Monday, November 05, 2007
|
|
It's Official: Romney is the Social Conservative Alternative
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
3:05 PM
|
Gary Marx, Mitt Romney's social conservative outreach director is smiling somewhere.
... A day after Fred Thompson said he would not support the pro-Life plank in the Republican platform, David Brody reports conservative leader Paul Weyrich has endorsed Mitt Romney.
To me, this endorsement is very significant for two reasons:
1. Weyrich's endorsement implies conservative leaders have finally given up hope of finding the perfect candidate, and have settled for Romney as the better alternative to Giuliani and Thompson.
2. Weyrich is a highly-respected conservative movement leader, and my guess is his endorsement will create a sort of domino effect. ... Could conservative heavy-weights like Richard Viguerie, Morton Blackwell, and Phyllis Schlafly be far behind?
Like him or not, Mitt Romney deserves kudos for pulling this endorsement off. Who would have predicted, a few years ago, that the then-pro-Choice Mormon from Massachusetts would get the endorsement of conservatives ranging from Bob Jones III to Paul Weyrich?
Clearly this is a well-run campaign that has also benefitted from a weak conservative field ...
|
|
|
I will take Romney over Huckabee. Not sure if he can go the distance and beat McCain. Not sure he is really a social conservative. He seems to talk a lot, however. |
|
You know, when Romney's lead against Giuliani fell to only 2 points in a Rasmussen Poll, everyone was like, "LOOK, LOOK, Romney is finally falling apart! Even Rasmussen says so and Rasmussen is the BEST!".
Now here we are a month later and Romney has EXPLODED his lead against Giuliani in NH to + 15 points according to the latest Rasmussen Poll.
Where are the headlines? Where is the amazement? No, unless you actually go to a story that is specifically "about" polls, you won't see this surge mentioned ANYWHERE.
I have watched RealClearPolitics.com since the day this astounding numbers were released. Not one headline. Not one story.
During the same time I have seen numerous stories about how "Huckabee is Surging!" and "Huckabee can Win Iowa!" - Huckabee is behind Romney by 16 points in Iowa, and yet, according to the news he is "surging and nipping at Romney's heels - what is poor Romney to do?"
I've seem numerous stories about Giuliani being endorsed by the uber-slick, power and money whoring Pat Robertson (that no evangelical I know respects in the least). Romney is beating Giuliani in NH by 15 points, yet Giuliani gets all the prss.
CONCLUSION:
It is my opinion that the bulk of the RWM (Right Wing Media) HATE Mitt Romney.
Even though the Christian Religion is based upon the concepts of repentance, conversion and forgiveness, they insist on condemning Romney because he used to be pro-choice (and yet he always governed pro-life, which is more than I can say for Ronald Reagan when he was Governor).
They refuse to believe that anyone can actually change their mind on abortion even though the ONLY hope for the pro-life platform is that pro-choice people "change their minds".
It stinks of hypocrisy. |
|
And if the GOP wants to win it needs someone more solid than Romney.
It's the primaries we're looking at, not the election! So enough arm-twisting from Rudy supporters who say "he's the ONLY one who can beat Hillary".
And enough with these kool-aid-sipping Christian leaders falling all over themselves for Romney (and today, Pat Robertson for Rudy, sheesh! Doesn't your fight for the unborn all these years mean anything, Pat?)
Tim C is dead-on and I can't wait for Ron Paul to upset Romney.
But I'm pulling for Huckabee. We HAVE a rock-solid Christian conservative in the field. (Not knocking Hunter/Tancredo, but they just haven't caught fire, and their supporters ought to get behing Huck.)
Bash Huck if you want, but he's MORE conservative, and more consistently so, than (from the top-tier down) Rudy, Mitt, Thompson, and McCain. The only other Republican that may be more conservative is Paul. And that's why I say...
Huckabee/Paul '08! |
|
|
But I can't help but wonder if this official declaration was made in a private meeting of "heavyweights", or by you this morning in your underwear? I'll do my own thinking, thanks. |
|
|
a likely poorly run administration. Fred has no leadership or oganizational skills. |
|
|
Fred is my second choice but so far he has run a really bad campaign. Further, it gets worse every week. |
|
Well, I don't know about the drafting of Fred - it was more his wife than anyone. But it's true that social conservatives are finding out that Fred is lazy and has no heart or competence, that Huck is not a conservative at all, and that they just might have to swallow hard and vote for Romney. He has done what everyone thought was impossible a year ago. I think he deserves a lot of credit for that.
His planning, organization, skill, hard work and intelligence have given him the spot that Fred, Huck and McCain all wish they had. |
|
|
is either anti-semitic or rascist! It's the new neocon "Lindsey Graham Syndrome". |
|
Not.
There are millions of us who usually vote GOP who WILL NOT vote for Rudy, for a variety of reasons. For me it's the amnesty issue, for others it's life, still others, homosexuality or gun rights. Whatever the issue is, it is a bright line we will not cross. No amount of Hillaryscare, intimidation, name-calling or cajoling will get us to vote for Rudy. He's in the wrong party. Rudy supporters are like someone holding a gun to his own head and threatening to blow his brains out unless we do what they say. Well, go ahead. Don't blame us, we tried to warn you. |
|
PC asks: "Why is Fred running in the first place?"
Because the social conservatives drafted him into the race.
They have been frantically searching for the candidate who will be as much in their pocket on "values" issues as Bush was. First they drafted Fred. Then when he refused to back their Federal Marriage Amendment as a violation of his federalist principles, they dumped him and said Newt Gingrich was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then when Newt decided not to run, the Values Voters Summit cheered Huckabee.
They never in their wildest dreams ever imagined they would ever be stuck supporting a MORMON for President.
But here they are.
|
|
He's got the drive, experience, organization, brains and MONEY to compete against Hillary. She's swimming in cash folks, having someone who can compete with that is a HUGE asset.
I think Romney's personal life matches up best against Hillary as well, if she's going to play the, "Vote for me because I'm a woman" angle. Rock solid marriage, 5 fantastic sons. You compare that (to the voters who care about personal life) to the Clinton "Alliance", and I think Romney walks away the winner.
Not to mention the fact that he will eat her for BREAKFAST in any debate, and it's a done deal. |
|
ry writes: "As Mitt Romney explained in a 2002 debate, he was neither pro-choice nor pro-life at the time."
What Romney said in his debate with Ted Kennedy in 1994:
"Abortion should be safe and legal. I sustain and support Roe v. Wade, and the right of a woman to make that choice."
-- Mitt Romney, debate with Ted Kennedy, 1994
I live in Massachusetts. I lived here when Romney ran for Senator so I know what he was saying at the time. I'm laughing at Romney's attempts to masquerade as a social conservative. That is such a departure from how he painted himself back then.
|
|
In the coming months. Now that he has the proven fund raising clout, Dr. Paul's platform of small government, sound money, low taxes, peaceful relations with our neighbors and individual rights will be broadcast far and wide. The message resonates with those who want the government to leave them be to sink or swim on their own merit while living peaceful, productive lives. The message resonates with Americans. Plus he's been consistent for 30 years, as opposed to Mitt's 2.
|
|
Flip Flopper Mitt Romney can flip flop when needed to be more liberal than liberal democrat Ted Kennedy, and than Mitt Romney tries to flip flop and lie that he is more conservative, than a Consistent Conservative Republican.
Mitt Romney is a liar, and as with all liars, he does not have principles or values on which to stand. So, Mitt Romney tries to buy conservative votes.
That is truly more telling of Mitt Romney's dishonest character, and his phony conversion to conservatism, than his new professional lies for president. |
|
Fred has renounced his vote since he decided to run for president, saying it was a mistake. But I just heard him defending it again on Hannity a moment ago. Fred doesn't even know what he believes! It's just like yesterday. First he said he would not run on the life platform. Then his camapaign spokesperson came out and said he WOULD run on the platform.
Poor Fred. |
|
Championed the curtailing of free speech.
Lobbyied for abortion providers.
Was pro-choice and is still wishy-washy on life.
Opposes the marriage amendment.
Opposes the life amendment.
Was for open borders as a senator - graded a "C".
Refused to vote to impeach Clinton.
Blew the job of investigating the Clinton fundraising scandal.
Hired Spencer Abraham.
Did not fight for ANY conservative cause as a senator.
|
|
|
...in the generals. Right now, it just annoys some of you out there, because it works against your guy in the primary. It is much more fun when you have it working in your favor. |
|
She can say he is "too slick", "too good to be true" and "not to be trusted".
Um, not.
People wouldn't be sure if she was talking about Romney or complaining about her husband. |
|
I have read many posts saying that if Romney gets the Republican Nomination, Hillary will KILL him on the "flip-flopping" issues.
Oh really? Have you thought that out?
The expression, "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind.
Hillary's ACHILLES HEEL has been that she wants to come down on both sides of every issue, right? Now most intellectually honest people would call this "flip-flopping in real-time".
Ok, since "flip-flopping" is Hillary's greatest weakness, does she want to point that out about her opponent?
That's like a guy covered in shyte telling the other guy he stinks.
No, if Romney gets the Republican Nomination, you will see ZERO from the Hillary Camp on "flip-flopping".
Ok, what else does Hillary have?
Can she go after Romney for scandals? Good luck.
Can she go after him for family values? Good luck.
How about lack of experience? Um, no.
How about just saying he is dumb? Lol, that's a funny one.
The ONLY thing Hillary can go after Romney for is THAT HE IS TOO CONSERVATIVE which just improves his image with his base!
I'm telling you, in the General Election, Romney is BULLET-PROOF and that's why the Hillary Camp is the MOST afraid of him. |
|
So Rudy Giuliani isn’t a stereotypical pro-lifer. I’m still waiting for Dobson, or Land, or Weyrich to explain why that should matter. The thoughtful pro-life voter will conclude that the choice next year will be between Rudy and Hillary, and rather than stomp off in a huff, one will have to seriously consider how to keep the pro-life agenda moving forward, if that is the priority. With Rudy Giuliani opposed to expanding Medicaid-funded abortions beyond the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, his opposition to funding abortion services in foreign nations, his support for parental notification on abortions for minors, his support for the ban on partial-birth abortions, and his promise to appoint conservative justices to the courts, he’s giving us pro-life voters precisely what George W. Bush gave us in 2000 and 2004. Most pro-life Christians I know understand this.
|
|
|
I think what we are looking for is people to change thier veiws to the right. Romney might be the way to go for the Republican party. |
|
While all the candidates have great accomplishments, Fred seems to have the best balance between a record of conservatism over time along with knowledge of foreign affairs, domestic policy and minimalist Federalsim. Who knows what Mitt thinks this week?
If you had told me in 2004 that I'd be voting for the flip-flopper from MA, I'd have said you were crazy. Now I may end up with little option. Yeah, Mitt is saying the right things now to appeal to a conservative audience the same way he did to appeal to the MA libs. Add to this that he and Rudy both would throw the south into play for the Dems and either one looks like a terrible choice. |
|
In the first place since when is Romney an alternative candidate? He's been one of the leaders in the money race through out the year and is leading by wide margins in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's very much an establishment candidate.
Second, is Romney a conservative? I know it's a stupid question but there's a perception among a lot of conservatives he's not.
Third, he's a mormon, I know it shouldn't matter but a newsweek poll said that 35% of the country would not vote for a mormon period many of whom I'm sure are conservative christians wary of mormon beliefs and practices.
Fourth, everything else aside Romney's a slick talking east-coast ceo is he really going to sell well in places in the middle of the country like Kentucky, or Missouri?
|
|
|
I'm sure Hilliary is thrilled about Weyrich's endorsement of Romney as this will surely help her get to the White House. The only candidate who can compete with her is RUDY. Social issues have nothing to do with successfully leading a country. Have you no idea what Rudy did for Manhattan? I say to John who wrote "WAKE UP REPUBLICANS," YOU WAKE UP! |
|
Jack Shiite wrote;
-------------------
"I am sure that my list of colorful insults is MUCH smaller than your list. In fact, I seem to recall you calling me an anti-semite, racist, nutjob, truther, etc.."
-------------------
Jack Shiite, I never claimed to be above making colorful insults---but you suggested that you are above it.
By the way, the reason I call you an 'anti-semite' and a 'nut' is because...you are an anti-semite and a nut !
|
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the law. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's not ignore them any more.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
|
Today conservative activist Paul Weyrich endorsed Mitt Romney for president. A friend points out that Weyrich doesn't have, um, the best record of predicting the eventual Republican nominee. In 2000, Weyrich was for Steve Forbes (who now backs this guy). I'm not sure whom Weyrich endorsed in 1996, or if he did endorse anyone in 1996, but in this column Weyrich seems to indicate he didn't care at all for the eventual Republican nominee. In 1988, Weyrich endorsed Jack Kemp, who lost the nomination to George H.W. Bush. And in 1980, Weyrich backed John Connally over Ronald Reagan. |
|
From weeklystandard blog:
Today conservative activist Paul Weyrich endorsed Mitt Romney for president. A friend points out that Weyrich doesn't have, um, the best record of predicting the eventual Republican nominee. In 2000, Weyrich was for Steve Forbes (who now backs this guy). I'm not sure whom Weyrich endorsed in 1996, or if he did endorse anyone in 1996, but in this column Weyrich seems to indicate he didn't care at all for the eventual Republican nominee. In 1988, Weyrich endorsed Jack Kemp, who lost the nomination to George H.W. Bush. And in 1980, Weyrich backed John Connally over Ronald Reagan. |
|
Who Will Be the Leading GOP Presidential Contenders in 2008
2006-12-28 -- USA Religious News
WASHINGTON, DC (AgapePress) - A conservative activist and political commentator predicts three 2008 Republican presidential candidates will set themselves apart from the rest of the pack over the next year.
The three candidates Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation is referring to are Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Weyrich, who has been involved in politics for decades, says twice Governor Huckabee had him "on the [edge] of his chair" during a recent forum.
According to Weyrich, the former Baptist preacher "can speak like no other candidate."
"He is dynamic, he is exciting, he believes in all the right things," says Weyrich in describing the Arkansas governor. "I think that if conservatives really got behind him, that they would bump him up to be a first-tier candidate."
As for Newt Gingrich, Weyrich says the former Speaker is "always good out of office, but as soon as he gets in office, he isn't good anymore."
And when it comes to Romney, Weyrich offers a cautionary note, saying conservatives need to be wary, given the governor's flip-flopping on front-burner issues like abortion and homosexual "marriage."
"Governor Romney is going to make an attempt to sound like us," say Weyrich. "[But] I don't think he is; I don't think he's the genuine article. And I think he really ought to be closely examined, especially for the flip-flops he now claims he's done on abortion, on same-sex marriage, on any number of issues -- including hate crimes, by the way."
|
|
Rudy is a liberal on social issues and will operate like on if in office. Fred is not a true social conservative. He was a senator from a conservative state but he really is more like McCain in many ways than DeMint.
Romney has changed a couple of positions but McCain has changed a lot more on major issues. No one give McCain grief over morphing into whatever position he has to.
Romney has been more stable on positions than McCain and Romney does not despise the Religious Right. |
|
|
Huck meets a lot of them too (at first glance, wish I had more time for that right now) |
|
The best candidate for conservatives by far is Duncan Hunter. He is solid on conservative values and led everyone on the immigration issue by getting the law passed to build the border fence. He has promised to build the entire fence immediately if he is elected. He is also a former business owner and Army Ranger in Vietnam so he has success outside of politics. When he was first elected to Congress he upset an 18 year incumbent in a district that had a 2-1 Democratic Party advantage in registered voters. That shows he can win crossover votes. Finally, he has been married for 34 years and shows the values in his personal life that he champions in his public life.
Huckabee is a non-starter as a candidate. Wayne DuMond will be his version of Willie Horton. I can't vote for someone who believes in releasing murderers and rapists back out onto the streets. His supporters can find an excuse for his liberal tax and spend record since he governed in a liberal state, but what is his excuse for releasing murderers and rapists from jail? What is his excuse for wanting to grant college scholarships to illegal aliens?
Tancredo is a good candidate but lost a lot of credibility with me when I found out he had illegal aliens working on fixing the basement in his own house. If you can't secure your own house, how can you secure the country? I can see the Clinton campaign ads now.
Romney causes a lot of unease with me and a lot of conservatives because of his past statements on social issues. The problem is his reliability not his religion.
Conservatives need to wake up and start supporting Hunter. |
|
on the US female vote to win the election. She is playing the "poor me gender card" about the big boys ganging up/pilling up on her and Macho Bill is running to her rescue. Transparent nonsense.
My female take on all this is that females of all political labels will see her as wimpy, not strong, like she tries to project herself.
Sure, women are proud of her accomplishments. I'm also proud of Sec'y Rice and other female rising stars in industry and in the public arena. But Hillary is a mixed bag (pardon the pun). She is both a credit and an embarrassment to modern mums.
In one poll Romney has the majority of females! I predict that trend with continue. Women see his record and see his wife, and watch his media exposure like hawks. We females find much to admire in Mitt, not just the GOP females.
This is my non-scientific prediction that females will continue to shift towards Mitt as the election year wears on. Women gather data (info) just as Mitt does and that data is in Romney's favor. 2008 will show a decided female shift towards Mitt and the election might even be decided by independent and Demo females voting for Mitt. I expect the election to be very close. This female will be voting for Mitt. |
|
|
I believe Mr. Romney is the only Republican that can win in 08. He is the only Republican that can win Michigan(his home state) and/or Ohio. His Electoral College numbers add up. The other candidates numbers add up to Mrs. Clinton winning. Republican should get behind this man. He is the one that represents our values and can win. The same reasons half of the country wont vote for Mrs. Clinton are the same reasons half wont vote for Rudy. Wake up Republicans, do the Electoral College math. Winning is the only thing to focus on. It is time for us to give Mitt strong consideration. |
|
|
I think Boomshak is merely pointing out the overwhelming qualifications of Romney - do you not agree that they are impressive? |
|
few other key requirements for the presidential candidate
1) Must have connection to Olympics in a leadership capacity
2)Must have a link to our country favorite pastime (baseball) in their name
3) Must have at least 4 sons in the family, 5 highly preferred
4) Must have some connection to the Mormon/LDS faith system
Wow! I mean wow! I dont know guys, I think Mitt is the only one who still passes everyone of these stringent requirements.
|
|
Romney is not Hillary in any way, shape or form. Yes, he said some pretty over the top things running against Ted Kennedy and even when he ran for governor. But if you look as his actual record, he did govern as a conservative in a very liberal place.
For me, it comes down to Romney somehwat by default. He is the best choice I think we have in this field. I made that decision many months ago and I have not seen anything happen to make me change. If Hunter had more support, I would have definitely considered him.
And, yes, sometimes I think some on the religious right are sanctimonious. Why do some of them take offence just because a prominent Christian conservative leader voices support for Romney? I haven't heard any of them try to browbeat others into supporting him also.
|
|
SO why doesn't he do the honorable thing and step aside? His heart is not in it ~ he said so. He needs to let the others make their case without him muddying up the water.
Why is Fred running in the first place? |
|
Ok, here are my MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS for the Presidency:
1. Must have been a leader of something major where the ultimate responsibility for its success or failure fell squarely on his/her shoulders.
2. Must have governed a major cite or state. Yes that means Senators and Congressmen need not apply.
3. Must have created, overseen and been held responsible for a multi-billion dollar budget.
4. Must have been responsible for the health and welfare of millions of people.
5. Must have raised government revenues without raising taxes.
6. Should be well-educated from one of our nation’s top universities. Graduate degrees preferred. Should have graduated near the top of their class.
7. Should have experienced success in business outside of government showing that they get the “real world”.
8. Should have authored major legislation that created real change that can be objectively measured.
9. Prefer they have a rock-solid family life that can be an example to our young of how marriage can work.
10. Should have major civic achievements outside of direct business or politics (e.g., saving the olympics from financial ruin and turning into a huge financial success).
Ok, there’s my list.
Mitt Romney passes with flying colors on EVERY SINGLE ONE of those requirements. Next in line would be Rudy Giuliani.
Fred Thompson DOES NOT MEET ONE SINGLE REQUIREMENT! NOT ONE!
Get it? |
|
Who was #1?
A guy named Paul. You may have heard of him as he wrote about half of the New Testament. He used to be named "Saul" and he persecuted Christians, swearing to wipe them from the face of the earth. Untrustworthy fellow, that.
Who was #2?
A guy named Ronald Reagan. He used to be pro-choice and then ran for the White House as pro-life. Glad he never became President.
The amusing thing about all this is that REPENTANCE, CONVERSION and FORGIVENESS are the very cornerstones of the Christian faith. And yet, we are told by Christians that we cannot forgive Romney because he repented and converted on the issue of abortion?
Repentance is not a sin; hypocrisy is. |
|
Jack Shiite wrote;
-----------------
"Oh boy... I promised not to attack Romney's supporters, but you are definitely pushing it with that crap."
-----------------
Oh, Jack Shiite, that's silly for you to posture as if you're somehow above attacking people.
There's a whole Townhall archive full of your colorful insults.
|
|
What is a Wahhabi Conservatives? These are the ideological extremists who go around insulting Republican leaders, like calling Rudy Giuliani a RINO, John McCain a traitor, and Mitt Romney a liberal. They imagine that they have the authority to define who is and who is not a conservative. I call them Wahhabi Conservatives because they are like the Wahhabi Muslims who believe any Muslim who is not exactly like them is an infidel.
I am sure Clinton will encourage the Wahhabi Conservatives to be more vocal. That Harper's article is a good start. Clinton believes she can tear Fred apart. But Clinton fears facing Romney, not just because Romney has the energy to fight her across the country, something Fred does not have, but because she does not want the Presidential election to turn into a discussion on morality and traditional family values. If it's about those, she and her husband will lose. |
|
He is not a conservative!
He foisted a mandatory health insurance program on all of Massachausetts citizens, which they have to purchase whether they want it or not, and whether they can afford it or not, and whether they think it is a prudent purchase or not.
So, just relax: Slick Mitt knows what's best for all you poor saps out there in fly over country who dont know how to make wise consumer decisions for yourselves.
And now he wants to take it to his "Masachusetts plan" to the national level and inflict it upon the rest of the nation-which is... (surprise, surprise!) precisely what Hillary also wants to do. (make everybody in American buy
a health insurance policy whether they want it or not.)
No thanks, Mitt If yiyu mange to buy oiut the GOP nominatin, I'll vote 3rd party. Be careful what you pay for it, because it won't be worth much if you can buy it.
|
|
These preachers, like Dr. Bob Jones # 3,have gotten a little bit too big for their britches, and now they apparently think they can annoint a King Old Testament style.
Well, Sorry, but Christian voters will not follow Dr. Jones like sheep.
I'll vote third party if Mitt "I am a flipper not a flopper" Mr Romney manages to purchase the GOP nomination.
Furthermore, if that party purchase takes place Mitt will have paid way too much money for the nomination, because the nomination won't be worth a plug nickel.
Slick Mitt Romney is a flip flopping Massachusetts liberal who imposed-by force of-law a MANDATORY government mandated health insurance scheme on all the people of Massahchusetts, whether they want it or not, and whether they can afford it or not.
(which is coincidentally what Hillary also wants to do)
And Now, thew slickster wants to take his version of state government mandated health care to the federal level.
No thanks!!
This guy is just a little too slick to trust.
|
|
Thanks for saying what I was thinking about Huckabee.
Myself, I have been thinking, what are these Christian leaders sniffing, to endorse Romney, when what they say they want, someone like Huck, is right under their noses? I could understand it if there were no rock-solid Christian conservative in the GOP field. Then, yeah, Mormon conservative would suit me just fine.
Huckabee is no worse on being un-conservative as a Governor (I would say far less worse) than Romney. Consider also, that both were conservatives in heavily liberal states. That's gotta be a hard job to do, not that we shouldn't carefully examine each one's performance.
People who knee-jerk & say "amnesty" & "big-spender" aren't doing enough research on Huck, though.
Huckabee/Paul '08! (Or vice versa?) |
|
Rasmussen also says that Rudy and Romney have the best chance of winning. Rasmussen is not dumb enough to focus on a national poll and predict victory for the nomination. He and the rest of the pollsters know that the national polls in an open fluid primary are probably not correlated with winning the nomination.
A CBS poll had Kerry at 4 % nationally in Dec of 2003. Within weeks he had the nomination locked up. He had been 1 or 2 in IA and NH for much of 2003. |
|
The Rasmussen poll candidates wave with some regularity as the candidates get good press. Huck has been gaining ground as Fred has been losing it. Since this is a national poll it means little. Show me one early primary state that Huck is going to win?
Romney usually does poorly over the weekend and then gains thru MTWR and then starts to lose again about F or S. |
|
|
to political pressure if he were president. He is already a big government guy, and I can imagine that he would be all too willing to cave in to the democrats and go for more taxes and more regulation. |
|
|
Huckabee likes to spend way too much money in office. He is liberal fiscally. |
|
...says Rasmussen Presidential tracking poll.
By 2 percentage points, 12% to 10%, and has been steadily rising as Romney has been sinking. And thats with a spending differential of about 52 million dollars (Mitt) to only about 1.5 million dollars (Huck).
Nothing in this string about Huck, but look at the national media stories now popping out; Huckabee is the real beneficiary of Thompson stepping in it on Sunday, not Romney. |
|
I am cautious for several reasons.
1. Rudy has support of much but not all of the the press and they manipulate the national polling numbers.
2. Romney needs good national and head to head numbers. Those will happen when he wins IA and then NH. I expect NH to be a no hold barred brutal battle to the death of McCain with Rudy in the middle. Very early on I supported McCain. The more I see of him the less I respect him. He really is a politician in the worst sense of the word.
3. Voters are quirky and there are enough undecideds and weak supporters that it is not a lock. Further, Independents can vote in NH and MI. I suspect that Obama will still be a hot issue all the way to Super T. That hurts McCain as does Ron Paul who has more money than McCain.
Romney has the best GOTV, I am counting on that pulling him through the tough battles. |
|
|
Good play-by-play! I would not be as cautious as to say that Michigan and later SC and FL would be such close races for Romney and Guliani. If he wins IA, NH, NV, he will have an unstoppable momentum. I just don't think it will be as close as everyone thinks. I've been projecting the same scenario for some time and it's nice to here someone with the same conclusion. It's logic, really. Some can absorb the facts without emotion, and some can't. You are someone that can do it. |
|
Winning the endorsement of a social conservative "leader" might have been an ex cathedra anointing before the Internet age, but there are just too many of us free-thinking SocCons who refuse to blindly follow the edicts of the modern-day scribes and Pharisees.
I admire Mitt Romney for his exemplary personal morality, but I find that his positions on key issues are determined not by principle but by the crowd he's playing to: Blue State positions for Massachusetts, Red State positions to win the GOP nomination. Would those positions change back again once the nomination is his? The Democrats could have as big a field day with Romney in '08 as the Republicans did with Kerry in '04.
Mike Huckabee is the one authentic social conservative in the race, and rank-and-file Republicans who have examined his record are unshakeable in their support for him. He may not have the money or the political machine that Romney has, but he has been consistently climbing in the polls, so much so that the other "top-tier" candidates have resorted to distorting his record.
The self-appointed "leaders" of the social conservative movement want to back a winner to regain their relevance among GOP elites. By doing so, they risk losing the loyalty of their rank-and-file. |
|
|
Dunno...but a gun grabbing (redacted), certainly, and that is enough to be a deal-breaker. |
|
|
If the GOP simply needs a wealthy, liberal, successful businessman, then draft Bill Gates at the convention! |
|
|
|
|
RickV404: How are we going to be disappointed if Romney is elected? Give us some facts rather than just empty rhetoric. |
|
Hillary won't be able to use any flip-flops of our guys - Romney, Rudy or Fred. She has about a million of her own.
Romney outclasses Fred is every measure: leadership, organization, experience, resume, family life, energy, campaign strategy, fundraising, etc. I could go on, but what's the point. Fred cannot beat Romney period. |
|
A Romney win in IA sets up a run for Romney. NH, WY, MI and NV are Romney friendly territory. He also has the money and the organization to capitalize.
If Romney becomes the candidate of the Religious Right SC and FL become Romney friendly. |
|
There is a long way to go but the way things are shaping up today I would rather be in Romney's shoes.
Romney will win IA, Huck/Rudy will run 2 or 3. Fred and McCain will run 4 or 5. Huck is forcing Rudy to spend more money in IA than he planned.
NH will be a fierce battle. McCain will throw most of what he has into NH. That will force Rudy to spend more. I would give an edge to Romney in NH based on a win in IA and home town advantage with Rudy/McCain in 2nd or 3rd. Ron Paul will eat into the Independent vote and may place higher than 4th. Romney's national poll numbers rocket.
Wyo fits in about the 5th of Jan. Romney should take Wyo especially if Fred is blown out of IA and NH and Huck hits a brick wall in NH.
MI (15th) will be another fierce and very expensive battle. McCain will throw the rest of what he has into MI. Rudy will have to spend more than he wants. I would give Romney an edge due to home field advantage, momentum and organization.
NV (19th) should be a Romney win. Another Western state that is Romney friendly. Rudy is second and who knows after that.
SC is a free for all but Romney wins based on momentum from IA, NH, and MI. Rudy is probably 2nd. Fred is defeated after failing to run better than 4th in any major state and is out of money. McCain hits the money wall also. Huck never had any money and his second place in IA evaporated in NH.
FL it is now a Romney Rudy race and Rudy has spent much of his money. Romney will force Rudy to spend more.
Super Tuesday is a Romney Rudy race but Romney has more money and momentum. |
|
Clearly this is a person of exceptional leadership and acumen. He fought in the toughest state in America. His record is clear on abortion, family and competence. The United States would benefit greatly from his mix of background and experience.
|
|
Rudy is running a stealth campaign in NH. He is sending out direct mail pieces saying he will stop illegal immigration.
Open borders sanctuary city Rudy is pretending to be closed borders Rudy., but he is doing it off radar. The press of course will give him a pass on this double speak which is worse than a flip flop.
I guess Rudy is born again like McCain when it comes to immigration. I wonder how long that conversion will last? |
|
|
|
and continue to hammer home conservative values that can unite the voters. He's not running as the nation's pastor but as the nation's hardest working executive. At this moment he is the nation's hardest working candidate!
He brings energy, experience, independence, personal boundaries (manners and respect for others), conflict resolution in several arenas, seasoned leadership in both business and government, financial restraint leadership experience, legal and business training, candor, statesmanship, public speaking skills, and a plan. Please go to his web site and download his blueprint. http://www.mittromney.com. See what he has to say about taxes and every other subject that interests you. This man is prepared and public about the changes he wants to make in Washington.
It is amazing that he is willing to use his intellect, energy, and love of this nation to take the time to work furiously in the early states to hold open forums where people can ask him questions. He knows he doesn't have the name recognition. He can take the heat of this long campaign and is prepared to do so.
Most people turning 60 with a great family and the means to enjoy them would coast into their sunset years. Not Romney. He has the sense he should give back to the nation he loves. His salary as president will be given to charity. He's not doing this for the money and he's already had plenty of recognition. Ann is willing to be by his side even though she has severe health challenges and would rather be a grandmother than be in the public limelight. We are a lucky nation that Mitt and Ann are willing to serve us. I guarantee that the White House china will not be stolen this time. |
|
|
It's about time some of these "influential" conservatives started to clue in on the realities of next years race. Yes, he is conservative and he has shown that. When it comes down to who can beat Hillary, we all know that it will be Hillary & Media vs the GOP candidate. This being the case we need the most well run GOP campaign in history. After careful analysis from the time he announced his candidacy until now, I can say his campaign is the strongest, fastest moving, and most creative of any I have ever seen. He has used the media better than any other candidate and has attacked the key states correctly. I anxiously await the battle of our time between the Clinton machine and the best businessman in the U.S. Nobody will be disappointed. |
|
Romney will come off to the general electorate as the pandering opportunist that he is. It would really be sad if Republicans got the flip flopper from Mass this time around- talk about irony!
BTW- you can say all you want about Fred, but I don't see him all over YouTube crowing about how much of a liberal he is. You think Hillary won't use that? At least a Fred candidacy doesn't throw the entire South into play. |
|
As Mitt Romney explained in a 2002 debate, he was neither pro-choice nor pro-life at the time. Instead, Romney agreed to preserve the status-quo (a position he describes as "effectively pro-choice" due to the state of the status-quo in Massachusetts).
Those who do not understand Romney's 2002 position accuse him of pandering. In reality, Romney--who has since become pro-life--willingly jeopardized his 2002 campaign (and exposed his inner personal conflict) when he rejected the label of "pro-choice." |
|
When he conceded a hot button issue in Massachusetts he was not being true to himself or his faith. He now is. His religion teaches that all of us existed with God, our literal Heavenly Father, before coming to earth to experience the trials and temptations, as well as the joy, that come with having bodies.
It follows from that that God expects us to exercise judgment and discipline in the use of our procreative powers, and that the ability to bear children is one of the greatest trusts we are given by him.
I can't imagine any lifelong member of the LDS religion to agree that abortion should be a Constitutional right. The effect it has on societies where it was practiced in the past and is practiced today is disastrous. It carries with it the idea that children are an annoyance and a burden rather than gifts from God and the future of our nation.
Calling Romney a flip-flopper suggests that one doesn't believe in repentance or learning from experience. He is running now in a campaign where his true feelings about abortion are truly important, not just an irrelevance as they were to a gubernatorial election. He had no power as a governor to affect abortion as a federal right. As a president, he would, and he has stated his position quite clearly and stongly. It's not going to change if he wins the nomination. Comparing him to John Kerry is not only false, but would deny conservatives of one of the best leaders they could have had. |
|
Either it will be Hillary Clinton or the guy who flops about as much as Bill.
Oh joy </sarcasm> |
|
|
Romney has no more flips than Fred or Rudy. And he has no skeletons as far as his personal life goes. Rudy's scandals would be delicious to the dems, and Fred couldn't/wouldn't last one day against the Hillary machine. He's truned out to be just as lazy as he was portrayed. |
|
|
Jones and Weyrich have endorsed the wrong guy IMO. Mitt has too many "skeletons" that Hillary would use to pummel him in a general. Just look at everything on YouTube where Romney brags about how liberal he is. The left will accept flip-flopping more than most conservatives will. While I'd hold my nose and vote for him, I was really hoping it wouldn't have to come to that- maybe it still won't. A guy has to have SOME hope, right? |
|
|
That's a good reason to fear him. It's not surprising Weyrich supported him. He would have supported any Republican who merely looked a winner. Prepare to be disappointed if he's president. |
|
Your comment as to Mr. Romney's viability as a candidate is the result of a "weak field" of conservative candidates is weak beer. His credentials are far and away more suited to the quest for the Presidency than the other candidates in the field. Mayors and Senators have proven deficit in the experience dept. to really offer much at the national level. Congressmen (and women) even more so.
Mr. Romney can win and Hillary's team know it. Of all the candidates in the field with any standing whatsoever it is Mitt Romney the Democrats don't want to contest the most. |
|
|
|
|
Curious mind want to know! |
|
|
...social conservatism. He is not trying to have it both ways, nor is he giving himself an out for taking a socially conservative position. |
|
...Matt Lewis posted a blog entry in which he said he doesn't read the comments section any more. So, I guess the comments people post only make sense if they are addressed to the comment posters, rather than Lewis himself.
This is good news for Romney. I would like to hope this means the evangelical movement is showing some maturity, but there is still a lot of Mormon-bashing around.
Let's all do our part to improve the tone of discourse whenever we post.
|
|
Matt Lewis wrote;
------------------
"...who would have predicted, a few years ago, that the then-pro-Choice Mormon from Massachusetts would get the endorsement of conservatives ranging from Bob Jones III to Paul Weyrich?"
------------------
Matt, I realize you're a passionate supporter of John McCain, but you know very well that once Governor Romney was in office, he governed as a PRO-LIFER.
|
|
|
It's incorrect to describe Romney as "a pro-Choice Mormon." He is firmly pro-life. Yes, several years ago he was pro-choice, but his actions as governor of Massachusetts were solidly pro-life, and he has not wavered since. So if you want to call him "formerly pro-choice" that would be accurate, but simply calling him pro-choice is wrong. |
|
Thou shall not flip and flop.
Forget about the one pertaining to bearing false witness, it appears that has been abandoned years ago. |
|
|
|