Sunday, September 23, 2007
|
|
Romney Rising
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
2:31 PM
|
I had not seen the results of the Mackinac Straw Poll when I posted below on the PPI California Poll. This is not just a very big win for Governor Romney, but a very bad knock on Mayor Giuliani and Senator Thompson, both of whom made appearances to gin up some support in the balloting, support that did not materialize.
Bottom line: The GOP needs to put some blue states into play to avoid having this be a wholly defensive attempt to hang on to the Bush states of 2004. A Romney candidacy puts Michigan very much into play, and probably Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine as well.
|
|
|
The GOP needs to start building up Hunter Thompson. Giuliani will get whomped in CA by Hillary. Not so with Thompson. Even if Thompson is the VP on a Romney ticket, that is a stronger ticket than Rudy and whatever lackey he picks. Rudy is not even that likely to win in NY. Romney is strong in his own neighborhood as is Thompson. Does the RNC want to win or not? McCain and Giuliani have been in the limelight seemingly forever and all we see is declining party registration and soft poll numbers. We know everything we will ever know about those too. Let's move on and give someone else a chance. If Romney took off in the polls on his new message, I would re-register back as a Republican. I have seen others make that same statement several times in the junior circuit blogs today at TH. This may be a turning point for the GOP. |
|
|
I meant to say Duncan Hunter, not Hunter Thompson. Brain cramps. Can't blog and watch football at the same time. |
|
For Vice Prez. LOL
A belly laugh to start off a Sunday afternoon. Thanks. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's the ticket, some who consumed too much during the 60's and 70's, not realizing he's dead, might vote accidently for Duncan/Fred, particularly in California. |
|
have a link for that new Romney ad? |
|
|
The RNC only wants to win with an amnesty friendly candidate. They will do whatever they can to prevent a secure borders/no amnesty candidate from emerging. If by some miracle GOP primary voters nominate someone like Hunter, they will undermine him, like they undermined Congressional candidates who had similar stands in the 2006. They would rather keep the cheap labor express running by electing HRC. |
|
|
|
That's the appeal of Romney's new strategy. He goes right after the problem: the RNC. It's not about running against Bush at all. As to undermining Hunter, California would be a big matza ball to surrender to the Dems if it is in play. Duncan Hunter would put it in play. I know very few Dems out here who look forward to voting for Hillary. As to the Dems gaining in Congress like they did in 2006, so long as they elect similar conservatives who will not yield to the nutty leadership, that's okay with me.
Jacob, Reagan carried CA twice. CA is not as blue as people think. And Reagan defied the RNC in 1980 to win the nomination. Everyone "knew" that Bush was going to win the nomination until Reagan reminded everyone that "I paid for that microphone Mr. Green!". The voters are making it clear what they want and both parties are trying to sashay around it. Romney is picking low-hanging fruit by seizing the popular side of the most important issues. That is the kind of thing that turns elections around. |
|
|
The cheap labor express wants a Rudy vs Hillary matchup, they win either way. They get their amnesty for the illegals and the companies employing them. We lose our country. |
|
|
McCain/Kennedy-nuff said. |
|
Romney's ads (including his latest one) over at his website. I see why he's doing so well in the States where he's running them. He'll blow the Hildebeest out of the water in the General.
They are Really Strong. |
|
|
That Romney has people associated with the Bush family is a non-starter. Campaign professionals will work within the party for anyone who will hire them. What is more revealing is the money and the globalist Bush money is behind Rudy. |
|
His Daddy was a Mormon. He "grew up" a Mormon. He doesn't Smoke, or Drink; and, he goes to Church.
Crikey! He's the only man in the race that's had just ONE WIFE!
Holey Moley |
|
I want to make two points. First, Romney is not manufactured. People who say that have not associated with Mormons too often or they would know that, in general, all Mormons look and sound like Mitt Romney. They are, for the most part, well educated and family values are #1. Libertarian #2. Libertarian because they don't want the government dictating to them. Oh, and for those too dumb to know, it has been over a 100 years since polygamy was outlawed. So get over it.
Second, the slurs to Mormonism are stupid and offensive. The LDS church is based on the early church structure of Christ and the Apostles, not the contrived Christianity that developed after Constantine 300 years later.
Now as to California. I live in an area where we are split between active duty and retired military and a heavy LDS population. Romney will do well here, so probably will McCain. |
|
His campaign is well organized and focused on state primaries -- as it should be.
As governor, he successfully defended conservative principles in a liberal state against a liberal legislature. What more can be asked of him?
His personal and professional qualifications are indicative of the success he is experiencing. Nit-pick, misrepresent, fabricate and chide HH as you will -- but Mitt Romney IS the consummate candidate for POTUS.
|
|
|
Duncan Hunter has had one wife also, and he has a son who has 2 tours in Iraq and is scheduled to go to Afghanistan. He has also been consistently conservative for as long as he has been in office. No flip-flopping to explain. No embarrassing you tube videos to explain. (See '94 Senate race) |
|
..Mitt.There's a bit of a lingering 'temperment'
concern with Rudy.The same concern,only much bigger,is why I can't go for McCain.I love his solid-stand up position on the glaobal war we're in,but his tempermant shouldn't be at The Helm. He's too easily seduced by cameras,microphones and toadies.A fragile,hungry ego that can be 'played' by others.GWB has been pretty immune to that stuff.Stays focused and doesn't get bombarded by strong mood swings.Mitt appears to have a very steady temperment.Good.My only quiet hiccup with Romney remains a gnawing concern that he doesn't fully 'Get' the war.We'll see.Time will reveal more information on that. |
|
I don't like Duncan Hunter on Trade. I just can't see him as CEO - Chief. Sorry:( |
|
|
383 votes are insignificant and easily manipulated. Mitt's victory in Iowa was of the same order. Mitt's extended family in Michigan and a small portion of their congregations could have delivered that vote. Just sayin - and I like Mitt - its just nothing to draw any conclusions about. |
|
empty suit is Romney. A CINO, and only pretend-conservatives would vote for him or Fred or Rudy.
Mormonism, well, folks should look into it more and decide for themselves. There's a lot more weird history and beliefs in the LDS church, so people, do your research.
Hunter/Paul/Huck |
|
I dated an LDS girl for two years in high school. So I know pretty well how the church functions, and their historical beliefs.
If you folks would look into it more, you'd see how strange a religion it really is. |
|
You gotta love Hugh. After not touching the polls for the past week or so, as Mitt's numbers everywhere did a sllow swoon, he is suddenly reinvigorated to cover them because *gasp* Mitt did well in one! Let's face it, Mitt will do well anyplace he can pay for someone's meal. Let's see, 383 votes from Michigan, plus 4,516 from Ames - the man almost has 5000 votes locked up! (Unless they change their minds later, I guess...)
You can almost smell the desparation in his latest tack - the "scold the party" approach. I'm sure it tested well in focus groups and what not, but come on, is this any way to gain the Republican nomination? By calling them Democrats? Keep drinking the Kool-aid, Hugh... |
|
of the constitution - oh yea . . . except that one part that talks about defending the US.
Pretty big hole there, Gabby.
|
|
Gabby, joe-sixpack, and richard to name a few. Most of the other AM posters had the good sense to realize that rising above religious differences is the American way and that Romney is just a decent man who adheres to a strict and somewhat unusual religion. So what.
For the few left here who are apparently not capable of being embarrassed - get over it already! |
|
|
If he is, the GOP establishment is treating like they treated Reagan. They cheated him out of the nomination in 1976 and did everything they could to deny him in 1980 for their annointed candidate Bush41. Same with Mitt. If he runs as the anti-establishment conservative, he is a serious threat to these guys. And by the way, don't confuse my anti-globalist comments to mean that I'm against global trade. I just believe capitalism is a tool answerable to higher authorities. We should not be canceling our constitution and erasing our borders because it is expedient for corporations who don't care a whit about America. I'm a capitalist to the bone and believe global trade is a great thing. But I believe what we have here in America is the best culture in human history and it is worth exporting and fighting for. America is probably the only place on earth that is friendly to Mormons. Everything I just said argues for Romney over Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Paul. At worst, since some commentors here seem to think that character counts for nothing, Mitt is the lesser of multiple evils. If there is an uptick in Republican voter registration, Mitt will skyrocket to the top. |
|
|
because he has the strongest organizations in most of these states. He'w won major straw polls in Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana, South Carolina, and elsewhere. Nobody claims they are scientific, but it should be obvious that every candidate would like to win them if they could. All the 1st tier candidates showed up in Michigan for this conference, and Mitt won 4 times as many votes as Rudy and more than 5 times as many as Fred. Romney has more high-level endorsements in the state than all of the other candidates combined, and the state chair, Saul Anuzsis, has declared his organization superior to anybody else's. Michigan's primary is January 15th, and is the first for a large state. Following wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, a Romney win in Michigan could well prove decisive. |
|
|
Minnesota is not in play in '08 Romney or no Romney. I have no idea why Hugh thinks Romney would make any difference at all, but as a lifelong resident and political junkie, I can assure you that Minnesota is safely in the Democratic column no matter what the matchup is. |
|
|
Your anti-mormon this, anti-mormon that screed has run dry. Yawn. |
|
|
|
|
Both the Browns and the Bengals lost today. |
|
I'm for the conservative constitutionalist candidate with one wife who goes to church: RON PAUL.
You married Ron Paul? |
|
|
Yeah...but...you were that sure about McCain not so long ago too. McCain peaked and will never regain what he lost. Giuliani has been perceived as the leader for months but bounces around in the twenties with no momentum and keeps saying stupid things. The voters know both of these guys very well and no one is excited as sinking party registration numbers attest to. We'll have to see how Romney does as the country gets to know him. He has finally adopted a platform of issues that will get the conservatives involved which could be just the ticket. You were too involved with poll numbers when McCain was riding high and you still are. The message matters and Romney may finally have it. |
|
|
Is Joe a Frank Herbert/Dune fan? |
|
Mitt is tied with Hillary in NH, as are McCain and Giuliani, I believe, according to Rasmussen. I think head to heads mean a lot more in Iowa, and NH, right now, because that's where the people are the most familiar with Romney. Of course, they're familiar with the Hildebeest, everywhere. |
|
McCain still beats Romney in head to heads against Democrats. I know he is not getting the nomination, but why do you think Romney is so good? I understand the appeal of Duncan Hunter to you. But Romney is basically a moderate Republican who suddenly switch to appeal in conservative primaries.
gentlemanscholar: I am a Dune/Herbert fan (although I like Heinlien more). I always thought Duncan Idaho was a cool name and character.
Never got that into L. Ron Hubbard, but I hear others like his stuff. |
|
Chad the Elder?
From Northern Alliance radio? Hmm, all kinds of folks are showing up here.
And yes, the GOP is in fast retreat in MN. I think only my Congresswoman, Michelle Backman is safe next election. |
|
|
Romney is positioning himself as the anti-establishment candidate. He is rejecting the post-partisan status quo by adopting the major conservative platform issues. We already know that Rudy and McCain are open-border, anti-gun liberals. It remains to be seen whether Romney is a moderate who can't be trusted by conservatives. I will give him the benefit of the doubt if for no other reason, we can finally get away from the Rudy and McCain shipwreck looking for an iceberg to hit. Romney is basically adopting the Hunter platform which will help Hunter too. People don't know Romney yet and all the windbags who keep trying to paint him as a flip-flopper and "slick" don't know what they are talking about. How does a conservative run and win in MA anyways? Hillary would have moved to a liberal state if she were a resident of a conservative state. Mitt chose to run in his own state and being pragmatic, he ran to win. There is plenty of evidence (personal character, behavior, being a Mormon etc...) that he is a conservative with libertarian leanings. Rudy and McCain have had their day and failed. Thompson just can't get going so he has peaked too. It's time to move on and find out if Romney is the guy. We already know of at least two candidates who aren't. The numbers will come around. |
|
|
Romney is positioning himself as the anti-establishment candidate. He is rejecting the post-partisan status quo by adopting the major conservative platform issues. We already know that Rudy and McCain are open-border, anti-gun liberals. It remains to be seen whether Romney is a moderate who can't be trusted by conservatives. I will give him the benefit of the doubt if for no other reason, we can finally get away from the Rudy and McCain shipwreck looking for an iceberg to hit. Romney is basically adopting the Hunter platform which will help Hunter too. People don't know Romney yet and all the windbags who keep trying to paint him as a flip-flopper and "slick" don't know what they are talking about. How does a conservative run and win in MA anyways? Hillary would have moved to a liberal state if she were a resident of a conservative state. Mitt chose to run in his own state and being pragmatic, he ran to win. There is plenty of evidence (personal character, behavior, being a Mormon etc...) that he is a conservative with libertarian leanings. Rudy and McCain have had their day and failed. Thompson just can't get going so he has peaked too. It's time to move on and find out if Romney is the guy. We already know of at least two candidates who aren't. The numbers will come around. |
|
Frankly, McCain would be the best on the war on terror, but he has alienated himself from the base. Rudy will be second best.
Romney is probbably a great administrator and may have good insticts, but I still do not believe he can win the general. Romney wants to win, so he will say what he thinks will help him win. That is not what we need. You can call it what you will, but it is not character.
Duncan Hunter is a good man who has gone absolutely nowhere. Why?
I like Fred Thompson, but I see him as best a good VP candidate.
I am getting more and more convinced that Hillary will be the next President. You talk and talk about immigration as if it is the biggest issue of all. It isn't. Mexican immigration needs to be controlled and fixed, but Mexican are not Muslims. We could fix the problem today if we only had the will to punish employers who hire illegals. The biggest threat is al Qaeda and Iran, followed by China. I do travel around and the country wants a change and unfortunately it is going to be for the worse. |
|
Ron Paul thinks we are responsible for 9-11 and that we should BACK OFF of Iran. The both of you have your heads in the sand about Islamofacsism. I respect his service to this country, but he wants to do nothing other than border control in the WOT. That just ain't gonna cut it.
I have not served in the military, but many in my family have and do, including in Iraq.
|
|
Biggest reason (& don't underestimate it): Telegenic and able to carve off a section of the woman vote that Hillary must retain to win in close states.
Puts the states Hugh mentioned in play
Easily has the most likable spouse of all the candidates.
Hillary can't marginalize him on healthcare
Extraordinary administrative capabilities will help him match and best the Clinton campaign machine
Presents very stark contrast to Hillary
Has little or no personal baggage. [so Rover rode on top of the car...] |
|
Hugh said, "A Romney candidacy puts Michigan very much into play, and probably Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine as well."
Huh?
Where the heck does he pull THAT one from? Maybe Michigan, I can see. Mitt is from there, after all.
But, why the heck would Ohio, Wisc., Minn. etc., seem to follow so automatically on the path that Michigan MIGHT go in Hugh's Mitt-soaked mind?
What a wild assumption! |
|
than Billary is all you need to know about the veracity of that poll.
I think Mitt is wasting time and money on such contests.
Sure, the other candidates spend a token amount of effort on them, much as a right-wing congressional candidate would go to an all-candidates debate at a left-wing college, it's about keeping up appearances. |
|
"Biggest reason (& don't underestimate it): Telegenic and able to carve off a section of the woman vote that Hillary must retain to win in close states."
No. Romney is terrible on TV. That's why his national poll numbers are so low, and why Thompson almost immediately caught him. GI Joe good looks do not equate to "telegenic."
I posted here earlier this evening, and my post seems to have disappeared. To put it briefly, I said the traditional IA + NH strategy to put away primary opponents won't work this time because Guiliani and Thompson are national figures who will continue to hold support and relatively high poll numbers despite early losses in small states that specialize in retail politics. Their fundraising bases, respectively, will not switch to Romney at that juncture. And after those two states, the primary campaign goes back to resembling the campaign we have now, the one Romney is losing badly.
Face it, folks, he just rubs people the wrong way. |
|
"The biggest threat is al Qaeda and Iran..."
How do you justify this statement?
Neither AQ or Iran can destroy the US, or take it over. In an all out war, the US could take down Iran, and cause them to become isolated and desolate, through an air and blockade operation. AQ can never take over America. They will never unite and rule the muslim world.
Over 100,000 people have been murdered in the US since 911. Seems like common criminals kill more Americans than AQ or Iran ever will. I know they are a threat, but come on, "The biggest?" Why is there no draft? Why has there been no mobilization for war? The borders have remained wide open before and since 911. There has been no call for any kind of sacrafice what so ever from the public. Joe, I think you are the best commenter on this blog, but I think you are over the top on this one. Keep up the good work. |
|
|
Good points. I am glad that Fred is sticking it to the religious fanatic crazies. It is time for the Republicans to marginalize and isolate this stupid faction. If Dobson is so pure and holy, why doesn't he run for prez? Maybe Ted Haggard can be his running mate. LOL. Fred aint going to let Dobson and his ilk play king maker with him. Fred is on to something big here. It's time to purge the party administration of these religious fanatics. Reagan hardly went to church, and Fred doesn't either. GO FRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
are the biggest threat.
Their leadership is apolcalyptic and believe its their duty to start a world religious war. You are right, they do not have armies to invade us. But they have belivers who would not hesitate to set off a series of nukes if given the chance, and unlike Putin or China cannot be detered by mutual assured destruction. Our job is to stop them from getting that chance.
I watched Ken Burn's The War tonight. Other than the line that totally cracked me up (A Marine recruiter told some boys looking to sign up in Alabama 1941--"You don't want to join the Navy, you don't qualify because your parents are married") the most telling part was the guy who thought all the "Why We Fight Films" were just propagada. Then he paused and said--we just didn't realize in 1941 how important that war was.
And most people today do not realize how important the GWOT really is. |
|
Who are you talking about? And how is Fred sticking it to them? If you mean the Christian right (40% of the party), what do you think will be left if you marginalize them?
Fred needs them more than any other candidate, but I doubt the Tennessee Stud can capture them.
Romney is made to order for the religious right and I think they will eventually realize that he is their guy.
|
|
Where are they going to go? Start their own party, with Haggard? 40% of what is left of the republican party. Small faction with respect to the whole electorate. If Fred has the nomination, he will beat HC in the South, for sure.
Joe, MAD is a done deal with Iran. "Setting off a series of nukes..." Easier said than done. AQ wants to dominate Islam. If AQ hits us with Atomic war, the entire ME will pay huge. AQ is a fringe, with minimal support amoung the worlds billion muslims. I think you give AQ too much credit. Don't forget, that we have the "left behind" types in the Republican party. This crowd is cheering for the big one to go off in the ME. They have the "End times" all worked out on DVD. These people are dangerous as well. Also, if AQ and Iran are the biggest threat, why is the border wide open? Why was it not sealed on 9-12?
Again, common criminals have killed over 100,000 Americans since 9/11. |
|
Obviously most Christians wouldn't agree with your thelogical analysis / bigoted slurs, Griff:
"Second, the slurs to Mormonism are stupid and offensive. The LDS church is based on the early church structure of Christ and the Apostles, not the contrived Christianity that developed after Constantine 300 years later."
You (and Mitt) are free to believe what you want to believe, but don't go acting like your tendentious opinion is established fact. |
|
Or is it Rasmussen, AND any other poll that shows Romney doing well? Just checking.
Wyes, we know that Mitt Romney’s father was the governor of MI and that he himself was born and raised in Michigan. Naturally he has some MI support. Now if he could only come up with another 20-30 home states, he’d have a legitimate shot at being a serious presidential contender. But sadly he seems to fall well short of this mark. Even citizen of the world GHWB could only scrape up three home states (ME, CT, and a hotel room in Houston). Mitt seems to do roughly that well (MA, MI, some vicarious support from NH, and some LDS support from UT, ID, and NV).
Of course, UT and the other western states are already in the GOP’s pocket. Mitt’s not a serious threat to win the votes of the state that knows him best, MA, apparently not even in the primary, where he trails Rudy. Could he put MI into play next November? I don’t know. I know he couldn’t put NJ and PA into play, as Rudy can. I know that Mitt would put FL into play for Hillary, which perhaps wouldn’t be the greatest trade the GOP ever made, as FL > MI + ME + NH.
Finally, how catty do you have to get? Rudy and Fred campaign in MI and you sneeringly refer to them trying to “gin up” support? Fred just can’t win with you, it seems. If he doesn’t campaign, he’s lazy. If he does, he’s trying to “gin up” support, which is now apparently a low tactic. What would you call what Mitt’s been doing in IA and NH? Doesn’t that bear a lot of resemblance to campaigning / politicking / ginning up support? And what’s wrong with that, other than the fact that Rudy and Fred are engaging in it themselves? |
|
I love it, Joe! I dated a Catholic girl in high school and so I'm an authority on early Catholic doctrine! I once lived next door to some Hindus and so I'm an expert on the Bagavadgita! My mother-in-law is a Democrat and so I'm responsible for the Vietnam War!
You, on the other hand, are simply a moron. |
|
|
Actually, Thaale, most of the established religion of the day wouldn't believe Christ or his few followers in his day. The established religion was false and had strayed from its earlier prophetic foundation. Just like Christianity today has strayed from its foundations. In fact, "Christians" are simply apostates from the Catholic religion. I don't think the Catholic Church ever gave its permission to start a new church. If the Protestants think the Catholic Church is false, then remember that a false tree cannot bear good fruit. And if the Catholic Church is a good tree, then the there was no need for a Reformation. |
|
"Hugh said, 'A Romney candidacy puts Michigan very much into play, and probably Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine as well.'
Huh? Where the heck does he pull THAT one from? Maybe Michigan...But, why the heck would Ohio, Wisc., Minn. etc., seem to follow...?"
Right, since when do MN and WI follow from MI?
The other interesting thing is that HH makes a good point – the GOP needs some scoring opportunities of its own, not just successful defense of Bush states – but then ignores the implications of his correct reasoning. Because those implications lead straight to Rudy, who is going to put a lot more (and bigger) states into play than Mitt could ever hope to do, including CA, for instance. |
|
Hugh, I can't believe you would post this with a straight face.
Romney bought that straw poll. AGAIN. He has bought others before this one.
He paid for more than 200 supporters to go to this straw poll.
Was there any other campaign who did that?
Romney thinks he will win if he has a record of winning straw polls. What a delusion.
He leads in Iowa and NH only because he is the only one on the air with ads. Wait until the others put up their ads.
Romney is a case of illusion, smoke and mirrors. |
|
GKC said something similar to what you are getting at; how strange it was to for people to sack the temple, drive out the priests, banish the sacraments, yet take the writings they found in the temple and form a new religion around it. I think he asked, "For if the priests had faked the sacraments, why should they not have faked the scriptures as well?"
|
|
I agree with you that Mitt bought the win, and what's amazing is how few votes you have to buy in a nation with 300,000,000 people to score what Hugh calls a "very big win":
Full Results
Romney 39% (383 votes)
McCain 27 (260)
Paul 11 (106)
Giuliani 11 (104)
Thompson 7 (70)
That's right, 383 self-selected respondents in Mitt's home state. A winning margin of only 123 votes over a candidate whom Hugh and Dean have assured us for months is a dead man walking. And based on what < 400 people in one state said, we now have a "very big win" for Mitt. More people than that wrote to ABC to protest the cancellation of Cop Rock in 1990, and they weren't even paid to do it. |
|
Great comment about jumping the shark. This is madness.
Romney is getting slaughtered in the general polls for a reason. He's at 9%. He's not coming back. People have seen him and heard him and seen his ads for months now and he turns people off. I love his politics, but I can't stand him. It's inconceivable to me that he would ever be able to lead this country because he just doesn't connect.
In the primaries, I would vote for anyone except Ron Paul before I would vote for him.
The dude has burned through millions and is in fourth place. Maybe he should have run a lazy, "hammock campaign" like Fred. |
|
... for the economy. The man's cash burn rate is impressive!
Seriously, does Hugh even believe this stuff anymore, or is this just a case of impressive loyalty to one's benefactor gettig in the way of telling the truth? Mitt had a chance. He blew it. The "early" states, where he has apparently been campaigning since approximately 1993, are sick to death of him. Romney fatigue is setting in, and the more ads he buys, the worse it will get. Elsewhere, he is seen as a slick plastic politician, who smiles on TV when answering questions about military service, etc. I kinda feel for him - he tried to do it different than the "Bush way" (minimize contact with actual voters to limit gafe potential) and it came back to bite him ("my sons are serving their country by getting me elected!"). But he seems as insincere in his beliefs as any Democrat, so for him to scold Republicans to act like Republicans is comical... |
|
...the likes of which have not been seen in years. Go to the following link and check out a few of his debates with Ted Kennedy when Romney was running for FatBoy's seat in the U.S. Senate.
http://massresistance.org/romney/
I was a Massachusetts resident during the Romney administration. His current positions and his current campaign website do not depict the kind of man I witnessed as governor.
His total lack of support for Massachusetts gun owners was maddening. He signed every single gun control bill the legislature handed him. Now he says he supports the Second Amendment and has joined the National Rifle Association?
DON'T BELIEVE IT. I WAS THERE. THE MAN HE CLAIMS TO BE NOW IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I SAW. HE'S A FLIP-FLOPPER OF COLOSSAL PROPORTIONS!
http://massresistance.org/romney/
Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
|
|
Yeh, Romney is weak in the national polls. However, he has solid leads in IA, NH, MI and NV. If he wins all 4 you will see a tremendous shift in the national polls. You will also see SC and FL shift.
You are also ignoring Romney's major strength, his ability to run a winning GOTV. Rudy will have the money to create a GOTV, however it remains to be seen how effective it will be. Thompson may or may not have the money, we will know at the end of Oct. If he has the money, he may not have the organizational skill to create an effective GOTV. McCain will have to take public funding. He is dead. I do not care what his poll numbers are. He knows how to run a GOTV but will not have the money. McCain is useful in that he holds Rudy down.
Romney will win selected congressional districts in CA. He will do very well. If he wins the first 4 primaries he may well win CA. His national polls will shift via Hillary very fast if he wins the first 4. Romney is right, the GOP brand has to be fixed or no one can win in 2008. Health care and concerns about economic security rank with terror security. The issues are shifting in Romney's favor.
Don't tell me that Rudy and Fred can compete with Bill in the general. We are going to have to beat both Bill and Hillary. Fred is to old and Rudy is to NY. Romney is from MI,MA,UT it is a broader base to work from and a different image, one that fits the mobility of our times. |
|
|
|
"However, he has solid leads in IA, NH, MI and NV. If he wins all 4 you will see a tremendous shift in the national polls. You will also see SC and FL shift."
Okay, I think SC votes the same day as NV, for instance. Then consider FL. Election Day per se is 1/29. But Florida has a lot of mail-in voting and early-site voting as well. I never vote on election day; it's too crowded. Like over 50% of FL primary voters, I vote well in advance. And of course FL is not the only state this applies to. As you doubtless have seen, many state parties have aggressively ramped up registration of absentee / mail-in voting.
All of this makes the hyothetical Mitt tsunami effect a lot more problematic, as it would require time-travel. I could be the most easily-led voter in a 1/29 or 2/5 state that Mitt could dream of, but I still won't be able to be influenced by his 1/22 or 1/15 victory, because my ballot will already be in the mail before my state "officially" votes.
You make a very good point, that Romney will win selected Congressional Districts in CA. That applies to the other candidates in other states as well, obviously. Many primaries are not winner-takes-all-delegates. Mitt can win his home state of MI, but Rudy is still going to pick up three delegates for each CD he wins there.
Ironically, in the absence of any reliable local polling, you're probably better off looking at national numbers (and at specific state percentages instead of just ordinals). IOW, it's not sufficient to say, Mitt will "win" NH, Fred will "win" SC, and Rudy will "win" NJ. Not all victories are identical, for public relations purposes or for delegate purposes. Winning a state 26-23-18-13 isn't at all the same as winning it 50-16-9-8. Note that the Badgers and Gators each won their games on Saturday - but dropped in the polls.
|
|
In answer to someone's concerns that Romney does not get Iraq, I would point out the following. Romney understands that Iraq is crucial in the WOT. He sees that war with a big picture. However, he leaves himself some wiggle room in Iraq for few very clear reasons.
1. The surge has made it obvious to everyone that Bush blew the War. It is obvious that if we had put enough troops into Iraq at the beginning, that we would have taken and held the country side and kicked the terrorists decisively and early.
2. Now that we have a few more troops in Iraq things are improving militarily. However, the nation building is still very messy. We can win the war and still lose if the Iraq government does not step up and hold the territory that we hand them.
3. The definition of success in Iraq is a stable government that can hold down the terrorists and act as a counter weight to Iran. At the moment the Iraq government can not even protect itself. The factions may assassinate each others leaders to the point that no one can lead. Not to mention Iran's meddling.
4. We have not clear plan for dealing with Iran, which could go in several directions before Nov 2008.
Romney is astute enough to keep some flexibility on Iraq, as he should. McCain is toast and has bet his whole campaign on the military aspects of the War which is going better right now. However, Iraq will shift before things settle. It is not enough to take territory. We have to have a strong stable Iraq government. We also have to have a workable plan on Iran.
|
|
"We've known Romney isn't doing terrific in head-to-head matchups with Democrats in this point - his campaign would contend it's an unfair comparison as long as his name recognition is behind the Democrats' and his GOP rivals - but these SurveyUSA numbers are awful for him.
Romney vs. Clinton in Ohio? He trails, 52 percent to 42 percent. Giuliani and Thompson are both within 1 of Hillary Clinton.
In Kentucky, Romney's lead over Obama is within the margin of error. Giuliani and Thompson are well ahead, 17 points, 18 points.
In Alabama - Alabama! - Romney's lead over Hillary is again within in the margin of error. Giuliani and Thompson are well ahead, 11 points, 13 points.
What's the matter with Romney in Kansas? He trails Hillary head-to-head, 46 percent to 45 percent."
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2UzMTA0YjkzMTlkZTVlZWM5NWJhMDU2YzExZDMyZjg=
Ouch. |
|
|
Now THAT seems like the bigger news. Quite a feat, given that he has done little to no campaigning in Michigan. |
|
Thale writes: "You (and Mitt) are free to believe what you want to believe, but don't go acting like your tendentious opinion is established fact."
Like you "good Christians" don't go around acting like your 'tendentious opinions aren't established facts'?
All Biblical Christianity is based off of opinions of the founding fathers of the denominations.
So , Thaale, you are free to believe what you want to believe, dont go around acting like all of Christianity is based on fact when so much of it is based on opinionated interpretation of the Bible.
|
|
Maybe the reason Portlandmom thinks Ron Paul thinks we are responsible for 9-11 is that he said so in one of the debates. Maybe you should listen to your candidate.
Also, anyone who thinks that a governor of a state can tell its supreme court that their rulings are not going to be legally valid and that he is not going to abide by them is so far off the rational end of the political spectrum that it is worthless to debate them. |
|
Romney is a liberal as is Giuliani.
Fred. D. Thompson is the only Consistent Conservative Republican who can win the Presidential Election in 2008. There are a lot of Media attacks from the left and right against Fred D. Thompson, yet he continues to be a strong Candidate.
He is the only Candidate who can move this country forward and back on the (R)ight track. |
|
Chuck is right. Paul said we are responsible for 9-11. I heard it with my own ears. Gabby do you really believe that anything we have done in the middle east could have caused 9-11? If so, I feel sorry for you.
And Paul said we need to back off Iran. Do you really believe that is an acceptable solution to their coming nuclear power? If so, I again feel sorry for you.
So Paul will go along with a war if congress leads the way on it. That's not leadership Gabby, and you didn't prove me wrong at all. Paul will not defend the US. We cannot trust him to lead in perilous times such as this.
And it is a moot point anyway. Why do you pretend that he is viable? You must be the one belonging to the flat earth society. Wake up girl! |
|
You may not like the media attacks on Fred, but you cannot deny the fact that they are telling the truth about his record, that he is as big a flipper as Romney or Guiliani, and that he is stumbling badly on the campaign trail.
Fred has precious little time to get it together before he's all washed up. I like the guy, but he does not seem to be presidential material. |
|
|
If Republicans think we have to be socialists to win, then haven't we already lost? |
|
|
Romney? Libertarian? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|
If we commenters are reflective of the GOP, then the election could be Hillary's to lose. There is so much petty sniping and infighting that I don't think any GOP candidate--including my favorite, Duncan Hunter--will be able to unite us sufficiently to beat the weak Democrat candidate.
I wish there were a candidate who had Hunter's courageous military background and toughness on illegal immigration; Paul's courageous tenacity in standing on Constitutional principles and his abilty to intelligently articulate those principles with such command; Romney's energy, enthusiasm, executive experience, business acumen, and public speaking skill; Thompson's built-in celebrity appeal; Huckabee's good nature and sense of humor; Giuliani's demonstrated strength in a crisis; and so on.
The closest we have had to that composite character was the Gipper. Will we allow another to emerge?
Who among the candidates can develop fully into that stature? Probably more of them have the capacity to be great leaders than we are willing to admit.
|
|
|
It's crazy how many people leave comments on why someone can and can't get elected. I'll admit, I'm a Romney supporter, but we can all find reasons why Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Thompson can or can't get elected. Some of us are going to be eating our words (i.e. probably me), so let's just stop with the predictions. Most people on this website already have a candidate and aren't going to be swayed by comments (least of all Hugh). |
|
Polls mean nothing at this point. Polls are about impressions of the populace. At least strawpolls are by likely voters who have listened to the candidates.
Consider this: January 10, 1980 Carter 63%; Reagan 32%; Dole lead Clinton most of the year by as many as 20 points until the election.
So I don't worry about polls.
Romney changed his positions. Big deal. I look at that as a strength. I want someone as president who is willing to change his mind when he acquires new information justifying a change.
Romney is a person I admire. I believe he is honest, intelligent and capable. He's someone I can point to and tell my kids: He's the president. Be like him. Don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't chase women. Raise a good family. Work hard and be successful in business. When you've succeeded in life, be willing to volunteer your time and skills to the service of your country.
Those of you opposing him do not know the real person. You are entitled to support men (or women) of lower morals, lesser intelligence, and lesser capability. But you do so to the detriment of the country, just like the supporters of Hilary.
|
|
Polls mean nothing. Eg. Januuary 10, 1980; Carter 63%; Reagan 32%.
Dole led Clinton by as much as 20 points most of the year, then lost the election.
Romney is a person I can trust. He is honest, intelligent and capable. He's someone I can point to and tell my kids, "He's the president. Be like him! Don't drink, smoke, or chase women. Work hard and be successful in business. And when you've achieved financial independence, volunteer you time and services to your country.
You who label politicians as flipfloppers do a diservice. Most of them have advocated positions they've regretted. So have you bloggers. I expect a president to change his mind when he's wrong.
Those who accuse Romney of misdeeds do not know the man. You may advocate for men (or women) of lower morals, lesser intelligence, and lesser capability, but you do so at the risk to our country.
What I know of him impresses me. I think he has the whole package of qualities we look for. You are entitled to disagree. I believe time and experience will prove me correct. |
|
I am not sure why but SurveyUSA has never been a Romney friendly poll. It has always had a strong anti Romney bias. Of the Rep pollsters Romney has always done poorly in the SurveyUSA polls. Rasmussen has a Thompson bias. Fox has a Rudy bias. Several of the MSM polls have a Rudy bias or a RudyMcCain bias. The polls move with the amount of positive press that a candidate gets. They will move some more.
Romney is about as Libertarian as Thompson is Conservative, which is not very. I do not consider Thompson to be any more conservative than Romney and Thompson is less conservative on some social issues (marriage amendment). Further, Fredheads would be very hard pressed to make the case that Thompson is much more conservative than McCain.
The Fred heads love to call Fred conservative but for the most part he played one in the Senate as he was Senator from TN. |
|
I know it is hard to know for sure if a person is truly honest. I do not know any of you personally, but I can tell when a person is fanatically biased, by the way, their points are made. Think about it. Let us be more intelligent and reasonable.
Mitt Romney is not known but in a few states. The states that know of him, where you claim he purchased votes, (Why is he putting in more time, even holidays to meet voters?) Tell me, why his organizations are rated the best. Why has he led in those polls? You know their votes cannot be bought.
If a belief in the first intent of the US Constitution as inspired of God is what Libertarians are about then Mitt Romney is Libertarian dyed over and over. Mormons are taught that the US Constitution is the Greatest Constitution and that it was inspired of God. They defend the Constitution tooth and nail.
Do not let ignorance keep you from knowing what the Mormons believe. Be faithful to Christ, live your religion or conscience. Respect others beliefs while they respect and honor your freedoms to worship sincerely, how, where and when you may.
I hope you will not mind if I suggest you learn how erroneous so many of you statements are about Mormons at their web site: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg. I have great respect for your feelings, and welcome your hones and sincere views.
Just ask one question, if every ones life depended on you and you were the only one who knew what to do. What would the answer be? The world is at that stage now. It is time to think before you leap. In addition, I suggest you get to know the entire lot of candidates well. Then meditate on that carefully, and if you are so inclined as most Americans, pray sincerely to be guided to make the right choice. However, do your homework first. Do not vote for the person who sounds like you. If our life depends on that be informed.
|
|
|
One thread here bothers me. For those concerned about Mitt being a Morman. What sect does Hillary belong to? Ron Paul may be a smart man but he comes across as a nut case. To me Hunter has the best positions. I am concerned about immigration as much as WOT because either one can destroy our way of life. Maybe a wall is a waste large fines for employers is easier and the government loves fines. McCain lost me holding Kennedy's hand. All the rest are still in play lets give it some time its a long way to the elections. |
|
Elections are won and lost. Eternity is on the other side of this life. And what we believe about the here and now and what's to come is more important that backing Mitt, Rudy, Duncan, Ron, Fred, and friends. I'll keep this brief...
Based on biblical evidence, Mormonism falls short. This is not an academic/semantic debate. Notice the following inconsistencies between biblical Christianity and Mormonism.
Depending upon if you follow the LDS or RLDS, Mormonism teaches that Jesus was an angel or that Jesus and Satan were brothers, both not found in Scripture (see Hebrews 1:13-14; John 3:16). Elsewhere Mormonism teaches that a counsel of gods decided to send Jesus to the earth to die for our sins and that we can become a god over our own planet, just like God Almighty. Contrast that with what Yahweh says about Himself, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. Besides Me there is no God...from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." (Isaiah 45: 5-7)
Many other inconsistencies between biblical truth and Mormonism abound. Log onto http://www.equip.org and search for Mormonism for more info.
That said, Mormons and Mitt fans on TH need to drop the "anyone opposed to Romney is an anti-Mormon bigot" mentality. I'm against Romney because I think he's another W and because I frankly don't believe him, Hugh's cheerleading and disregard for the performance of other candidates in blue states notwithstanding. |
|
There is no "anyone opposed to Romney is an anti-Mormon bigot" mentality with Romney fans. Those of you who post anti-Mormon tirades are the only ones labeled as bigots. You, Gabby, richard and joe-sixpack fall into that category.
Everyone else opposed to Romney for legitimate reasons do not.
|
|
"I'm against Romney because I think he's another W and because I frankly don't believe him, Hugh's cheerleading and disregard for the performance of other candidates in blue states notwithstanding. "
Fair enough. Why didn't you use that as the basis of your argument against Romney to begin with? Instead of citing supporting evidence to back up this assertion, you want to cite scripture to infer that Romney is unfit to serve because his beliefs don't square with what you think the Bible says. You then turn completely around and say that that isn't the reason why you won't vote for him. Nice. |
|
|
As much as it pains me to say it, people like LuckyRock2 are more numerous than you think. Mitt's LDS beliefs would not stop me from voting for him, but it will stop others. It is a liability. Sorry. |
|
|
I have a hypothesis that I would like to run by you or anyone who wishes to comment. I believe that for some, the apparent religious bigotry derives from political expediency alone (This is the "He is not my man in the primaries, so I will stir up commotion over his religion because some evangelicals have a problem with it." sort of thing.) For others, it is more of a fundamental bigotry. The real question is what proportion of the apparent bigots are politically motivated, and which are fundamental. How many with serious reservations about voting for anyone of his religion would put that aside and vote for him, were he the nominee? I do not doubt that it is the source of serious reservations for some, but I am not convinced that it is a big enough problem to trump his electability. |
|
Something to keep in mind before you start dismissing things out of hand.
Genesis 1:26 (KJV) "And God said, Let us make man in out image, after our own likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
Please note the plural used in this passage. It's at least worth acknowledging. One more little monkey wrench to consider is that it's another 11 verses before the creation of Adam.
|
|
the word out should be our
btw Please forgive me if my punctuation is not quite right. |
|
This is a reference to the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It is considered to acknowledge that is was Jesus who actually created the universe, as it says in John 1:3 "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." |
|
Some of the anti-Mormon stuff on the comments undoubtedly is politically motivated. Every Mormon I have ever met has been a model citizen. Religion is a personal issue to me, as long as it does not infringe on others, I don't care what anyone believes.
Some of my concerns about this are derived from my wife's reaction. She describes herself as an open minded liberal, and she thinks Islam is a religion of peace. (I don't)
I was kind of surprised by her reaction when the topic of Mormonism came up. Kooky, weird and cult-like were some of the words used. I've never known her to use such perjorative language about any other religion. This was a conversation completely unrelated to politics or Romney. |
|
Evangelical scholar Michael S. Heiser disagrees with you. Referring to Psalm 82 he says:
1. The plural "elohim" of Psalm 82:1 and 6 are divine beings, not human judges or humans fulfilling any role.
2. The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council. As the text explicitly says, there are other "elohim".
3. References to “us” and “our” in passages like Genesis 1:26 do not refer to the Trinity. The plural "elohim" of Psalm 82 are also not members of the Trinity.
4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere (“there is no god beside me”) do not constitute denials of the existence of other "elohim". Rather, they are statements of Yahweh’s incomparability.
5. The God of Israel did at times make himself known to people in the Old Testament in ways detectable to the human sense, including the corporeal.
6. The Mormon understanding of God is not inherently polytheistic. It is polytheistic if Latter-day Saints insist that all "elohim" are speciesequals, which depends in part on how they parse the divine council.
7. “Spirit beings,” such as the plural "elohim" of Psalm 82, are created and therefore made of something. Invisibility does not mean that the invisible thing is immaterial. All things created were made, and are made, of some form of matter, whether we can detect it by our sense or science or not. To deny this would mean that “spirit beings” are not part of the created order.
8. Jesus’s quotation of Psalm 82 in John 10 is no argument for his deity (or rebuttal to the charge of blasphemy) if it is assumed that Jesus thought the "elohim" of Psalm 82 were humans. |
|
Gabby writes: "The founding fathers trusted congress, not the president, to lead us into war."
Read the Constitution again.
The Founding Fathers did trust the President to handle the foreign policy of the United States of America. It's the Executive Branch, not Congress, that receives foreign ambassadors and negotiates with foreign governments. It's the Executive Branch that represents America to NATO and the U.N., at which the United States gets to say what it thinks of what is going on in the rest of the world.
Ron Paul cannot duck THAT responsibility because it's part of that same Constitution he professes to admire so much.
Yet Ron Paul refuses to say just what his foreign policy toward Iran would be. Is he going to insist that Iran not build nukes? Is he going to insist that Iran stop siccing Hezbollah on Israel? He has hinted that he has no problem with anything Iran is currently doing--he hasn't even called them out on their sending military aid to Iraqi militias to kill American troops.
Perhaps Ron Paul thinks that "noninterventionism" also implies "nonjudgmentalism" where Iran, North Korea, etc., are concerned. He sure hasn't rendered any negative judgments about what they're doing, has he?
I'll put it to you, Gabby: Are you just "noninterventionalist" where Iran is concerned, or are you actually "nonjudgmental" as well?
|
|
|
|