Thursday, January 10, 2008
|
|
Tonight's Debate
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:11 PM
|
UPDATE: John McCain with Sean Hannity immediately after the debate compounds his error on immigration by giving the impression that the only change needed in McCain-Kennedy is border-security first. Wow. He just doesn't get it.
Romney followed McCain and by contrast shined, and spent time talking about the Reagn example and inspiration and the Reagan-Bush legacy. Romney also got the opportunity to talk to Michigan voters. "I continue to feel that you cannot write off jobs," he replied to Sean's question about McCain's "straight-talk" about Michigan's economic woes, and spoke specifically to the auto industry's renewal in Michigan. Assuming that conservatives watching the debate stuck around for 20 minutes, Romney did himself a great deal of good in the after-game.
ORIGINAL POST
Fred had a great night, Mitt a good one and Rudy did fine as well.
Senator McCain struggled, especially on the question of what to do if recession arrives, when he channeled Herbert Hoover and spoke only about cutting spending. His talk of global warming was a bright red flag to conservatives, and his repeating of his "change" answer from Sunday night --that he helped change the policy in Iraq-- underscored the impression that he was running through some talking points he understands to be safe. "Not for profit, but for patriotism" was another example of a recycled rhetoric from Sunday. His answer on deferring to captains-at-sea was a strong point, but that was the only one. His halting and often rambling answers and occasional grimaces and winks just don't work on television, and his immigration answers just don't fly. He has had three sub-par debate performances in a row.
The huge loser tonight was Mike Huckabee, thanks largely to Fred and Chris Wallace who peeled the bark off of Huck's ideology. Huck bristled at Wallace at one point, and when pushed on why he raised taxes and spending, barked back, "I raised expectations." That might work with Democrats --though it probably doesn't in this day and age-- but it sure doesn't work with Republican voters. Huck's whining about the religion question was also off-putting coming from a candidate who has so often injected religion into this campaign.
Romney had less screen time tonight, but each time he answered he was poised and eloquent. The opening response on the economy, aimed specifically at Michigan voters was very strong, and his "Nope" answer to Wallace's question about whether the voters in New Hampshire might be saying that they do not want change in D.C. was perfect pitch, and his grasp of the foreign affairs questions impressive. The fact that the debate ended on immigration helped him as well as it again underscores that John McCain still doesn't grasp or won't admit that the McCain-Kennedy bill was the problem throughout 2005 and 2006, not the fact that "Americans need to restore their trust in the government." The specifics of the McCain bill is what soured the debate, and McCain's absolute refusal to concede this renders his conversion on border security completely suspect.
Mitt, Fred and Rudy have generally done well in these settings since they began at the Reagan Library last year, McCain wasn't a factor until recently and he has struggled to get through them, and while Huckabee used the early debates to charm folks, his performance has plummeted as focus on his record has increased. There's a huge message in the last three debates about the issue differences between the candidates on taxes and immigration, with Giuliani, Romney and Thompson on one side and Huckabee and McCain on the other side. And there's a message about who can win these contests in the fall, and it isn't Senator McCain or Governor Huckabee.
|
|
Yea, yea, Romney was okay, even good.
We love ya Hugh, but you should wait until the actual debate is over before you score it!
Thompson Won.
But Huckabee hit a homerun on the religious test question!
Mitt and Rudy did fine.
Good- bye to Ron Paul
|
|
|
Romney was completely forgettable. |
|
after that it was McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney in that order (all close, all very good)
followed by Ron Paul who was terrible.
I know you are trying Hugh, but lets be objective. |
|
I had to reach for the smelling salts!
In a round about way Hugh declared Fred the winner!
After tonight I am back in the Thompson camp. And I ain't leaving.
|
|
to Mitt was very argumentative. I thought Mitt did very well with his answer.
I am not criticizing Mitt in his answers, he did well, just not better than the other candidates (other than Ron Paul who said a few right things on fiscal matters and absolutely crazy things on everything else). |
|
|
Doesn't sound like I missed much. Romney doesn't stand a chance in SC and I seriously doubt that he'll win in Michigan. I hope that will be the end of his campaign. I'm okay if Fred gets up and running but I think it's too little, too late. More and more, it looks like McCain and Huckabee. What are you going to do then, Hugh? |
|
Is it just me...or does it sometimes feel that the elites in the Republican Party all have the same talking points.
In the past debates...it has been "build up Romney". And that is what we see...Hugh Hewitt builds him up, NR builds him up...and then Luntz on Fox comes in with a group of voters claiming he is great.
Tonight...the elites in the party talking points? Fred Thompson wins...thus build him up...and of course Luntz group follows suit.
And as usually, claim that Huckabee is hurt and that Huckabee lost.
Simple as this...Thompson went on the attack...and it didn't work. Huckabee defended himself well.
IMO...no on really won this debate. It was a rather boring debate. Looking forward to McCain/Huckabee winning Michigan and Huckabee winning South Carolina.
By that time...the elites in the Republican Party will be having a meltdown. |
|
Big winner was Fred. As usual, Hugh's dead wrong about Huckabee. He scored a lot of points, especially when confronted with the whole 'wives submit to your husbands' thing (Imagine if Mitt had been hit with a Morman question! God forbid, Hugh Hewitt would accuse you of being a bigot).
|
|
|
This would be my dream ticket, in that order. Fred's bedrock conservative, alpha male persona at the top, with Mitt's energy and mind in the second spot. They would have appeal in just about every region of the country. The electorate just doesn't seem that into Mitt to elect him as President now, but with 8 years as Veep, he could be terrific in 2016. |
|
Couple of points:
Fred was good but he didn't challenge his buddy McCain. I guess he has realized that VP slot for McAmnesty is his only chance.
Romney was bad. He had several good opportunities to remind people about "pro-amnesty senators" and how out of touch with Americans they are, how arrogant they were when pushing the bill etc. Nothing. (Not much from other candidates, but this was supposed to be Romney's topic). Romney's actual anti-illegal record is the best (check NumbersUSA rankings) but he just cannot make the case. How hard that can be? Just borrow couple of talking points from Michelle Malkin or something, if you cannot come up with good words.
Romney should have strongly reminded people about Thompson-McCain-Feingold CFR bill, and McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill and use them as the example how corrupt Washington is.
|
|
|
To say that Huckabee was the loser is madness. He scored big with Evangelicals which is all he needs to do in SC. |
|
Kirkpatrick, David D. 11 March 2007. "In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right" _The New York Times_
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/us/politics/11romney.html ?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198897685-V4op/WdPFhPK3 8TYd2kXyA&pagewanted=print
Conservative critics of Mr. Romney have already seized on a $15,000 donation to Massachusetts Citizens for Life — which was first reported in January on a little-noticed anti-Romney blog by Carol M. McKinley, an antiabortion activist in the state — to argue that he is trying to buy the group’s support, or at least silence its criticism. Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, is also helping to raise money from others for the group.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life was critical of Mr. Romney, who was then a supporter of abortion rights, during most of his tenure as governor. But over the past few months, its officials have issued favorable statements about his record on abortion issues that have become an integral element of his appeal to social conservatives.
At a conference of conservative activists in Washington last week, Mr. Romney’s campaign passed out a statement from the group praising him as one of Massachusetts’ “strongest assets.”
The conservative Web site Mass Resistance accused the group of selling out. “Outrageous,” the site declared. Mass Resistance has published a dossier on Mr. Romney’s former liberal views and has become a hub of conservative opposition to his nomination.
Marie Sturgis, executive director of Citizens for Life, said his donation had no influence on her group, which has an annual budget of about $600,000.
“Granted, when he began his role as governor he certainly was not with us,” Ms. Sturgis said. “But toward the end, if you look at the record, especially in the stem cell debate, he certainly took the pro-life position consistently.”
|
|
Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to “the Natural” to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background.
Silver Medal: Actually, Giuliani, McCain and Romney all had “pretty good” nights – although I wonder if Romney missed a golden opportunity to make a point when Paul suggested that Iran was not much of a threat. McCain seemed a little softer-edged tonight. For a guy who’s arguably now the frontrunner, he didn’t seem to catch a lot of flak tonight.
Giuliani is good, but when you watch all of these debates, his rhetoric gets repetitive after a while. I feel like he’s in reruns.
Bronze: Huckabee – and ironically, he had some good answers tonight – economics, and the religion one. Still very likeable, as usual, but I wonder if Thompson started taking the bark off him a bit tonight. South Carolina’s Republicans are different from Iowa’s, and I don’t know if he’s going to be able to smile and populist his way through it. Responding to a tough attack is never easy, and I credit him for not taking the Romney-esque, “oh, that’s uncalled for, I don’t think we should make such personal attacks…”...
For once I’m in total agreement with Frank Luntz’s focus group – they loved Fred. They’re saying he showed passion.
Two people in the focus groups said he was "in the shadows" before this evening. What? He's an illegal immigrant?
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzZhNjQ5Yjk5 NWE5ZmZjMmVlMmE3NDE0MGQyZWY1Mzc= |
|
|
religion question. I thought he hit that one out of the park. It does not make me a Huck supporter, but you can't help like the guy for saying what he did. |
|
This week is the first time in Mitt's public life he is failing at something - winning early primaries to build momentum. He has now withdraw from SC, he won't be back after tonight.
What is he doing to hit it out of the ball park under these conditions? Not much in my opinion, his answers sound like they are taken from campaign speeches, none of the jab and counterjab he was doing last week.
What's up with that? He did not hit a homer when he absolutely had too. Even Hugh admits he only had a good night, and is left discussing Mitt's post debate interview with H&C.
Contrast Fred, who is on fire tonight. |
|
Hugh -- you need to give it up. Your shameless promotion for Willard is ridiculous.
Face the facts: Romney's campaign is on life support.
Your ridiculous shilling is only making you (and this blog) less and less credible. |
|
|
I would rather see the ticket this way, but I could live with it the other way. The two together would be formidable competition. |
|
The latest version of Romney won't advocate stopping the killing of embryonic human life.
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 16, 2007
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924
GOV. ROMNEY: I, I have the same position--let me describe it, because there are two parts to it.
==
And from a legal standpoint, I would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells and I would outlaw embryo farming. I would allow, on a private basis, the use of surplus embryos, so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and likewise the existing lines. So from a legal--and I faced that in Massachusetts. I, in the bill there, I said I would continue to allow the use of surplus embryos from IVF.
==
MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed...
GOV. ROMNEY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...for research, and you support that.
GOV. ROMNEY: The term support is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose.
MR. RUSSERT: You wouldn't outlaw it.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would, I would not outlaw it. I would allow, I would allow private laboratories and private institutions--as we currently do, and as the president does as well--to use these so-called surplus or embryos to be discarded.
Let me note as well, Tim, in that regard, that, that I think before we, we move too far down that road that we establish a provision for parents to have authority over their own embryos and to have adoption procedures so that they might be able to provide these embryos, as some call them, snowflake babies to allow them to be adopted by others and to be implanted and become human beings. That's the, that's the course I'd prefer. But I would not outlaw the use of these, of these surplus embryos if the parents so directed. And, at the same time, for federal dollars I would focus it on the, the alternative methods.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control.
|
|
"impression that the only change needed in McCain-Kennedy is border-security first."
Exactly. Why didn't anybody challenge McCain for this? Amnesty bill was bad, Americans did not trust McCain and it cannot be cured by having some token "verification" (by Pres McCain?) that border is secured and then give the full amnesty to 35M illegals.
Why do they keep repeating "12 million illegals"? It is just a guess, probably vastly underestimated.
Deny welfare, hospital, education services from illegals and save taxpayers money. |
|
Romney Didn't Veto Govt Funded Abortion in MA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39MZyCNCJQ
http://www.repealromneycare.org/
Do you think $50 is a decent copay figure for an abortion? PDF:
http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf
Tammy Bruce: Romney's fantasies become reality to him: 2:00+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlHy-2Er1I
Romney calls Ted Kennedy co-collaborator on health care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM
/////////////////////////
This item should have mentioned Romney's bogus 'I took only pro-life steps in office' claims:
Luo, Michael. 22 December 2007. "Romney Learns That 'Facts Are Stubborn Things'" _The New York Times_
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/21cnd-romney. html?hp
Allott, Daniel. 20 December 2007. "Romney, get real about your abortion record"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7482.html
Romney flips, & backs forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pill
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e6675e4-6f6e-4c84-b1a 1-5d3a743d140e%4021g2000hsj.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
I only saw the final portion of the debate. Thompson struggled to string sentences together. I'm sure Hugh thought Romney did fine -like he'd ever say anything else. For the record I support McCain, but like Romney, Huckabee and Thompson. I do get annoyed by the establishment pushing Romney. |
|
There is no point buddy.
I've been on this blog now for a month trying to get some of these guys to wake up and see what Huckabee is doing.
None of them can understand the genuis behind Huckabee's political moves. I don't know why...they just can't.
Hugh Hewitt has been claiming Huckabee is dead since November. Yet...where does he stand today?
|
|
|
Did FOX find those people at the local Thompson headquarters? Seems I recall the focus group FOX rounded up in New Hampshire said Romney won the debate in a walk. Maybe it's time to retire this feature. Romney won the debate but it might not help him in the Bible belt. Fred is hitting on all eight cylinders at last, but it's too late. Huckabee looked good as usual, but I think the RINO label is starting to stick. McCain continues to prevaricate about the bill he authored with Teddy. Ron Paul left wearing a tinfoil hat. |
|
not think Thompson won this debate hands down?
IMO Fred's performance tonight was better than any candidate in any debate to date.
He steamrolled Huckabee's liberal record in Arkansas and presented solid, conservative anawers to other problems facing this country.
Fred probably isn't going to win the nomination but I think he would be an outstanding VP candidate. |
|
|
|
Carl must be on the payroll. He couldn't have set up a "Baptist" preacher in a Southern state better than with the question he asked.
May he could have asked about this instead. Especially after Huck's claim that Arkansas ranked 8th in the nation in education.
Latest NAEP scores drop nationally
Wednesday, Sep 26, 2007
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK - Arkansas fourth- and eighth-grade public school students who took a national assessment test scored at the same levels as two years ago but slipped behind the national average, the state Department of Education reported Tuesday.
|
|
Guiliani and Romney who needed to show that they still hve some reason to be in this thing. They don't. McCain has sewn up the Hawks and Huck has sewn up the values voters.
Fred showed his mean streak, but was arrogant and didn't look that great. Wasn't asleep at the wheel like every other night and 'cuz he ain't Huck or McCain, all of the people that tried to love Mitt will probably head to Fred.
Three man race, but Fred's still got plenty of ground to make up.
Mitt, of course, is toast. |
|
Hugh Hewitt has lost credibility as a commentator on the Republican Presidential race.
I agree with JamesB's 10:51 PM post that John McCain was the most Presidential. As for the others, Fred Thompson did well, Mike Huckabee made some good comments, Mitt Romney was better than he has been before (but for some reason leaves me cold), Rudy Guiliani seemed a bit strident and has had much better days and Ron Paul does not belong on the same platform. |
|
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/10/the-south-carolina-gop -debate/
Michelle Malkin, "Romney was a big loser tonight. His delivery was wooden. The other candidates ignored him. In just four/five days, he seems to have completely lost that front-runner status."
Geez, I knew Hugh would say Romney did well. I wonder if Mr Cherry Picker will talk about Michelle's comments?
NOPE!
|
|
Everytime I listen to Hugh, I think I'm hearing a rerun: Mitt is great and anyone who gets in his way is not a true conservative, etc. etc. It just goes on and on. Nonstop.
|
|
I could see Romney getting the briefing earlier today at his table, "Come one Governor you can get this foreign policy thing. Don't think of it like playing checkers, think of it like a 3 dimensional chessboard." Now he is lying to Alan Colmes that he hasn't pulled back in South Carolina.
Come on Hugh, Huckabee was great. I still may not vote for him but he was great. I'm amazed that you begged everybody in California to vote for Schwarznegger, a true liberal, and slam McCain and Huckabee as being RINO's. I am also amazed that you are the most eloquent and prolific apologist for Romney's obvious fruadulent record as conservative. Quit calling him a conservative so that he can win this primary. Of course your goal is to have him pull out his liberal credentials for the general election. A time where he can run on his record of supporting abortion, liberal judges, gay marriage, and socialized medicine. Of course you like his elect ability, as you battled for in the California gubernatorial race, you don't believe a conservative can get elected as president in 2008 America. And the most insidious part is that you have to dupe the Republican electorate into believing he is the most conservative man on that stage. Shame on you Hugh. |
|
Balz, Dan and Shailagh Murray. 21 December 2006. "Mass. Governor's Rightward Shift Raises Questions" _Washington Post_
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/1 2/20/AR2006122002046.html
In the 1994 campaign, Romney also proudly labeled himself a moderate. "I'm not a partisan politician," he said in an interview with The Post that fall. "My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses."
Helms, the former Republican senator from North Carolina, was one of the most conservative elected officials in the country.
In his 1994 debate with Kennedy, Romney also refused to endorse the "Contract With America," which House Republicans had proudly presented as their campaign manifesto, and he balked when Kennedy tried to link him to the Reagan administration. "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush," Romney retorted.
////////////////
2002 Romney: I'm moderate, with progressive views-- see 0:50 on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbYdATLV6ZE
Romney opposed the Contract with America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jzno_apP1Q
The Real Romney?-- 5:04 long, from debate with Ted Kennedy shortly before the 1994 tsunami that swept Republicans into control of Congress (Romney failed to beat Kennedy that year)
TOPICS:
abortion, homosexuals and the Boy Scouts, wasn't Republican during Reagan-Bush years, affirmative action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Romney distancing self from Republicans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbX4RkGlYnk&feature=related
Romney member of Republican Main Street Partnership
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c950b53d-1270-42c0-970 f-5ef079071753%40s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
Whowhee!! I'm glad to see Freddy come back to life!Romney/Thompson, or vice versa. Powerhitters, both. Fred not only took a chunk out of Huck's rear, he made huck limp without crutches! My man is back. Welcome back, Fred! |
|
|
The religion question was good for Huck. I would like his answer better if I didn't feel like he takes advantage of his faith and has taken advantage of the faith of his opponents to advance his campaign. The question shouldn't have been asked to him, and no, a Mormon question shouldn't be asked to Romney. The difference is that Huckabee has played up his faith when it has benefitted him to do so. |
|
Per Matt Lewis of Town Hall:
0:17 - Mike Huckabee nails a tough question about Christian doctrine:
"Everybody says religion is off limits, except we always can ask me the religion questions."
He also adds: If we're going to have a religious session, he'd feel more comfortable if we can pass the plates and help his fundraising. Huckabee scores major points for not backing down from his position on the "wives submit themselves" question.
Huckabee also rightly cleared up the "doctrinal quirk," which I like because it serves to educate the public. I'm also betting this helps him a lot in South Carolina. ... You might recall that he was the one who most adeptly handled the Evolution question in an early debate, as well.
9:36 - Huckabee is getting a lot of applause tonight. He will likely be tough in SC.
It's funny how Matt didn't even mention Romney's name till the end but said good things about Huckabee. GEE, Hugh, why don't you write your review till after the debate is over. |
|
As long as Huckabee says "Jesus," he'll win South Carolina.
In fact, that should have been his debate strategy. On the first question posed to him, he simply should have said "Jesus." Then immediately walked off the set.
Home run for the Huckabee Horde! It doesn't take much to impress his followers. |
|
Romney tonight promised to bring jobs to America. This sounds familiar.
Mooney, Brian C., Stephanie Ebbert, and Scott Helman. 30 June 2007. "The Making of Mitt Romney
Ambitious goals; shifting stances" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ar ticles/part7_main?mode=PF
A spokesman said Romney each year met an average of about 50 chief executives who were considering expanding or locating in the state. A persistent complaint in the business sector, however, is that Romney never fulfilled his promise to be a Massachusetts cheerleader around the country and that he spent too much time lampooning the Bay State's liberal political culture while selling himself to national Republican activists.
''Instead of serving as the Commonwealth's number one salesperson to encourage firms to locate in the state, he tended to poke fun at the state,'' said Brian R. Gilmore, executive vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which represents 7,600 businesses.
==
Romney did cultivate at least one Democrat, Representative James E. Vallee, a legislative leader who fought for high-profile bills backed by the governor.
''The first couple of years, he'd call me on my cellphone and we met maybe a dozen times,'' Vallee recalled. ''He supported me when I was going against the grain of my own colleagues.''
A few days before he left office, Romney thanked Vallee and asked whether there was anything he could do for him, Vallee recalled.
The Legislature had passed a home-rule petition for an additional liquor license in his home town of Franklin. Vallee asked Romney to sign it.
''I'll take care of it before I leave,'' Vallee quoted Romney as saying.
The Franklin petition was in a stack of last-minute bills left unsigned on Romney's desk.
Romney said he did not recall the conversation with Vallee.
|
|
You kill me.. McCain being right on the MEX border.
" Can I say it NOW, he lied! His idea along with I tell lies always Kennedy had NOTHING to do with the damn border!
Gezzzzzzzzzzzzz. |
|
|
The biggest moment came in the post debate, when Alan Colmes asked him about distancing himself from Ronald Reagan. Tell me, what candidate in the GOP field besides Romney is on record trying to distance themselves from Reagan...NONE. Truly more scandalous than criticizing Bush, that's for sure. But his answer speaks volumes, talking abut how when he went to Reagan's funeral he realized how great Reagan was because of what he heard and learned in California. WAIT A SECOND, you didn't realize how great Reagan was till 2004? COME ON! That is the lamest of them all and is the KING OF FLIP FLOPS! |
|
A Look at the predictions and ANALysis:
January 10, 2008 - Mitt is toast!
September 2008 - Mitt is toast! He can't beat Hillary.
January 2009 - Mitt is toast! He cannot win another term.
C'mon folks. Odds are good that the MSM and lovely folks such as yourselves will get him out of the mix soon enough. Spare me the Mitt is toast mantra. |
|
And he is in every debate. He cannot speak with substance about anything (red flag, folks) and the platitudes and cliches are getting really annoying.
As usual, Romney and Guiliani did well, and Fred added himself into the mix of quite well. These 3 are the only viable candidates.
McHuck will drive the GOP right over a cliff.
I loved the way Huck defended his taxes as giving Arkansas "hope". Hilarious! But, I really loved it when Fred took Huck on for his record. Where have you been, Fred? (If Romney had done it, there would be hell to pay tomorrow.) |
|
In particular your points about McCain's lame attempt to convince anyone that he's 'heard the people' on the amnesty bill he was at the center of trying to ram down the throats of the American people.
So...all of a sudden...he's "heard the people"! Why didn't 'hear' any of the millions of Americans that were flooding his office and the other Rinos and democrates offices in opposition to their 'Amnesty' (or as some have called it ...scamnesty) Bill!?
Turn your hearing aid up McLame! WE ...the people wanted more than 'just' our borders secured 'first'. We equally want our elected officials to enforce the laws that illegals have broken when they first stepped their illegal feet on American soil! We the people want the rule of law to be obeyed and enforced. He says that 'of course' we will round up those that have broken our laws and deport them. But he doesn't get the point that every one of the illegal aliens in this country have broken our laws by coming here illegally in the first place.
Fred gave a great analogy about the McLame/Kennedy Amnesty Bill in an interview on the Hannity radio show today. He simply said that if you steal a radio and a television, and are told you have to return the radio but you can keep the television .... That's amnesty!
I didn't hear the entire debate tonight because of work but I hope Fred used that analogy during the debate.
|
|
Michael Medved posted a link to factcheck.org in reference to Mitt Romney's "dishonest campaign" (MM's and Huckabee's words).
here is the quote from that site that is proof that Mitt was being dishonest.
"Mitt's Meth Miss
Yet another Romney ad attacked Huckabee in Iowa, claiming Romney "got tough on drugs like meth" in Massachusetts while Huckabee "reduced penalties for manufacturing methamphetamine" in Arkansas. But the legislation Romney supported never passed. Furthermore, convicted meth dealers face prison terms in Arkansas that are four times longer than those in Massachusetts, even after the reductions Huckabee supported. The reductions were drafted with help from Arkansas state prosecutors to ease prison overcrowding."
Romney supported legislation that was not passed by the most Democratic legislature in the nation (probably).
Huckabee actually reduce the sentences but for the "right reason".
So who is being dishonest. Mitt or Huck/Medved
|
|
|
Fred not challenging McCain makes me wonder. McCain is the supposed frontrunner, why wouldn't Fred attack him? McCain and Fred are friends from Fred's days in the Senate, so I believe Fred(realizing he can't win)will drop out after SC and endorse his buddy McCain. Its the only explanation I have. |
|
Rudy, Mitt or Fred will all be great Presidents. They all, particularly Rudy and Mitt, showed that they have the experience to run the great U.S.A!
Although I will not vote for Huckabee, I do think that he answered the "religious" questions PERFECTLY! I also think that the questions are not appropriate for a Presidential candidate. |
|
Mitt is a no-op in any position, including Vice President.
You think that a viable presidential candidate is going to want to share the ticket with someone with the highest negatives of any candidate?
People don't like Romney.
+ + + |
|
and so did Rudy. Huck haters will flock to Fred, but Mike will still win in SC.
Mike Huckabee #1 in IA
Mike Huckabee #2 NH
Mike Huckabee #1 or 2 in MI (pobably a strong 2nd)
Mike Huckabee #1 or #2 in SC (probably #1)
Mike will beat Fred and Mitt in MI and SC.
|
|
|
If Fred doesn't do well in SC and ends up dropping out, he is expected to endorse McCain. If he does so, then he isn't the conservative that people claim he is. We'll see. |
|
Fred did good tonight, Not like I wanted , but good.
Sorry to say the McCain group, can't see the light on him and they think he's the hero. |
|
|
|
video of Huckabee: the radical Islamic fascists can't be negotiated with;
our civilization's existence is at stake;
we must win this war http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id =871
Blankley, Tony. 19 December 2007. "None of the Above: GOP Heading to a Brokered Convention"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2007/12/19/ none_of_the_above_gop_heading_to_a_brokered_convention?page =full&comments=true#postComments
In short, it sounds in places a little squishy and
insufficiently "nuanced."
On the other hand, he [Huckabee] is for a rapid
major increase in the size of the military. He is in
favor of military action, if necessary, to deny Iran a
nuclear bomb. He demands that we stay and fight
and win in Iraq. And his discussion of the risk from
radical Islam is as tough and realistic as I have
heard. In fact, as the author of a book that was
judged alarmist by some on the topic of radical
Islam ("The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the
Clash of Civilizations?"), I could find little to
complain about in his long discussion of the topic.
==
In a dangerous world such as ours, I would like to
hear more (and more careful) words from
Huckabee. But basically he seems to be a hawk--
and thus not beyond the Republican pale (although
his hawkish ways come with a perhaps-rhetorical
bow to the current nervousness of needed
independent and suburban Republican voters).
|
|
He stayed in the grave longer than Lazarus but Fred came alive tonight!
Fred has been the most consistent throughout the campaign and offered to the point answers. He also backs up his answers with a great record.
|
|
will be that of a donor. *IF* he gets out before he spends every last dime of his massive fortune.
Not as VP, certainly not as President. He's *almost* as easy to dislike as Hillary. |
|
|
|
he is expected to endorse McCain. If he does so, then he isn't the conservative.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I know, I know. But who else can he pick? Sorry Hugh, but even I must admit Mitt just can't make up his mind. Yet NEITHER can McCain. Both are wish-e-washy.
I fear for our party. |
|
|
I have watched too many of these debates. I am starting to have- recurring nightmares I am being waterboarded by Frank Luntz. |
|
Dahl, David. 8 December 2006.
"Romney's thoughts on gay marriage, circa 1994"
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2 006/12/romneys_thought.html
On whether he supported a federal bill to prevent anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation and credit:
“I am not fully aware of that bill, so I would need to study that more fully. I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that.
“I also philosophically support efforts to ban discrimination in housing. The particulars of the bill you’re speaking about I have not studied, so I shouldn’t state a position. Philosophically, I support efforts to remove discrimination from the workplace, from housing, from education and so forth.”
////////////////////
Romney for & anti- outlawing discrimination over sexual orientation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=06bdb44e-7578-4dd6-833 c-8f0a00b1aa29%4025g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
11 April 2003 Boston Globe. Cited in
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQxZTZmZjRlMTRiOW U4OTAxZjZlM2I0YWJiNzU2MDM=
"I was very pleased," Frank said afterward. "Here
you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse
a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the
height of his wartime popularity."
Romney for domestic partnership benefits-- 0:29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1kyyM8QjZU
Romney, cited in
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/06/nh_wo man_challenges_romney_on_gay_marriage/
There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single
moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples
raising kids. That's the American way, to have
people have their freedom of choice....
Romney's View Of Gay Couples Having Children
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jeCzkEFx_8o
|
|
DUDE, get your own website and stop spewing YOUR trash on someone elses!
Talk about where WE are talking About OR leave! |
|
cdubber,
Welcome to a religious bigot. You provide a great example of freedom in America when your bigoted comments can be listed among thoughtful people. |
|
Why can't at least one Romney supporter counter with, you know, actual substantiated data?
"My guy's smarter" and "my guy's better looking" might work in retarded sorority land, but not much elsewhere.
+ + + |
|
The loved Fred, but did you catch they said McCain is most electable.
McCain dialed very high during the debate with the group. Big McCain win since he was front runner.
Accordingly, it was not a good Romney night. No momentum for Michigan and especially South Carolina. I still liked Romney's answers on some of the questions, but he did not shine. |
|
Folks watching debates are not as aggressive as politicians and junkies like we are. They saw Huck take shot after shot, deflect it, and talk to them in words that made sense.
Words like "gas prices" and "home owners" come from his lips instead of wonkish remarks about marginal tax rates and regulatory reform.
He is wise to win the average person over. Plus he cleverly made it appear he was being attacked for his theology and won the largest applause of the night by deflecting that. |
|
Mark Halperin’s grades:
McCain: A-
Huckabee: B
Romney: B
Thompson: B
Giuliani: B-
Paul: C
|
|
|
Huck, Mac, Fred, getting most of the pundit talk after the debate. Mitt was wonkish as usual. Folks go get a glass of milk when Mitt is talking in a debate. |
|
|
|
|
After a click through the blogsophere, most bloggers are saying Huckabee clearly won this important SC debate. This will propel him to an expected win in SC and maybe even a win in FLA. Guliani is in real trouble now. Fred will probably have to drop out. |
|
... must be a bitter existence to be a Christian hater in a land of Christians?
I don't know what your belief system is, but it must really tear you up to see Huckabee's challenged and so well defended (and exegeted), knowing that yours would not stand up at all to public scrutiny.
+ + + |
|
The lines of skin under his eyes don't help, either. Lack of a pretty face costs many votes in this age of TV,
Rush, in transcript of 7 January 2008
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010708/content/ 01125112.guest.html.guest.html
The problem with Thompson is, and a little bit with me, is I'm a depth guy. I like depth. Television doesn't reward depth. Television rewards zingers, one-liners, cutesyisms. Fred Thompson produced a brilliant 17-minute video that was on YouTube that explains everything about every issue that he cares about. It's clear he's thought deeply about a whole lot. He got into Social Security reform last night, that was awesome and totally called for, but something he couldn't say in 30 seconds.
Best of Mike Huckabee, upper-left at
hucksarmy.com cache of Huckabee videos
http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php
|
|
|
Clearly Reagan was the big winner tonight. After him they were all bunched up.. |
|
|
Huckabee won this debate? Are you crazy or did a burning bush tell you this? NRO gave it to Fred! Spectator gave it to Fred! Redstate gave it to Fred! Even the NYT gave it to Fred! Are you Hugh, trying to throw your voice? |
|
"Yes Rush, I understand and promise to obey." Is that what Hugh said to Rush on the phone today as they now are trying to transistion away from Mitt and move toward Fred? Sorry, you guys are so negative you will help Fred as much as you did Mitt. Now Fred is the new Mr. Negative. Boy, this negative stuff has really worked great for Mitt, eh?
The nation is ready for positive populist conservatism. Huck has it, Mac is close, and all of the caustic-cons are being left behind in their anger management therapy groups. |
|
Romney claimed to have talked about Iran & sanctions since January (I assume January 2007).
Evidence?
Lowry, Rich. 29 January 2007. "The Romney Speech"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTU0NzEyZjIzMTI5Yz ZiYjgxMjY3MTM4YTIzMjY4NTA=
Here's my take: Put aside how rambling and unfocused it was. Maybe that can be chalked up to a bad night or fatigue. But to speak for 50 minutes or so and not to talk about the Iraq war before a conservative audience at a crucial moment in that war is bizarre and just wrong and almost offensive in my view. This doesn't seem like an oversight. He went out of his way to check off every conservative box-- except the one that is politically risky at the moment. The rest of his foreign policy stuff-- when he talked about Iran and the broader war-- felt very shaky and about an inch deep.
|
|
As I said before, get your own website. You MOB this one with your junk!
Time to flag you
|
|
I still think that McCain is the best candidate, by a fair amount, but Huckabee impresses more and more. He presents a combination of alertness, intelligence, genuiness and compassion/charity that is quite powerful.
Not convinced, but I sure do like his style.
+ + + |
|
CDubber agrees with the secular liberals at the Washington Post. Remember this quote from the Washingon Post in 1993:
In fact, the original article (1993, by Michael Weisskopf) {in the Washington Post} referred to followers of the Religious Right, not to evangelical Christians (evangelical Christians can be of any political persuasion), and the correct quotation was
"largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
|
|
|
|
marriage is what evangelicals have been saying for years when people roll their eyes on the whole 'wives' submit' issue.
I like that Huckabee added, "That command is for Christians!"
Just so. |
|
Who is angry that IA didn't believe Romney's spinning himself as an Evangelical.
He tries to use the anti-Mormon bias Straw-Man argument and is a very bitter Romney supporter.
Basically a poor loser, even though Mitt is giving him lots of opportunities to get better at it.
I'm not sure he hated Christians before Mitt's little charade, but he's very bitter right now. |
|
I agree about Fred doing good but not great tonight. I honestly think he would make the best conservative president of the bunch. It's not even a close call in my mind.
I also think that most people are political idiots when it comes to making judgements about who would make a good leader ...in particular a good conservative leader! The amount of republicans that are in favor of McLame winning the nomination should be ample proof for my hypothesis.
All McLame has to tell these morons is that he's 'heard the people' on his amnesty bill ...and repeat adnausium how he deserves full & sole credit for the troop surge strategy in Iraq ...or that he would 'find' Bin Laden if he we would only make him commander in chief ....or how he has the most 'experience' to be the president.
Forget the fact that his record of voting with the democrates and against his fellow republicans, including those that put him in office, enough to make him the MSM's favorite Republican. Forget the fact that he is incapable of admitting that he was dead wrong on his and co-author Ted Kennedy's scamnesty bill. Forget that he co-sponsored the McLame/Feingold campaign finance attack on free speech. Forget that he banded together with a group of 13 other Rhinos and democrats to stop the appointment of conservative judicial nominees. Forget the fact that he graduated fourth from the bottom of his class in the Navel Academy.
He has experience all right! And these dimwits never think to take a hard cold look at 'his' experience and reject him! |
|
Wow– Romney is so strong in his arguments and makes so much sense. Every time I listen to what his solutions for our ailing nation are, I am more and more impressed. I could so go for a Romney/Thompson ticket. Romney’s youth, zeal, intelligence and push for change in Washington (FINALLY!!)—-Thompson’s conservatism and great jokes! :-) They’d be an unstoppable team against Hill or Obama….
McCain seemed out of it tonight — asleep. Huckabee seems out of it — doesn’t make any sense. They both are so LIBERAL also!! Oh my gosh—no wonder the Democrats and Indies are flocking to them! They’d go down in flames so fast in the General Election…. That’s why the MSM are propping them up so much!!
Hope Romney and Thompson are in it for the long haul. Romney certainly has the support and commitment to go all the way!! |
|
I like Mccain style too, BUT as Joe won't point out. His McCain/Kennedy bill did ZERO for the border and now tonight Mccain said he would!
Sorry McCain & Joe. that is an OUT RIGHT LIE.
WOW I sound like a mitt hater now!
Which I don't support. |
|
We would be delighted to have you on the team!
Go Huck!
http://www.mikehuckabee.com
http://www.fairtax.org |
|
Governor Huckabee Speaks with Catholic Online
by Deacon Keith Fournier
12/15/2007
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=2620 6
Governor Huckabee: “I have always been actively and aggressively pro-life. No candidate has a stronger or more consistent record on the sanctity of life than I do.
When I was elected Lieutenant Governor, and later Governor, I marched in the annual Right to Life parade down Capitol Avenue in Little Rock. I did this at a time when no other state-wide elected official in Arkansas would participate in this event.
I first became politically active when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it can to protect life.
As Governor, I used that Amendment to pass pro-life legislation. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat-controlled Legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction.”
==
“As Governor, I banned partial birth abortion; I required parental notification; I required that a woman give informed consent before having an abortion; I required that a woman be told her baby will experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby; I allowed a woman to have her baby and, if she was unable to care for it, leave the child safely at a hospital; and I made it a crime for an unborn child to be injured or murdered during an attack on his mother.
I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering.
|
|
|
finding those Hugh spotlights when he needs him, here is Marc Ambinder's take: "Generally: Mitt Romney was mezzo-tempo tonight; he avoided saying things like "net-net"; the moderators didn't gang on up him -- unusual for a Fox News debate. John McCain had the stature of a frontrunner; Mike Huckabee seemed less fluent with foreign policy issues but was strong, as always, when defending his record as governor." |
|
|
...Fred came out on top. If Fred takes SC, then it helps Rudy in FL. |
|
I'm with you buddy, It's all show and NO damn go for far to many.
I pick them by what THEY have done, not said they would do OR my do!
IE Mc Cain |
|
|
Ron Paul should have said he was the Ronald Reagan of domestic issues ("Government that governs best governs least"). |
|
"The feminist blogosphere is up in arms because Mike Huckabee pardoned a rapist and signed a petition that asks women to 'submit graciously' to their husbands"
What does the LDS Church consider the appropriate relationship of wives to their husbands?
//////////////////////////////////
27 August 1998. Evangelicals' USA Today ad affirms SBC for family stance
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=2510
The ad was initiated by Dennis Rainey, executive director and co-founder of the FamilyLife ministry division of Campus Crusade for Christ.
Among those signing the USA Today affirmation are Franklin Graham, of Samaritan's Purse ministry, and Anne Graham Lotz, of AnGeL Ministries, two of evangelist Billy Graham's children; Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and his wife, Janet; Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson and his wife, Patty; Campus Crusade founders Bill and Vonette Bright; Promise Keepers founder Bill McCartney and his wife, Lyndi; Dallas-area African American pastors and popular speakers Tony Evans and T.D. Jakes, along with Evans' wife, Lois; and Joseph Stowell, president of Moody Bible Institute, and his wife, Marti.
....
The evangelical leaders' USA Today ad states to the Southern Baptist Convention:
"You are right because you recognized that the family was God's idea, not man's, and that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman for a lifetime.
"You are right because you called husbands to sacrificially love and lead their wives.
"You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership.
"You are right because you affirmed that the husband and wife are of equal worth before God.
"You are right because you reminded us that children are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.
"More importantly, you are right because your statement is based on biblical truth."
|
|
According to the MSM, there's no need to go any further in this pre-election process. The people of Iowa and New Hampshire have spoken. The issue is settled. We don't need no stunkin peoples from no other states to give their opinion.
P.S. I agree that a Romney/Thompson ticket would be a winning one. I'd personally prefer a Thompson/Romney ticket but sad to say the politically illiterate populous of this country wouldn't buy it. |
|
Hugh, whatever shred of credibility you might have had (and there wasn't much) as a commentator on the Republican Presidential race is gone.
John McCain and Fred Thomson won this debate. As for the others, Huckabee and Giuliani made some good comments, but Romney was the real loser tonight. Paul never had a chance, so who cares. Romney lost me as soon as he opened his mouth to come out negative against McCain. Does the guy have ANYTHING positive to say?? If so, he should have done it at the outset. He is done, and you need to stop shilling for a loser and start thinking about how we win the White House come November. Like him or not, McCain can do that. |
|
How so? When Huckster answers questions about raising taxes in AR, he responds that it was about the children. Standard Pelosi response to objections about raising our taxes: it's for the children.
What's so embarrassing for me is that I'm an evangelical Christian and I especially hate it when my fellow believers sell snake oil. We're supposed to be better than this. |
|
I get you do not like McCain on immigration. But I thought Mitt was finally fair in pointing out that there really is not that much difference on the GOP side (even Ron Paul) when it comes to it. What you all need to fear is the GOP losing to the Dems.
As one of the Fox News guests said after, he is convinced many conservatives want to lose this race. I am convinced of that.
I want to win. McCain will win. Giuliani is second. I like Thompson, I respect the heck out of him, but he can't win right now with the GOP. Mitt is not a terrible guy, but he will lose in the general. I think Huckabee is a good guy, but he is a populist and I doubt he can win the general.
There is too much at stake to put Hillary and Madaline Albright in charge of our safety. I suggest we all buy lots of ammo, guns and food because we will need them. |
|
Mr. McCain,
So let's see about your resume on leadership and running things. You led a flight squadron and a committee. Whoopedee damn doo. What a joke. Being a POW does not qualify you to be POTUS. And getting yourself shot down doesn't make you a hero either. You are brave. No one can take that away from you and I admire you greatly for that. But 'hero'? I don't see it.
Oh, I forgot, you led the biggest failure of attempted legislation called Mccain -Kennedy. And then blamed the american people again for not wanting it. You said we don't trust the government to enforce the laws? Well, who has been in the damn government not enforcing them? You! You continue to show contempt for the American people. If yo really believed what you say bnow about enforcement first, why didn't you say anything about the recent legislation that gutted monies for the border fence? Straight talk? Try Liar.
Your leadership is nothing compared to a running a state, a company or a project as big as an Olympics. McCain also came off as petty when he argued with Rudy over who supported the surge.
And Huck is just plain in over his head. He has no depth. One liners are cute but engage him is a serious talk about issues like government spending and he shows how clueless he is. |
|
|
|
"Oprah, you play the race card and the gender card too. You are a closeted Republican and chose Barak [sic] Obama because you do not like other women who actually stand for something to working American Women besides glamour, angels, hollywood and dieting! When Americans find out that Obama backs right wing corporate racist anti worker bull****, they will not vote for him, and the victory will go to the most racist right wing republican ever.... Mccain, who is a fascist!" - Roseanne Barr.
Everything goes full circle. Wow. It could almost be Roseanne channeling Hugh!
|
|
|
McCain is a hero for how he acted as a POW, not for merely being shot down. Stop being ignorant. McCain is a hero. Did you serve? Did you put your life on the line for us? My guess is you did not. |
|
1. Best Debate.
Tonight's. It featured more good answers - substantively intelligent and/or politically shrewd - than any other debate.
2. Best exchange.
Thompson-Huckabee. Thompson launched a powerful attack on Huckabee from the right. Huckabee responded with a strong defense of his record that would have appealed to less ideological voters. Both were high quality minutes-and-a-half.
3. Most improved.
Thompson. Woke up, smelled the coffee, and showed his stuff.
4. Best in foreign policy.
McCain. Very strong and eloquent on the surge.
5. Failed to do what he had to do.
Romney. He had to get some momentum in Michigan. But after McCain slapped him down in the first exchange, Romney was passive and not much of a presence.
6. Best political skills.
Huckabee. The guy's unusually talented, and still underestimated inside the Beltway.
7. Helped himself in Michigan.
McCain. Strong as commander in chief, and held his own on economics.
8. Helped himself in South Carolina.
Huckabee. Boffo answer on religion.
9. Best joke.
Thompson. Virgins.
10. Shadow of his former self.
Giuliani. Where did the zip go?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008 /01/kristol_debate_awards.asp |
|
[ReagenMan on January 11, 2008 12:09 AM]"Huck is just plain in over his head. He has no depth. One liners are cute but engage him is a serious talk about issues like government spending and he shows how clueless he is."
Steyn:
"If Iowa's choice becomes the nation's and it's Huckabee vs Obama this November, I'd bet on Huck. As governor, as preacher and even as discjockey, he's spent his entire life in professions that depend on connecting with an audience and he's very good at it."
You can read it all at
http://www.nysun.com/article/69011
And please don't miss this Steyn from the article's continuation:
"This is the Huckabee advantage. On stage, he's quick-witted and thinks on his feet. He's not paralyzed by consultants and trimmers and triangulators. Put him in a Presidential debate and he'll have sharper ripostes and funnier throwaways and more plausible self-deprecating quips than anyone on the other side."
////////////////
Rush, in transcript of 7 January 2008
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010708/content/ 01125112.guest.html.guest.html
I know the FairTax doesn't have a prayer, but Huckabee, when answering questions about this says, "Well, it may not have a prayer but it's never going to have a chance unless we have a president who can lead the American people and get it for them, because the American people get what they want, that's what he's saying," and I admire that, by the way. I admire people who are willing to talk to the American people over the heads of the media, over the heads of everybody else, and try to inspire them and so forth and get them to be educated and informed. Reagan had the ability to do this.
|
|
Were on the same line my friend.
Yes McCain was a hero on the POW part and I would never touch him on that. But as a pilot he sucked and his name carried him foward when most would have been kicked out. Sorry you supporters. But the MSN will smear him on this!
His border talk is also a joke. "again you people who think he is your GOD look up the bill and what he said"
It's a shame, I feel our party will fail this election, but not because of our ideas, but the people, like Mccain to carry our ideas, which HE does not! |
|
|
|
|
|
this one has just been swallowed by Mitt Haters which simply isn't interesting reading. Venom just isn't persuasive . . .
1. Fred was the winner tonight, but mostly because he was so much better than we have ever seen him, and he finally addressed conservative complaints with Mr. Huckabee. Nice to have his conservative voice in the debate.
2. Romney was the best on substance all around, but it was clear that Fox set this up for Fred to win. I don't think its realistic to look at every individual illegal though.
3. Giuliani was good, but he's still not a full spectrum conservative.
4. McCain was great on national defense issues, but he was otherwise horrible. His immigration stance is going to kill him.
5. Huckabee remains an incredibly likable guy, but he was way out of his league tonight on almost every issue. He had a couple of good, glib answers, and rhetoric does count, but there is no substance and he is not a fiscal conservative.
6. I actually have to agree somewhat with the Fox Text Poll that Ron Paul was a winner. His straight talk on economics was dead on. His problem, which is why libertarians never win elections (I admit I am a libertarian), is that he follows brilliance with complete denial of reality (e.g., that there really are evil people out there trying to kill us). So, Ron Paul should be excluded from the next debate because frankly he was a distraction (but maybe that's what the pro McCain-pro Huckabee MSM really wanted . . .) |
|
[casadchata on January 11, 2008 12:05 AM]"Standard Pelosi response to objections about raising our taxes: it's for the children."
Romney flip-flop on environmental issues
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b315064c-1dd8-40a2-892 b-ae09f30cce43%40l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
And in many cases, he [Romney] said his commitment had
been cemented by watching the suffering of
someone dear to him: a grandchild whose asthma
left him worried about air pollution; his wife's
multiple sclerosis, which had him placing hope in
embryonic stem cell research; the death of a distant
relative in an illegal abortion, convincing him that
the procedure needed to remain legal.
In discussing the need to combat global warming,
he said he worried about his family's favorite
vacation spot.
"He talked a lot about his kids and his family and the
place they go to in New Hampshire on vacation,"
said Cindy Luppi, an official from the group Clean
Water Action, who was impressed by Romney's
concern about global warming in a 2003 meeting....
|
|
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/09/questions-in-wyoming/
he results of Republican nonbinding straw polls in some Wyoming counties Saturday don’t jibe with the statewide delegate selection results in favor of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
In Johnson County, for example, former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee came in first in the straw poll, while Romney was in fourth place.
Johnson County Republican precinct voters chose as an alternate delegate Bob Snowdon, who is uncommitted and was the only person nominated to attend the national GOP convention, said Jerry Eastwood, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party.
Johnson County Republicans who contacted the Star-Tribune Monday, including Ruth Osborn of Buffalo, questioned why statewide straw poll results had not been publicized.
Osborn, a state GOP committeewoman, said in a telephone interview Monday that people were asking why the national news media were reporting Wyoming voted for Romney when her county’s straw poll gave him fourth place.
“I’ve had several people say to me, ‘Why did it come out for Romney? I’m not in favor of Romney,’” she said. |
|
I'm with you guys.
Huck took everything and went one better.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take Fred in a heartbeat...but he's gotta show it to me and I'm afraid he's waited too late.
Huck tries to clear his record in soundbite format and that's all you can do in these things.
I know I'm in the minority but I really felt Huck won this one.
And once again Romney is the same plastic mannequin.
He's almost "Spock-like"
"I have command of all facts and figures. It would be highly illogical for you to not vote for me." Just puts me to sleep.
I always get the sense from Huck that something bigger is driving him (and NO I DON'T mean GOD).
He just seems to have a larger vision, more original, bigger than himself.
I think Romney's done. If that's all he can muster with his candidacy in the balance, then he just can't answer the bell.
BTW--this is a PRESIDENTAL DEBATE!
Can we PLEASE stop turning them into SYMPOSIUMS on REAGAN!!! REAGAN is in the GROUND...What are YOU going to do???
Arrgh...makes my head explode.
If I have to hear RUDY blather on about Reagan again I'm gonna shoot my TV! |
|
... that Romney, Inc. *bought* the WY primary.
+ + + |
|
Mitt Romney did well as usual.
McCain continues to brag about his true straight talk. I am getting sick of it.
In my opinion,
Romney had to fight against prejudice against his LDS/mormon religion all throughout the year. It looks like he successfully did. Don’t see that many MSM bashing on his religion any more as they used to last year. He also had to deal with the tension of being in No 1 on the poll for so long time.
It’s extremely difficult to maintain No. 1 on the poll. In a way it ’s strategically good to be No. 2 until the real election date comes near at hand. At any case, I think Romney did pretty well getting 2nd in Iowa and NH (Not a distant 2nd but very close 2nd; there is a difference between distant 2nd and close 2nd. ) Huckabee claims he got 3rd but it was pretty distant 3rd in NH.
I mean considering all the hatred and bash he faced throughout the year from MSM last year. |
|
He ranks Mitt last (well above Ron Paul, but that was a given):
Mitt Romney: The stakes were highest for Romney. He came into tonight's debate with a harsh, looming deadline. If he doesn't win in Michigan next Tuesday, he's pretty much done. Fred and Rudy at least don't have their respective final exams until South Carolina and Florida.
So it was an odd night for Romney to go invisible and say hardly anything original or inspiring. This was Romney's most lackluster debate performance of the entire campaign, and it came at a time when he could least afford it. If the guy who showed up in New Hampshire on Sunday showed up tonight, maybe Romney could have rallied. He still might, but this debate won't be the reason.
More below the fold.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008 /01/barnett_a_big_night_for_huckab_1.asp |
|
Not bad analysis (a lot better than Hugh's in objectivity), but I would definitely not put Huck above Fred tonight. I agree Huckabee is a force and is more complex than people give him credit for. I do not want him as POTUS as my first choice, but I would take Huckabee over Hillary or Obama (I just doubt he could win).
I thought McCain was the winner for not making mistakes as front runner. I though Huck helped himself. I agree Giuliani and Romney did not help their positions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008 /01/barnett_a_big_night_for_huckab_1.asp
And Peak, I am a Michael Medved fan. Come on, you are too, aren't you. You love Medved and Kristol, they are neocons! |
|
|
why not just just say, "i hate mitt and all his ilk" and then post a link to your own blog. quit trying to save everybody. I'm not sure what your goal is . . . screaming really loud seldom helps. |
|
|
why not just just say, "i hate mitt and all his ilk" and then post a link to your own blog. quit trying to save everybody. I'm not sure what your goal is . . . screaming really loud seldom helps. |
|
1) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Rudy Giuliani: 4 -- 7%
B) Mike Huckabee: 2 -- 4%
C) Duncan Hunter: 9 -- 17%
D) John McCain: 3 -- 6%
E) Ron Paul: 1 -- 2%
F) Mitt Romney: 4 -- 7%
G) Fred Thompson: 31 -- 57%
2) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Rudy Giuliani: 4 -- 8%
B) Mike Huckabee: 2 -- 4%
C) John McCain: 3 -- 6%
D) Mitt Romney: 6 -- 11%
E) Fred Thompson: 38 -- 72%
3) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Rudy Giuliani: 17 -- 33%
B) Mike Huckabee: 8 -- 15%
C) John McCain: 9 -- 17%
D) Mitt Romney: 18 -- 35%
4) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Rudy Giuliani: 7 -- 13%
B) Mike Huckabee: 2 -- 4%
C) John McCain: 3 -- 6%
D) Fred Thompson: 41 -- 77%
5) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Mike Huckabee: 8 -- 15%
B) John McCain: 17 -- 33%
C) Mitt Romney: 27 -- 52%
6) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Rudy Giuliani: 33 -- 62%
B) Mike Huckabee: 6 -- 11%
C) John McCain: 14 -- 26%
|
|
7) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Mike Huckabee: 12 -- 23%
B) Mitt Romney: 40 -- 77%
8) Which candidate would you like to see as the Republican Party's nominee out of this group?
A) Mike Huckabee: 14 -- 29%
B) John McCain: 35 -- 71%
9) Who do you think the GOP nominee is going to be?
A) Rudy Giuliani: 8 -- 16%
B) Mike Huckabee: 4 -- 8%
C) Duncan Hunter: 0 --
D) John McCain: 16 -- 32%
E) Ron Paul: 0 --
F) Mitt Romney: 13 -- 26%
G) Fred Thompson: 9 -- 18%
10) Who do you think the Democratic nominee is going to be?
A) Hillary Clinton: 23 -- 43%
B) John Edwards: 2 -- 4%
C) Barack Obama: 29 -- 54%
D) Bill Richardson: 0 -- 0
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/01/the_rightosphere _temperature_c_8.php
|
|
the Nominee, not for the who you think will get it.
Better to aim for the stars and miss than aim for the cowpie and hit dead center everytime.
Besides, you'll keep the best ones viable. |
|
|
If the border were truly secured and illegal immigration were brought to an end, why is the concept of assimilating those that are here unreasonable? Or is xenophobia the policy some want here? I'm in the Victor Davis Hanson camp, myself. We can't maintain the status quo, and mass deportation isn't politically viable or good policy. Even Thompson has roughly this position. |
|
I think what you're searching for is that Mitt looks like the Manchurian Candidate.
In contemplating the debate I thought Fred did very well, Huck held his own, Mcain did what he had to, Rudy disappeared along with Mitt. Ron Paul had his Dean Scream Moment.
And speaking of political obituaries, I think we can now write Mitt's. Tonight was a terrible night for him as he did not to stop the bleeding. The real question is fast becoming is where his supporters will start to go after MI. |
|
|
I should correct, Thompson does believe in "moving to the back of the line." But he also understood that you have to attack incentives to solve the immigration problem, which Romney didn't touch on. I think a combination of McCain and Thompson policy would address things rather well. |
|
All Fred did was weaken Huck which helps McCain.
You guys all realize it's going to be McCain, don't you? |
|
RE: Romney's Concern 4 Children
I could care less about Romney, I'm talking about Huckster pulling a Pelosi. Huckster is a fellow believer and I'm embarrassed that a fellow believer pulls that kind of stunt. "I raised hope for the children (by raising taxes in AR) blah, blah, blah."
If I was a Mormon and Romney pulled a Pelosi, I guess I would be embarrassed too. In fact, if I was a Mormon, I would be embarrassed because of Harry Reid. However, I'm an evangelical Christian and Huckster is one of mine--sadly. |
|
Hello everyone - it really doesn't matter what we think about all of these issues as Republicans. I think there's only ONE issue in this election -
WHO CAN BEAT HILLARY?????!!!!!!!!
I think if I left it up to the old party members to make that decision I'd be looking at President Hillary next January. |
|
It's HORRIBLE...HORRIBLE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-KfyZZuV1Q |
|
You said: "I think a combination of McCain and Thompson policy would address things rather well.""
You gotta be kidding. The McLame/Kennedy scamnesty bill would of been a monumantal disaster and essentially legalized all current illegal aliens, including those that did additional crimes after crossing our borders illegally.
As I'm replying to your post ....I'm listening to tonight's debate being rerun. And McLame just made a pretty remarkable statement you might have overlooked!
After claiming that he know how to handle the illegal alien issue and stating that his state is a "border" state. (Arizona)
He then went on to make this remarkable statement:
Please read it over a few times to yourself:
Here's his statement verbatum (I wrote it down as he was saying it):
McLame said: "More people come across our border every year than any other state."
Again:
"More people come across our border every year than any other state."
One more time:
"More people come across our border every year than any other state."
Now...don't you find that an absurdly stupid statement, coming from a man that's trying to convince America that he should be the president because he "knows" how do deal with the illegal immigration problem?
Please...with all due respect...get your head out of your posterior orifice. ;) |
|
|
First time listener to your program today...but a long-time listener of conservative talk-radio and you are now my favorite! I agree with you about the debate tonight. I thought that Mitt did a great job whenever he was fielded a question, but it was clear that he was not given the opportunity often. He is such an eloquent and clear communicator that his fellow debaters obviously didn't want to get in a scuffle with him so as not to provide a chance for him to shine! He answered all of the questions great and fairly stayed within all of his time limitations - which really bothers me that Guiliani obviously thinks he is too good to follow the rules! Fred was also wonderful - an excellent thinker. I am begging for a Romney/Thompson ticket!! I'm from Az and we can not get rid of John McCain!! help!!! He has never been for our state, and is NOT a republican!! Huckabee is ridiculous! I am a religious conservative - he is really taking advantage of religion to the point of exploitation - he is better suited for a job on TBN!! Thanks for the great work! You are my fave! GO MITT and FRED!! |
|
|
|
Did I really read this right??? Can't be! Hugh, it's about time you saw the ONLY CONSERVATIVE in this race. 'BOUT TIME!
Fred08.com |
|
|
WHAT? Mitt has flipped so many times even he doesn't know where he stands any longer. Get a grip, FRED's THE MAN! Deal with it! |
|
|
Hugh when should we expect this column? I listened today as Hugh slammed McCaine again and again....I think McCaine is to Hugh, what Bush is to Gore. When Hugh slams the Mc, I remember Gore saying "he has betrayed this country!" in a very scary way. Hugh, projections show that neither Romney nor Rudy will get the nomination. This race is between Mc/Huck/Fred (after tonight thompson might actually be making a come back)...I can see the headlines Fred is Front Runner (actually he has the most conservative record but he has been asleep!) Neither Rudy nor Romney have much left in them to offer the voters - Rudy's prochoice position is unacceptable to most conservatives and Romney's record can't be explained without the suspicion of shared values of political expediency rising up, a.k.a phoney or unpredictable. It is what it is! |
|
I'm with you buddy!
Seems like McLame feels that this statement about your beautiful state of AZ makes him qualified to become president and deal with America's illegal imigration problem:
"More people come across our border every year than any other state."
Maybe he plans on making this claim to win his second term as president:
"More people come across our border every year than any other 'country'."
And people actually think he's the best candidate to nominate as the head our republican party! Purely unbelievable!
|
|
McCain's answer wasn't the best tonight on Michigan's ailing economy but Mitt's was much worse. He is now the candidate of change and his ideas for Detroit are warmed over wpa stimulus.
How come everyone talks true conservative but the second a state economy goes into a tailspin because of the problems in a major industry the Republicans start talking like new dealers. Subsidize the farmers, subsidize Detroit, rethink free trade. (Yes I have heard Pat Buchanan on talk radio and the shameful non-questioning by so called conservatives.)
McCain did not have the best answer because there is no easy answer, but at least he said that. It is not the president's job to subsidize every industry. McCain clearly is going for the honesty is the best policy routine. Not a pleasant conversation, but at least he talks to votes like they are adults. Romney and to some extenst Huckabee is still throwing out platitudes like candy. Thompson did do a good job.
Unfortunatly for Mitt illegal immigation isn't as big a problem in Michigan. The economy is too bad.
|
|
|
|
Once again, Hugh is watching a different debate than everybody else:
"The huge loser tonight was Mike Huckabee, thanks largely to Fred and Chris Wallace who peeled the bark off of Huck's ideology."
Funny thing is, I (and probably most voters) can't remember a single thing that Romney said. He did nothing to distinguish himself from the pack.
There are only three people that will be remembered from this debate in a week: Thompson, Huckabee, and (for other reasons) Ron Paul. |
|
If that is the headline you want in November then you have to vote to have that in the primaries. It isn't just tonight, Fred has been consistent, intelligent, informed throughout this process, and is capable of walking into the White House today and know what to do in both domestic and foreign affairs. None of the others can do that and call themselves conservative with a straight face. McCain, Rudy, Mitt are all too liberal on too many fronts and Huck is not even Presidential timber, he is an embarrassment. RP is in the wrong galaxy.
sleep on it - good nite y'all
j. hoffman |
|
His ego tells him that he is always right and we are all stupid to disagree. We've had 7 years of stubborn arrogance, sure don't need another one. And about his state- Arizona's new employer penalty law took effect Jan 1 and the illegals are already leaving due to lack of work. Attrition works, just like Fred says it would.
Plus a county attorney and county sheriff who are arresting the unlicensed, uninsured, DUI drivers, murders, theft, etc and shipping them out immediately! No thanks to McCain.
I think Thompson/Hunter sounds great, or Thompson/Michael Steele or Thompson/J.C.Watts. And Ollie North for SecDef!
Go Fred! |
|
|
Keep drinking the kool-aid Peak Oil. |
|
Letting Ron Paul back into the debates was very smart; he adds counterpoint to the normal conservative talking points and allows the others to establish their positions in more stark detail. His challenges to the conventional wisdom, particularly regarding Middle East policy, force the other candidates to go beyond the normal platitudes and more lucidly express the foundations of their opinions. Also, it conveys the message to the public that the Republican Party is a "big tent" (a title which the Democrats have clung to for more than a generation) with room enough for a diversity of opinion.
I also thought Huckabee did a good job of weathering Thompson's blistering attack, he came off as honestly admitting to the basic facts of the attack while explaining the realities of the situation and drew a nice contrast between the relevant experience of a chief executive and a legislator.
Because Romney was not front and center, it was a decent debate for him. In the past, he has come off as much too earnest in dominating the floor with his pre-programmed blurbs. This gave the impression of him standing above the fray and appearing more presidential. He was quiet, but not so quiet that you didn't notice him.
McCain did his standard job, not particularly eloquent, but not terrible either. And Guliani is so irrelevant that you wonder why he is even still there. |
|
|
Az. is suffering from illegal immigration but McCain is not helping. He wasn't kidding when he said he never added any pork to his bills to help his home state. The best thing I can think of if he is elected Pres. is we could finally get a decent senator. John Kyl is the only real senator from AZ. |
|
The big problem with Senators, they need to look down at their notes, as Fred and McCain repeatedly do.
Fred is cool, but one liner jokes are just not going to win anything, or help Govern as President.
The crowd helped Fred, who finally seemed to wake up, but his offering was still grounded in Senatorial Generics.
If Conservatives need to vote on emotions, well I think we are in trouble.
Cause again the most reasoned offering, the best informed, the most capable, sound answers, came from Mr. Romney again.
Romney continues to shine, and has such impressive consistency.
|
|
He was very good, I sincerely hope he stays the same. When, he is good, he is very good. Then, I do like Romney and Rudy too. So three to Campaign for GOP on Issues and Policies.
Hugh, I believe, it is time, The GOP nominees, to go after the Democrats failed policies.
The opposition party "Hillary-care", the vastly enhanced government healthcare. They are weak on National security, ecomomy, raising taxes.
It is hammering time. We already have said what our side is all for and about. We have to start going after the opponent, the Democratic side, their record, and highlighting our differences, to stay ahead. |
|
agreed...
I like all three Romney, Rudy, and Fred...
favor Romney...
do agree with your insight, on the debate content.
unfortunately, until we get to closed primaries, the liberal independents will affect the race.
we will see... |
|
"the liberal independents" -- you people are clueless. That's why Hugh is in complete denial and why Huckabee or McCain are going to run away with the nomination.
Reagan conservatives don't talk of "liberal independents" -- bitter conservatives do. |
|
I don't see it, guys. Fred's a good man, but he came off as mediocre tonight, per usual. Even his well planned and well thought attack on Huckabee seemed hesitant and was brutally shot down by Huckabee's clever response.
Of course Hugh thinks that Romney won tonight, as usual. Hugh should just spare us from his endless walls of text by posting only "MITT IS THE WOOTZ!" in every blog entry, until either Romney drops or this election is over. |
|
is a natural communicator and Romney has the best resume and is the smartest man in the room.
Giuliani has the presence and leadership skills to make a good president.
Huckabee is out of his league.
McCain is out of his league as soon as he has to go beyond his military service (in which his career stalled early dispite his father and grandfather being admirals).
RP is RP -- never a serious candidate. Unfortunately, he ends up dominating the debate time with answers that always go back to "we can't afford it." Of course, he never says how much his policies would cost us. |
|
Was that Carl Cameron who snarkily asked Ron Paul about his electability? Boy did that backfire.
Forget The Speech by the old Ron. We now have The Response by the new Ron.
Faux Republicans at Faux News. Beautiful. |
|
|
I agree. Thompson/Romney is the way to go. If the ticket is McCain/Huckabee or anyone/Huckabee, I will not vote. I will only return to voting when the party purges these faux conservatives. |
|
...is almost over.
Michigan votes next week. Romney will not win, despite the Defcon-7 alerts emanating from this blog. Romney will realize he's got nothing to build on, and will gracefully withdraw.
Mr. Hewitt will still feel compelled to tell everyone what they "should" think and "must" do with respect to McCain and Huckabee, but his heart won't really be in it. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mffpkCH-PJw |
|
|
|
There's another dynamic at work here. It has to do with Michael Bloomberg's decision.
If Bloomberg decides to throw in, Fred Thompson is the GOP's best choice. He seems to be awakening from his stupor, and would provide the clearest contrast to Hillary/Michael or Barack/Michael.
Aside from the anticlimactic nature of Thompson's odd "campaign", I can't understand why he's not getting much more traction with the GOP. He is obviously the most consistent conservative of the bunch. Politics is more and more about excitement - look at Obama, who has virtually no other presidential qualifications other than the fact that he's cool at the moment - a Fred groundswell right now would take the edge off of the Hillary/Obama momentum at just the right time.
Sad but true - Presidential politics is about image and momentum. Right now the GOP is floundering and clearly not united on Mitt (sorry Hugh), John, Rudy or Huck. Looks like Fred's strategy is to, at some point, say "hey, I've been here all along, let's go." The question is if the GOP is going to listen.
|
|
Bloomberg (and also Ron Paul) would probably hurt dems more than republicans. I doubt Bloomberg would run if McCain runs, he might if Mitt ran just sensing weakness. McCain is out strongest canidate in the general.
If Fred is the nominee, fine by me. I love Fred. I would vote for Fred. I hope Fred wins. My only fear of Fred is he will go back to, "if you love me you will vote for me, I am putting myself out..." Sorry, but getting elected to POTUS requires effort. |
|
|
|
Clear winner? Fred Thompson...
John McCain was a strong second. He is now the frontrunner, a position that has given him trouble in the past-- both in 2000 and early in this cycle. But if he is ill at ease with this status, he is not showing it at all. McCain seemed as relaxed as I've seen him in this format. He is not often the most articulate man on the stage or the most fluid, but he was very solid tonight. His answer on how he would have handled the situation with Iran could not have been better had it been scripted in advance. He reminds people often that he was for the surge before it was cool to be for the surge. It was interesting to see Rudy Giuliani, who needs to
mitigate McCain's strengths on national security, play me-too on the surge. McCain said earlier that he needed to "own the surge," and he surely did tonight.
Huckabee's performance tonight was like his campaign: He did well on religion and poorly on everything else. Oddly enough, that could be enough to help him in South Carolina. His religion answer generated a ton of applause and could be a harbinger of the support evangelicals might deliver him on primary day.
Rudy Giuliani did fine, but didn't do anything to distinguish himself. Most of his answers were forgettable.
In my view, Mitt Romney struggled for the third debate in a row. It's enough to make me wonder if his subpar performances thus far have affected his confidence levels.
--Stephen F. Hayes
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/014/571gtvok.asp?pg=2 |
|
I just watched the debate over at YouDecide2008. Fred clearly won this debate. Romney had one or two good answers, but most of them were utterly ridiculous.
We're going to look at the 12,000,000 illegals one at a time? And Mitt thinks he's going to bring efficiency to the government? The two are mutually exclusive.
Mitt will say whatever anyone wants to hear. For fiscal conservatives, he's the candidate of business efficiency. For border conservatives, he'll look at all the illegals. Everything for everyone. That's why he's losing.
He didn't get dinged too badly during this debate, but he provided another "check with the lawyers" moment for his opponents tonight. He's going to get whacked with that "look at them all" quote over and over and over. |
|
Thursday, January 10, 2008
National Review
Jim Gerahty
FRED THOMPSON
Tonight, Fred Reminded Me of Roy Hobbs.
"Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to “the Natural” to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background."
OH YEAH BABY!
|
|
He's brand new here, lives in Arizona and, like various other Arizona Repubs at HH have said, states plainly what a joke McCain has been on Illegal Aliens. Welcome aboard, rae22! Please keep bringing Arizona Good Sense to Hugh's Site. Joe, the Space Consuming-McCain Blogger Within Hugh's Site, doesn't believe you folks from Arizona unless your name's McCain.
Oily Boy's going actively paranoid, I see. Now, one can't challenge McCain in a tough, muscular way, cuz he was a POW 40-years ago and, therefore, untouchable. What swill. John's a tough, honorable man. Period. FAR from untouchable. And, FAR from having a TEMPERAMENT suitable for a sane-well balanced POTUS. |
|
Dean Barnett (remember him) he ranked Mitt last (not counting of course Ron Paul last night):
Mitt Romney: The stakes were highest for Romney. He came into tonight's debate with a harsh, looming deadline. If he doesn't win in Michigan next Tuesday, he's pretty much done.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/014/571gtvok.asp?pg=2" target="_blank"> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/ 000/014/571gtvok.asp?pg=2
How about Stephen Hayes:
John McCain was a strong second. He is now the frontrunner, a position that has given him trouble in the past-- both in 2000 and early in this cycle. But if he is ill at ease with this status, he is not showing it at all. McCain seemed as relaxed as I've seen him in this format. He is not often the most articulate man on the stage or the most fluid, but he was very solid tonight. His answer on how he would have handled the situation with Iran could not have been better had it been scripted in advance. He reminds people often that he was for the surge before it was cool to be for the surge. It was interesting to see Rudy Giuliani, who needs to
mitigate McCain's strengths on national security, play me-too on the surge. McCain said earlier that he needed to "own the surge," and he surely did tonight
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/014/571gtvok.asp?pg=2
I loved that Fred kicked butt. No one would be happier than me (well ok Jeri) in seeing Fred in the White House. But as much as I wish that, Fred is probably done (but I hope I am wrong).
Mitt Romney is weak. He will lose the general. He will not win the nomination. I am sure not risking getting Hillary or Obama in charge. McCain is excellent on the most important issues. Let's hope for a McCain-Thompson ticket. |
|
|
I can't wait for McCain to pummel Romeny in Michigan so Hugh will shut the ____ up. His shilling is incredibly embarassing. I will never listen to his show in the same light. For an objective contrast please compare Laura Ingraham. |
|
Or Not. Errrrr...You're lengthy regurgitations of what folks are writing at other(Easily Accessable)sites are for...WHAT?? Any of us can go there--and do, when we who have busy lives, chose to take the time--so, why clog Hughland with this stuff?
TEMPERAMENT: Jose, you never seem to have anything to say on McCain's enormous unsuitability for POTUS. I'm morbidly curious why you have ducked that query over & over & over. Have to read your response--if any--tonight as my Mom says I've got to get outta her basement and go do Vast Inexpressable Good for Humanity for a number of hours. |
|
for someone who did so poorly.
I am not a Huck fan and objectively I can say that his performance was average at best, but with one exception.
He hit the religious verse "gotcha" question out of the park, as the audience showed. Naturally, this is the area a Romney shill like Hewitt saw weakness, because it was a most clear, direct hit on Romney.
Hugh mentioned that it was a fair question given the role of faith in Huck's campaign - but the question itself was not about the role of faith - but about a specific verse ripped out of context.
My question is whether Hewitt believes the Bible. How about the other men on that stage claiming Christian status - certainly the Mormons hold to a belief in the Bible along with their own writings. Huch didn't WRITE the verse, he just quoted it to a group of believers who claim the Bible as authority in their lives - as I thought ALL CHRISTIANS were supposed to do (unless we redefine the term to fit unbelief).
If Hewitt can't see that watching the candidate truthfully and deftly handle such a question - while pronouncing loudly that he was not ashamed of his beliefs - is a homerun for that candidate, especially in South Carolina, then it just is more proof of his Romneyiac status.
Romney in contrast refuses to discuss controversies about his faith, does mention halftruths about his beliefs that equate with mainstream Protestantism, and gets outraged when someone quotes what is clearly taught on the LDS website (about Jesus/Lucifer brotherhood)
Contrast indeed. |
|
I was stunned at McCain's answer for his failure to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Bill. Instead of taking his que from those he was elected to represent, he practically put the blame on us. He said something to the effect that his bill was defeated, not because we rejected the provisions in the bill, but merely because we did not trust our government's judgment to handle the job. Translation: "They could have done it right, but we are too stupid to leave it to the professionals to get the job done.
Unbelievable! Though the views of ordinary, unelected citizens were contrary to his, they are not what defeated the bill. Rather, we simply don't trust them and their judgment (He is right on that matter). Thus, he is implying that he and those who were for the bill were right and we wrong, and effectively impuning us for our stupidity.
This is the height of arrogance. |
|
|
Because I disagree, I think McCain would be great as POTUS. But if I had the sole choice of these candidates, I would pick Fred first, followed by McCain, followed by Giuliani, followed by Mitt, followed by Huckabee. |
|
Why do you all think the media is all over having a McClame nomination?? Because he is a democrat in disguise! Look at his policies and the issues he has promoted in Washington. If McCain is the nominee, there will not be enough distinction and interest in those of us who are left in this republican party! The problem is that this whole country has gravitated to the left. Are there enough true republican conservatives out there who have not been blinded by the media and the liberal educators in our country to see through this??
The only true fiscal and moral conservatives in this race are Thompson and Romney! Fred doesn't seem to care enough, though, and doesn't seem to be articulate and clear enough to make a difference in Washington. I believe that Romney would fight for the things he is campaigning for. Besides that, he is a very decent person and I can see Guiliani bringing scandalous baggage for the media to exploit and distract from the real issues.
Are people really saying that they aren't going to vote for Romney because of religion? Take a look at the organized way that church works! They build all of there chapels and temples without debt. They give to countries around the world on a humanitarian basis without strings attached. They are educated and work hard! Why wouldn't we beg for someone with those values for a president! By the way, the LDS people have a very effective welfare program that has been praised for years because of it's ability to help its members rise above the need. His church has also established a perpetual education fund which allows members in need to borrow funds to attend school and then they are paid back later when the recipient is in a position to do so. Of course, all of the money for these programs is given voluntarily by its members. What are you afraid of?? |
|
|
welcome your input. Also welcome your challenges, and I do hope you indulge us with yours. Nice to see that you found this site. |
|
Consistently wrong about border security and citizenship. If McCain is the nominee, the GOP is toast.
Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, 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
|
|
Synthesizer keep it up.
You are really getting under Mitt folks skin because you deliver facts that they can't refute.
Their only responses are personnal attacks on either you or Huckabee or trying to wish you away.
Those of us that want to hear the full story appreciate your comments and excellent links.
|
|
Long ago now, followers of Hugh's blog entries have realized that his pro-Mitt propaganda has gone from the hopeful stage to the deeply personal stage.
Hugh bashes Huckabee in his post debate piece while saying Romney had a GOOD night. Here's where it gets interesting... In today's Weekly Standard online post-debate follow-up, Dean Barnett, Hugh's very good friend, regular contributor to HughHewitt.com, and, a guest host for Hugh's show, says quite the opposite! Following is a direct quote from Barnett's column:
"Mike Huckabee's an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short. He's a lot more than an affable dispenser of one-liners who only knows how to play to the home crowd. For people who might be inclined to dismiss Huckabee, compare his response to Thompson's adroit offensive with McCain's blundering into the climate warming thicket. These two are the likely finalists, and one of them is much better at politics than the other.
Although fewer people watched last evening's festivities, tonight was even bigger for Huckabee. For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.
In the race for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to be tough to beat."
Another Weekly Standard contributor, Bill Kristol, gave Huckabee kudos for his outstanding performance in the debate. But, for Romney, Kristol said he was the candidate who did the LEAST of what he needed to do in the debate to gain support.
Maybe, similar to Hugh's mis-judgement of Huckabee, many of us have mis-judged Hugh's intellect and ability to analyze the facts objectively. Hugh ought to read his friend's and peer's opinions of last night's debate...sprinkle a little reality on your salad from time to time. |
|
Hmm... Now, I remember Huckabee and the excellent responses. McCain and the almost regal demeanor. And the always memorable Ron Paul.
Romney was there?
+ + + |
|
I love the fact that Thompson went after Huckabee. What Thompson said about Huckabee was far more attack-like than anything Romney has said. I am just wondering why no one has called Thompson dirty like they did when Romney challenged Huck's record.
Had Romney said what Thompson said last night the press and McCain would have called him "dirty", "desperate", "mean", etc. Yet, I have heard nothing of the sort. A double standard? An obvious agenda?
At this point I would be in favor of a Romney/Thompson ticket. |
|
Romney is a loser in the polls, and he looked liks a loser in the debate.
Huckabee had a good night, as did McCain and Thompson.
If you want to stop McCain, your best bet is to help out Rudy because Mitt has proven he's not worthy of being the nominee.
He's going to lose Michigan. He's given up on SC. He'll get crushed in FL. He'll have no momentum going into Feb 5, and he'll have no chance coming out.
MItt will not be the nominee, he could never beat the Democrats and his campaign is only hurting the Republican Party.
Mitt is splitting the anti-McCain vote. You want to stop McCain? Tell Mitt to drop out.
Dump Romney. |
|
maybe like Mcain/Huckleberry's little buddy-up against Mitt, Maybe Fred and Mitt came to an agreement that Fred can be the one who takes Huck out at the knees. That way, Mitt is not accoused of being 'mean', and Fred gets second chair?
Could be a good plan. |
|
On Gov. Huckabee, his liberal socialism at heart, and his chief advisor, Rollins, will be his strongest blow to his own delicate knees.
Fred, acually was too civil and pleasant to him.
We, have three great nominees: Fred, Mitt and Rudy.
Yes, Senator McCain, great war hero, great great...indeed, his a great man, but not a nominee for the conservative GOP. |
|
|
on his personality? Get real - we are not choosing a best friend here people - we are choosing a leader to be the President of the United States! Okay, Mitt Romney may not have as many 1 liners, or may not peruse the crowd as well as the Arkansas Governors who run for President. Huckleberry does not have a corner on religion either and for those of whom are voting for Huck - please ask yourself what is at stake the most in this country now. A people pleasin' president who has to answer all of his questions 2 days later? Or someone who went through Harvard earning an MBA and law degree simultaneously. We don't need a nice president - we need a smart and experienced, fiscal conservative leader!! Mitt Romney for POTUS '08 |
|
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 |
|
|
|