delivered it, and he looked into the camera, at one point, I think he choked up. And it was just a very well-delivered, well thought out speech about the American people. And I loved it.
Michael Medved's post on the speech is here. Key excerpt:
In the most memorable words of a wonderful speech, Mitt Romney declared: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
I’ve been critical of the former Massachusetts governor in other contexts, but these words deserve to be remembered. It’s possible – desirable, even – that future school children will recall them for their power and elegance.
From my interview with Michael (transcript here):
MM: I can’t believe that anyone would not be favorably impressed. This is not just the best speech of this campaign so far, it’s one of the best campaign themed speeches I can remember. It’s vastly better than the John Kennedy speech to which it has been compared. Now I’ve been critical of Mitt Romney on a number of issues.
HH: Yup.
MM: I’m not necessarily a Romney fan. I’m not yet a Romney supporter. But I will tell you what impressed me about his handling this speech is how beautifully, how masterfully he handled what looked to be contradictory messages. Message number one was hey, don’t judge me based on my religion, don’t get my religion too much involved in politics. And message number two was we want a general involvement of religion in politics. And yet by affirming our common values, our civic religion, what Lincoln called our political religion, Mitt Romney hit a home run, it seems to me.
From my interview with Dennis Prager (transcript here):
HH: So Dennis, I didn’t get to hear your show today. What did you think of Mitt Romney’s speech yesterday?
DP: I thought it was magnificent, and I have not been in the Romney camp. I have not been anti-Romney, but I’ve certainly not, you know, been a partisan here. It was a terrific speech about the role of religion, about the role, what it means to be open, the role of religion in American society, what we are, how he takes truths, how he sees beauty in all of the religions, but he’s still deeply committed to his own. I had zero fault with it.
HH: Wow. Okay, you’re with, you’re where I am. I hadn’t heard that. Now Dennis, I want to give people some background. I don’t think there is a pundit, journalist, commentator, analyst in America who has spent more time discussing religion than you. I think that’s a true statement because of your years…
DP: I think it’s a fair statement, and I already began, and will continue on Monday, analyzing the speech to show how terrific it is. Now I don’t know what…it’s very interesting. I’ve just spoken in Santa Barbara, so I don’t know what’s going on media-wise. Is it being criticized?
HH: There are two strains of criticism. One is that he left atheists out, and he’s exclusionary and divisive to do so. What do you think of that?
DP: The talk was not about atheists. The talk was about religion in America. It is inconceivable to me that he thinks that an American who’s an atheist doesn’t have the same rights as any other American. But he doesn’t believe that atheism has contributed to the American values experience, and I don’t, either.
HH: And then the second criticism, which is much more subtle, and I have to think about it, he made the statement there can be no freedom without religion, which I agree with and many people agree with, and no religion without freedom. And I, a lot of people point out that many people of faith have endured, as Solzhenitsyn did decades in the camps, without losing their faith.
DP: Oh, God, that’s not what he meant.
HH: I thought so.
DP: He didn’t say there can’t be any religious people in and unfree society. He said that religion, when it doesn’t allow freedom, fails. And he would give the example of the Islamic society of Saudi Arabia.
HH: Very well put, Dennis. That is the rejoinder, and I hadn’t gone through it, yet. That’s why I wanted to talk to you about this. Now again, I want to remind people, you did Religion On The Line for how many years?
DP: Ten years to the day, five hundred shows, one thousand hours with people of every single faith.
HH: And so you know how difficult it is to talk about faith in an intelligent way, without people hearing you wrong. It is a very tough thing to do.
DP: Very tough, but he did it, and that’s why I said to you, Hugh, what have been the critiques? I can’t think of any.
|
|
Just want to let you know, the hindu friends I have, who enjoy the same freedoms to practice their religion right here in the United States, have identified Hugh Hewitt as the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels.
I'm sure the founding fathers and Mitt's speech to include everyone is really germain to our discussions.
But I was just talking to Mahkarand and he said that the entire Hindu community has confimred it, Hugh Hewitt is Joseph Goebbels. They couldn't get a clear read on Mitt, he's so slick, but early indications are that he may just be a distant cousin to Adolf...I wouldn't want to go that far to compare Mitt to Hitler.
But is is clear, Hugh is definitely the Propaganda Minister for the campaign. |
|
What?! It isn't what you want to hear and so therefore its "silly"? Well, just put your hands over your ears and say LA LA LA LA real loud.
Next thing you know, they're gonna be telling us that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that representatives of our government have been disgracing our moral heritage by torturing detainees. LA LA LA LA LA!! |
|
|
The Newsweek Report-Poll and the fractured NIE Report remind me that they are both unreliable. Methinks that an analysis of both would tear them to pieces but the MSM will never do it. They are using both to tear apart the Pubs and national security. Will no brave conservative, even the poor beaten down Prez, come out and blast these two silly reports? |
|
I think Romney should get an Emergency Protection Order from Hugh.
I am just afraid Hugh is researching the very best Bunny soup he can cook for his dreamboat.
Does anyone else think Hugh has a room in his house that is wallpapered with a thousand photos of Gov. Romney?
Face it, Hugh is smitt with Mitt. |
|
|
Dennis Prager is just another hack these days. During his "Religion on the Line" period, he was interesting and fairly rational, but he has long since given himself to advocacy--to the extent of being a talking-point, agenda-pushing propagandist, er, "influencer." |
|
Mitt's speech was also stepped on by the mortgage deal and the Omaha shooting. It was an interesting speech and I'm glad he made it. But if Mitt thinks that there is only upside from here, he's mistaken. That kind of thinking is the type of emotional and hubristic and over-the-top language we have been getting from Hugh lately. Has he lost his moorings? Comes a point when a guy has to calm down and think rationally, and not just minute to minute.
The speech is part of the furniture going forward, regardless of what happens to Mitt's candidacy. It will be a kind of counterpoint to the JFK speech, which stressed the division between church and government. Mitt says the division is artificial and counterproductive.
So far, so good. But now the religious right has to answer why--given that faith informs our morality, our politics, and should inform our civic rituals--doctrinal disagreements cannot be part of the dialog. And citing the Religious Test clause, as Mitt does, won't cut it. It is no less of a "religious test" to distinguish between the faithful and non-faithful than to distinguish between the faiths themselves. And in fact, one key argument from the religious right is that secularity is a kind of "faith."
It is clear what the Founders meant by "religious test," and it is not what Mitt means. Mitt did good on Thursday with that speech, if not for himself, then for the country. But the logic is that we open up free speech back to where it was before JFK. Mitt is not allowed to thread a needle. |
|
This is the most telling point you make, Hugh:
"Dennis Prager may have spent more hours reporting on religion than any other commentator/pundit, and has not received one call from MSM for a reaction."
The speech got Romney 15 minutes of attention nationally on a slow news morning, and 36 hours on the limited venue of conservative blogs (until the Newsweek poll came out and became the big story).
That's it. I tried talking about it with fairly well-informed acquaintances who aren't quite the very early horse race devotee that I am, and they had no idea what I was talking about. Especially for people who work, a Thursday morning address they don't see quickly loses relevance, or never even gains it.
Meanwhile, more significant events roll on: the 66th anniversary of Pearl Harbor is the next morning, a surprising (and unrealistic) Newsweek poll is released - and Rudy tackles Cuba, a subject of far more relevance for a president than his religion. Rudy's the one left looking like a beleivable future leader of the free world while Huck and Mitt play tug of war over Iowa churchgoers. |
|
|
I think Romney gave a heartfelt and moving speech about the deep religous heritage we as Americans share and of how freedom allows us to honor our beliefs. Romney showed great respect for all people. Seems he would be a president of real wisdom. |
|
Ok it really was a great speech I admit and I am an ardent anti-Mitt person. But Hugh doesn't know what has happened on the right in the past few years. The whole God loves G. Bush thing has been drummed into folks for years now. This provides a lot of Christian foot soldiers for the party. Now here is a Mitt Campaigner for the general election going to a home. The prospective voter says, Oh tell me about Romney being a Mormon, Whats a Mormon do? Well our campaigner responds its a demonic cult but we still love Mitt! That whole God's man for the White House thing is so out the window and the footsoldiers stay home.
Now comes the Mormon Mitt campaigner, we love Mitt and come to church this Sunday while your at it. Its an LDS dream come true as the antis shut up and vote and LDS credibility soars. Mitt does have GREAT HAIR though, you can't dispute that. |
|
I would say better than JFK's. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, JFK's speech erected an artificial barrier between church and state, a barrier the Dems have had a hard time living down.
As good a speech as it was--and what high-level politician CAN'T deliver such a speech--there was a big hole. He overinterprets the Religious Test clause, which simply states that oaths or affirmations or other such religious tests shall not be inflicted on office-holders. He thinks it forbids us from questioning the religious doctrines he believes.
At the same time, and unlike Kennedy, he wants political credit for his religiosity. Romney claims that religion makes for better people, better morality, and better civics. That's all very ecumenical, but it is not enough to say that Muslims are prayerful and Jews have wonderfully ancient ceremonies and Evangelicals are earnest and Catholics have good football teams and the like. You got to explain why that is--especially in light of religion's often deadly conflicts with itself. If Romney has some kind of ecumenical insight that the rest of us have missed, then he should lay it on the table. Otherwise, he should be forced to explain why adhering to doctrinal kookiness should not cause voters to wonder if this man is rational enough to lead a great nation through perilous times. After all, if good religion can make you better, then bad religion can make you worse.
If he had made Kennedy's argument, that's one thing. To his credit, Romney did not. He said religion matters. Therefore, we should take him at his word.. |
|
An/But/SO, I could not agree with you more, Hugh has lost all credibility, I cannot even listen to him anymore. He reminds of that spokesman for Sadam that denied that the American were in Baghdad till they almost knocked on his front door.
I do urge you and everyone to call your local radio station manager and tell them enough is enough. Hugh is only going to hurt the cause and provide HRC with plenty of soundbites to use aginst whichever Rep candidate actually wins the primaries. |
|
If Huck becomes the nominee, the Rep Party will be building on Radical Protestantism (I am the Christian Candidate), the Fair Tax and I have a an undergrad degree in Religion and a Divinity Degree so I know how to manage the Global Economy.
I could throw open borders in there but Huck may have conveniently flipped on that issue for a few months.
I thought that Obama was clueless and totally unqualified until I started to assess Huckabee's qualification for being President.
He has probably never had more than a sophomore intro to econ class. Billy Graham is better qualified to run the Global economy than Huck.
Huck is the Republican Jimmy Carter. I remember him so well. He was a nice guy with a nice smile, so why not let him be President? Well we all know what happened to the economy and our foreign policy. There would be no Iran/Nuke problem is there had been no President Carter. Carter replaced the Shah with the terrorists.
We really need Huck at a time like this. Show me that smile one more time. |
|
"Like I said, Romney's faith isn't an issue and "The Speech", though good, was irrelevant. The internals of this poll are terribly devasting for Romney."
If Romney had made this speech at the BEGINNING of his campaign it would mean something. Instead, it's a desperate move of a panicked candidate rapidly losing support across the board to a competitor.
Romney is dropping because of his INCONSISTENCY on social issues that are revered by people OF FAITH, NOT BECAUSE OF HIS FAITH.
And this is where HUGH, ROMNEY, and the ROMNUTS don't get it.
As good as the SPEECH was, the MOMENT is NOT a JFK moment. The poll numbers will bear this out.
It was the right speech at the wrong time, ergo...it was the wrong thing to do.
Too bad Hugh.
You've made a fool of yourself for a losing cause.
I will predict that most "people of faith" will agree with the speech, but will at the same time feel somewhat insulted and quietly indignant toward this purely political move.
Watch and see. |
|
|
|
Huck Peaking too soon - its already the new line, here's Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic:
'Bear with me... yes, it shows Mike Huckabee at 39% to Mitt Romney's 17%.
But -- Iowa now may be Huckabee's to lose and Romney's to win.
And it's always easier to beat expectations when you're expected to lose.'
Whoa, I see Fred is on the way to Iowa, and will stay there until the caucas except for a short Christmas break. Fred can smell the blood in water! |
|
And if anyone thinks a single speech is going to turn people around, they are hallucinating.
Particularly not a speech from a pompous windbag lecturing us from a rented out presidential library over a teleprompter. Who does this guy think he is???
and just who does this hugh hewitt character and his two flunkies Ingraham and Fred Barens think THEY are??
we all heard for oursleve s(or read) "the speech", and we dont need hugh and his ilk to tell us poor boobs in fly-over country what effect it had on us.
This "speech" hoopla is totally ridiculous!!
Policitans give speeches everyday to no avail-and unless they make a serious gaffe few people are influenced.
We are all tired of political speeches-except of course a few groveling groupies like hugh hewit- and Laura Ingraham who get paid for blowing flatulence on the internet instead of working.
|
|
VA votes comparatively late this cycle, so I may end up voting Fred as well. We'll have to see how things shake out.
No more RINO's!! |
|
will come crashing down. Ask almost any honest long time political junky, and they will tell you that Huck has peaked too soon.
I will not vote for anymore RINOS, that's why I will vote for Fred! |
|
I borrowed this from someone else, might have been you, but Hugh's spin now is like art. It reminds me of performance art, maybe Da Da ism or Andy Kaufman, someone standing on stage with a bullhorn shouting the most inane insane thing just to get a rise out of the crowd. The total disconnect is almost stifling. Am I wrong but didn't I hear and read on this blog for months that the plan was to
1. Win Iowa
2. Win New Hampshire
3. Cost to easy victory
And then it was a "two man race"
At this point it is sad in a running makeup clown in the corner, soaked, lonely sort of way. Or it is hilarious, I just can not decide yet...
dirL |
|
There's still a place for ya, Lil'Guy. Ronnie Paul and Patty Buchanan are saving your seat.
Let's see Goofy, sooooo...ummmm the nefarious neocons brought in the evangelicals???
Is it possible to be as clueless as you claim?? |
|
Huckabee Doubles Romney in Iowa!
And now Huck's son has been arrested trying to board a plane with a gun. What's not to like? Can't go wrong with interesting Jimmy Carter like relatives, as opposed to the perfect, yet oh so boring Romney boys |
|
|
It is becoming so transparent. Romney is now down 22 points to Huckabee in Iowa. Hugh, realizing that Iowa is lost, is hanging all his hopes on New Hampshire and the early absentee voting. Only problem is that this most recent poll is sending a very clear message to New Hampshire voters that the Romney campaign is on the rocks and that there vote will likely be wasted on Multiple Choice Mitt. So Hugh is whirling like a dervish right now, desperate to convince people that "the speech" will signal a change in Romney's fortunes. |
|
Romney Spokesman Won’t Say If Atheists Have Place In America
I do believe in God and think our Country was based on faith in God. With that said, nothing in the constitution forces anyone to believe in any particular religion or be forced to believe in God. Do we really want to be a theocracy like Iraq?
TPM-A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/romney-faith-speec h |
|
I think you may be right. Of the folks who can really move votes, not just jabber to each other on talk shows and on-line, I think Rush and Dobson count. Dobson hasn't thrown his hat in the ring, and I think he has said he doesn't plan to in the primary. And Rush loved the speech, but more or less moved on today.
I think for most Americans, the topics Mitt discussed are removed from daily life. I think it was a great speech, well delivered. But the obsessive politics junkies like myself forget that the rest of the world is pretty busy at 10:30 on a Thursday morning. So most voters did not and will not see "the Speech."
I was pretty shocked by the Iowa numbers from the Newseek poll. That is a BIG shift. I am skeptical that Iowa is really that much in the bag for Huckabee, in part because of Romney's organization, but it seems that the momentum is not just pulling Huck even, but actually leaving Mitt in the dust.
I think Mitt's problem is that he comes across as inhuman. In speeches and when being fed softballs by Hugh, he does fine. But his "common touch" is absent. He has a look of little negatives (position shifts, upper class upbringing, minority religion) that hurt him, with a bunch of different groups. He comes across as the guy who was the teacher's pet. One gets the sense that the other Repub candidates would love to gang up on him and give him a wedgie. (Whereas Rudy, Huck, Thompson and McCain all seem to have at least mutual respect.) And I think that the barrage of ads in Iowa x 12 months may have led to Mitt fatigue. Hence the Huckaboom.
If Romney doesn't get traction, maybe one good thing that will come out of it is that next cycle, the ad campaigns won't begin 2 years in advance... |
|
|
...please stage an intervention? Hugh has completely lost any perspective. As another poster mentioned, his irksome, pedantic shilling for Romney may actually be losing Mitt votes. He is like an addict, who just can't help himself. Maybe Hugh needs to quit cold turkey? No Romney posts for a week? |
|
|
|
|
We will see. Clearly many conservative bloggers like Hugh, NRO and Ingram have tossed their hat into Romney's ring and they are pushing the significance of "The Speech" hard. If these bloggers truly do have sway with voters we will soon find out, but it will still take a few days to find out. If next week's polling doesn't improve for Romney, then you'll have your answer. I do suspect that "The Speech" will be a non-starter for most. We'll see and certainly what little data we have (last night's Rassmusen tracking data) says that most were unaffected. |
|
Listing to Kudlow on HH and he says. "Huckabee is skeptical on China Trade." as if that is a negative statement.
Kudlow and Hugh are so "inside" that they still do not understand that opposing "Free Trade" with China is a winning position, not a loser. They both still think saying we need open and free trade with China is a "winner" for the GOP. It is a bad position.
Go ahead and tell the voters in Ohio that "Free trade" and most favored nation trading status with China is good for the USA and workers in Ohio. See where that gets you with the voter in Ohio. A state the GOP must win for the Presidency. |
|
I agree that Hunter is the only other Conservative in the race, but I don't think he has a prayer.
That's why my vote will go to the only other Conservative in the race, Fred Thompson.
If by some crazy quirk, Hunter gets the nomination in the primary, I will vote for him. But until then my vote is for Fred. If either Fred or Duncan don't win the nomination, I will abstain from voting in the general. |
|
I agree that Hunter is the only other Conservative in the race, but I don't think he has a prayer.
That's why my vote will go to the only other Conservative in the race, Fred Thompson.
If by some crazy quirk, Hunter gets the nomination in the primary, I will vote for him. But until then my vote is for Fred. If either Fred or Duncan don't win the nomination, I will abstain from voting in the general. |
|
|
BM Messanger - Does not look like its working very well. |
|
ACLU: 7% (indicates very conservative)
American Conservative Union: 92%
Americans for Better Immigration: A+
Americans for Tax Reform: 88.5%
Campaign for Working Families: 100%
Christian Coalition: 100%
Concerned Women for America: 100%
Eagle Forum: 100%
Family Research Council: 100%
Federation for American Immigration Reform: 100%
Gun Owners of America: A
NARAL: 0% (indicates a pro-life record)
National Federation of Independent Business: 100%
National Rifle Association: A+
National Right to Life Committee: 100%
National Tax Limitation Committee: A
National Taxpayers Union: B
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
We have run out of time on the illegal alien inundation. We either stop it now or we lose our country. McCain, Huckabee or Rudy won't do it. Rudy thinks it's impossible to enforce our laws. I want someone who doesn't.
The GOP cedes their best issues by running Rudy. He agrees with Hillary on abortion, gays, guns, and amnesty. I want someone who doesn't.
America is worth saving. Vote conservative.
|
|
|
|
Patriotic Liberal -
I used to be a devoted radio talk show listener, but for the reasons you note, I find myself tuning it out more and more. Beside selling gold coins and cheap mortgages, and pet cremation, talk radio has also sold us a bill of goods - look at the sad place they have taken conservatism too. I gave up on Medved over his open borders immigration, Hugh over Mitt mania, and I like Rush, but every time he starts playing Hillary sound bites I turn him off, can't stand to hear her voice and Rush's repetitive attacks on her.
So folks, turn it off, I listen to the classical station now, much more soothing, and I have run out of energy for the talk radio outrage de jour. |
|
|
That's why my vote, and my families, and my friends, and my associates are going to be voting for a real Conservative....Fred Thompson. |
|
Hugh:
It was, indeed, a lucid and compelling speech, one that brought needed light to this discussion.
As Republicans, we must come to terms with two facts: 1. There is no perfect candidate, or even one that's "nominally perfect," if you can excuse the contradiction; and, 2. Republicans, not unlike the entire electorate, are evolving, with splinter factions such as the social conservatives experiencing an identity crisis of sorts because of #1.
For my analysis of the speech in the broader context of religion in America today, please go to:
http://clearcommentary.townhall.com
Best,
Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com
|
|
The "conservative influencers," as Hugh calls himself and other talk show hosts, are diminishing in influence. It is not that Huck is not conservative, it is that rank-and-file conservatives do not like where their leadership--including the talk show hosts--have taken them. Look at Hugh on these pages. His advocacy of Mitt has been so lopsided, so completely in the tank, that you'd have to be an idiot to take his commentary on Presidential politics seriously anymore.
Conservatism needs to rethink itself. While inside-the-beltway pundits like Hugh and Rush may
be comfortable with where this generation of Republicans are philosophically, many conservatives--and most Americans--are horrified at what conservative government has wrought. Whether Iraq or New Orleans, fiscal mismanagement or widespread corruption, an eroding middle class at home or an eroding reputation abroad, the failures of the past several years are failures of contemporary conservatism. It is only natural that the average conservative, such as those in Iowa, would turn away from their "influencers" and find some guy like Huck, who balances their cultural values with some different--more authentic and consistent--ideas about the role of government.
So let those muckity mucks whine and complain. Those are the death-throes of the espousers of a failed philosophy, or the corporate types who have bought the Republican party so they can sell America. Let the Ann Coulters and Hugh Hewitts cry and moan about Huck. America needs more from conservatism than what Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have been providing, that's for sure. Some conservatives realize it already. Others ultimately will. |
|
Medved and Barnes are open borders types who call those who want to close the borders nativists and worse. They talk with each other and live inside a bubble. Which of them predicted the rise of Huck?
Another theory. Maybe Iowans like the underdog slant the the Huck campaign. Rich northeastern elites who looks and acts just too perfect floods the state with ads and appearances, but ends up turning people off, as he does not have the empathy or common man touch. Plus he lacks authenticity, which voters seem to be craving this time around.
Enter the Huck. He travels around with just a driver, went to an unknown college instead of honors from Harvard, and his dad was not a corporate President. Americans love an underdog, and Huck, consciously or not, it playing into it.
|
|
One of the many problems going on in the GOP right now. Hugh trots out the likes of: Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke and Michael Medved thinking they are going to help a GOP candidate. These names do not "convert" anyone. These people simply preach to the converted mainstream GOP regular. Same as Hugh.
Note I'm in no way a Huckabee supporter. Of Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee, Romney is the clear choice. Just asking the question; Who does HH think he is bringing to the Romney camp by saying Fred Barnes thinks the speech was OK?
The problem the GOP has now and in 08 is that they have no leaders able to speak to the people they need to speak to in order to win. HH, Fred Barnes, and Michael Medved drive certain conservatives away the GOP needs to win, not bring them in. |
|
Ron Paul said he isn't leaving the Republican Party.
but besides Mr. Davis...
No one who believes in Reagan Conservatism, could embrace the isolationist vision of Ron Paul.
|
|
This implies LDS is much less an issue than Mitt's flip flopping. Iowans know Mitt, he has spent millions there and made countless trips, so what's going on here? Are not voters simply not buying his recent conversion to conservatism? Why are they rejecting him?
Mitt was convincing yesterday, but he was also convincing on that youtube video supporting abortion. Are they just not buying what he is selling?
On his record, Huck is not all that impressive, and the beating he has taken over the pardon and obviously not damaged him so far. Yet he continues to rise, now by a remarkable margin.
Are the voters ignoring the pundits, and God forbid, making their own decisions? Don't the proles know its a two man race between Mitt and Rudy, because Hugh says so.
This is turning into the most interesting election in years. |
|
|
this speech on Sunday. I am sure Kristol and Williams and the boys (and gals) will discuss it in detail. Russert will definitely discuss it. Even George Stephanopoulous will (at least George Will will). |
|
What's interesting will be to see what happens to Ron Paul support as Huck Rises.
Where will the Fiscal Conservatives go? If they can get over the Foreign Policy issues, they've really got no better friend than Ron Paul.
In fact, I wish all these candidates viewed taxation and domestic spending the way Paul does.
A Huckabee rise, in my opinion, makes the likelihood of a Paul 3rd party spoiler run much greater.
Many of my Conservative friends threw in with him earlier this year once it became apparent that Thompson ain't going nowhere. |
|
because he's resonating with Iowa voters. That's it, plain and simple.
No other candidate is resonating with Iowans anywhere close to him right now.
If he wins the race, he will have taken on all comers and convinced the people that he's their choice.
In a world where you can choose whether to have talk show hosts like you or voters like you, I think we all know what the choice would be.
What's interesting is, why don't the CONSERVATIVE talk show hosts like him?
It's because he's not a conservative.
Lots of republicans aren't conservatives (though they may be social conservatives) . . . he's really resonating with them especially, in my opinion. |
|
It is really odd to see some grow towards the Huckabee campaign.
Reminds one of the fashion which drove Fred a while back.
So many on the WWW, didn't seem to care about Fred's moderate record in the Senate...
They didn't even bother to study his past.
Just jumped on a bandwagon, which seems to have busted.
Huckabee is a tax raiser, and that is simply a disaster for the GOP.
Also find his apparent sale of religious beliefs to be unseemly in a political manner.
If these polls are accurate, then I feel there is more problematic then first realized with the Conservative base.
Prior to 2006, after 2004, the hysteria grew to insane levels about various issues, like Dubai, Meirs, etc...
All of which ended up undermining the Conservative agenda.
One aspect, some who think of themselves as 'Reagan Conservatives', don't seem to care about tax reduction, and even have isolationist mantras.
Many of these so-called 'Conservatives' also expressed the past self destructive conception of boycotting the vote, which only empowered Nancy, Harry, and the Liberal agenda.
Something seems amiss... |
|
16. Does knowing that Mitt Romney is a Mormon make you more likely or less likely to support his candidacy, or does it not make much difference either way?
BASED ON REPUBLICAN VOTERS
Likely Rep
Caucus- Goer
1% - More likely
16% - Less likely
83% - Does not make much difference
0% - Don’t know
17. Does Mitt Romney need to explain his Mormon faith more for you to consider supporting him, or is this not an
important issue for you?
BASED ON REPUBLICAN VOTERS
Likely Rep
Caucus- Goer
8% Needs to explain Mormon faith more
72% Not an issue
17% Current Romney supporter (non-lean)
3% Don't Know
Like I said, Romney's faith isn't an issue and "The Speech", though good, was irrelevant. The internals of this poll are terribly devasting for Romney. |
|
|
How can Huck be up so much? Don't those lumpen in Iowa listen the their betters in talk radio land who tell them how to vote and what to believe? They must all be bigots and nutters. Don't they know their opinions do not count? The nerve of some people. |
|
New Newsweek Poll has Huck up 39-17 over Romney in IA.
Huckabee up +33 since the last Newsweek poll. |
|
|
|