Hugh,
Congratulations!
Your first post on Romney and the reasons to support him without an over-the-top shot at Huckabbe.
Your first post on Huckabee that was critical but in-bounds.
CONGRATULATIONS!
MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE. |
|
|
Hugh, your blogger buddies is not where you will find unbiased reaction to the debate. You are out of touch with the people. How do you suppose your man Mitt will bring this party back together after the campaign that he ran? Instead of Hillary or Obama, Romney has made himself the lightening rod of this election year. Do you really think that any of the other candidates will support him if he gets the nomination? |
|
|
Romney won the debate if he's the beneficiary of people being turned off by McLame. McLame's performance had to have hurt him. He was never a viable republican candidate. If he hangs on and wins NH it will be his last gasp. If he damaged himself the question will be where his former supporters will go. I dont think Romney is looked on as a viable alternative. He just doesnt work. But the numbers will tell on Tuesday. |
|
where have you been looking? Everything I have read, and what I "saw" was that Romney was a huge punching bag. Why? Because he's unlikeable. He's the guy that thinks he's smart, but he just comes off as arrogant. The fact is that McCain said the one thing that is why Romney can't win. "(Romney)...is the candidate of CHANGE" but it has more to do with his positions than anything else.
|
|
|
I know Mitt did great. So sorry for those other candidates, they were pathetic, no wonder senators like McCain hardly get things done in the congress. All he does is attack and attack especially his own party in a "real" negative way. Romney does it in a very intellectual way, and I admire that Skill from Romney. |
|
We actually witnessed a major media outlet conduct a decent debate tonight.
Hurrah!
I guess journalism school actually does pay off! /s |
|
|
he can not unite the party or the center-right during the general election. It is amazing how one person can draw criticism from ALL other candidates in a panel. This is the lack of likability problem that money can't solve. Hugh, Romney's problem is not his opponents in these primaries, it is his inconsistent record and inability to explain it without looking like a phony. There it is in one sentence! |
|
Romney was clearly the only adult that stayed above the fray.
Rewatch the debate and you will see how in cahoots McCain and Huckabee were in their attacks. It was a bad night for McCain and Huckabee. McCain will never get another vote from me as my Senator, so he better win the Presidency.
Go Mitt. |
|
Strategically placed in the center of the group, Romney also managed to put himself in the center of the debate by standing up for himself and refusing to let inaccurate statements stand.
This has been my complaint about Republicans for a long time, that they are nice guys and allow falsehoods pass without complaint, as if they could disprove the lies by acting even nicer.
The Left is desperate to take over America and turn our once great nation into just another Socialist state. They are getting ready to attack any candidate we put forth.
I think all of our guys are great, (with the exception of Cut-N-Run Ron Paul) and was so proud to hear them debate tonight. Even when they went on the offense, they were gentlemen, and I would be happy to have any of them serve as President.
One does not have to be shrill or nasty in order to stand up for oneself, and I think our guys showed it tonight. |
|
|
Rich Lowry is the editor-in-chief of National Review, which has formally endorsed Mitt Romney. His take on the debate: "I think Romney had a tough night." |
|
I do believe...and I said it earlier...that McCain kinda came across as mean at some points.
HOWEVER...I think that plays well in NH. Especially against Romney. NH likes fighters...and that is what McCain is. Romney isn't.
Also, Romney did NOTHING to stop the opinion that he is a flip-flopper. Thus...he lost the debate.
Look, as a Huckabee supporter...I would love to see Romney win Tuesday...because I think Huckabee will easily beat Romney for the nomination if it comes down to just them. McCain will be harder for Huckabee to beat...and thus...I say, GO ROMNEY!
But I got news...Romney is going down in NH. Hugh is trying to convince himself otherwise...just like he was doing leading up to Iowa. |
|
|
I thought he was an excellent moderator. After Iowa, I had lost hope for a non-biased debate. |
|
What debate were you watching??
LOL |
|
And was unable to defend himself.
You can cherry-pick all the commentary you want, but there is nowhere near a consensus on a debate winner.
You should look at how you interpreted Huckabee's actions in the last week of the Iowa campaign and see how that turned out. Your political radar is off. |
|
you remind me of that nasty kid in Jr. High that told everyone he saw me fall down in dance class, just to be mean. I had done nothing of the kind, and in fact was quite graceful.
So your LIE that Mitt is "unlikable" is fooling no one. In fact, it is the opposite of the truth: he is the MOST likable of the candidates.
Why don't you discuss the issues instead of making personal attacks? |
|
obviously all y'all don't live in nh or ma where we are being fed a steady
diet of negative ads by Romney against McCain.
McCain might have been negative during the debate but for viewers
in this area this was sandwiched between negative ads by Romney and
positive ads by all other candidates. |
|
Dick Morris was also nodding his head when the Politico reporter said Romney got nailed several times and looked weak & had a bad night.
And at the end of the segment, everyone (including Morris) said McCain would win NH. |
|
and conceited.
Mitt took every hit with grace and professionalism and stated his case.
|
|
Like you, I came away thinking that Romney was the clear winner. Then Carl Cameron comes on talking about how Romney got beat up and will have to try to recover tomorrow night.
Like a candidate can control others attacks on him. What was telling was the way Romney weathered the attacks and stayed on point. Also, that everyone else pushed the attacks too far. McCain in particular went to the well too often and started looking like Shrillary!
It was good to hear Dick Morris' more level-headed AND experienced take on the matter. Despite his personal bent, I'm a big fan of Morris. He knows his stuff and passes along good information. |
|
|
Dick Morris predicted Condi Rice was gonna be the Republican nominee. hahah man |
|
Strange to focus on Morris who you never agree with, but ignore NRO and Mark Steyn:
GOP tonight [Mark Steyn]
Fred was great. He's like Perry Como. He should never not sit down. Romney, I thought, was not good. McCain's crack about how he agreed Mitt was the "candidate of change" was an instant killer of the governor's post-Iowa rhetorical tic and he had no comeback apart from a prissy complaint about McCain being "needlessly personal". He's got to be better than that if he's going to retrieve this thing by Tuesday.
Or How about Rich.
Romney's Biggest Problem [Rich Lowry]
It seems to me is that again and again other candidates are basically questioning his integrity and his fundamental sincerity, and instead of responding with some genuine outrage, he basically lets it go, again and again. He has fine responses answer to answer, but is more or less non-responsive to the deepest question clouding his candidacy: whether he means what he says and is in this for the right reasons. That's the question he must at some point convincingly answer (and I think he can), or he's at risk of fading away. |
|
You know, I'm in California now, so I was watching the blog commentary before I saw the debate. And from reading the commentary on NR and Politico, I though he was fried tonight. [Full disclosure: I am a strong Romney supporter.]
But, when I watched the debate, I thought the media accounts missed quite a bit. I don't think a lot of people committed to a candidate changed their minds, but I think the Romney team made a very, very smart call in having him handle his criticism the way he did. Romney occasionally looked pained and refused to respond in-kind to charges of flip-flopping. He was smart to explicitly say that he wanted to focus on policy, rather than personal attacks.
Now let's contextualize this: this is a 90 minute debate. The barbs at Romney took, at most, maybe like 10 minutes total AT MAX. I didn't time them and my bet is they were in actuality a lot smaller. The press likes to fixated on conflict, but I don't think these barbs are what will weigh in voters minds. I tried to approach the debate with an open mind and what stood out to me was that the format facilitated a far more substantive interaction than many of the previous debates. And in a substantive debate, I think as an undecided voter, Romney would clearly stand out. He was the ONLY candidate who did not use negative attacks (which I suppose, is convenient for him, since he has been using lots of "contrast ads").
|
|
I thought the McCain line about attack ads could have been damaging to Romney, but I think Romney handled it well. In the context of the larger debate, undecided voters are not going to not voter for Romney because he got called names by the other candidates. Most undecideds probably haven't been following the race closely enough until this week to have a context to understand the flip-flop charge. As a result, it probably just looks mean spirited.
I think the pile-on backfired tonight. Romney has his attack ads, AND now he has the public sympathy: he came off as the serious candidate in the room with the most authoritative knowledge of the issues.
If he wins NH, I think this debate will have helped him greatly. |
|
and he was excellent. It's so obvious the reason he's the punching bag is because he's the man to beat. And he didn't stoop to personal attacks. The only viable men up there were Romney, Guiliani and Fred. The others were superfluous - especially Huck. (Sound bites with no substance, and he repeated many points the other candidates had laready made.)
Romney had to have helped himself a lot tonight.
Gibson deserves a lot of credit for the great format. |
|
Since when is saying a candidate has changed his positions a personal attack? Last I checked, that's an indictment of his *record*.
Hugh is reaching, as well he might the way things are going.
Consider this: if Romney is nominated and goes up against Obama or Hillary, is he then going to complain about personal attacks when they call him out on his policy shifts compared to a few years ago? Because that's no way to win. A an electable candidate is a candidate that can answer his critics, not complain about them or blow them off as though they never deserve a response. |
|
|
My analysis deduced Romney having won the debate on points, but certainly it was no lnockout. Thompson and Paul accorded themselves reasonably well, excepting Thompson's barbs directed towards Romney. As for these incessant attacks, the remaining candidates looked sophmoric and their responses to questions were amgiguous at best. Romney and Paul made the greatest attempts to clarify positions with Thompson providing acute, but overly general, responses. Again, Romney wins on points earned by his arguments and his ability to withstand excessively childish behavior exhibited by his opponents, which was entirely directed towards him in an unnecessarily personal nature. |
|
Mountain Rose, the Dems had a better debate than the Repubs.
Shrillary only got shrill (actually near shrill) once and all of them had
a good debate, imho.
The Repubs on the other hand were more shrill and made personal
attacks. I agree Romney was beat up on, but that was nothing compared
to what they did to Paul.
And fwiw there is something to what Paul says about prior US policy
leading to terrorist attacks but he just doesn't know how to say it
with the nuance it needs. And Repubs in general don't want to hear
it even if it is true. |
|
I liked the format of the debate. It actually encouraged substance.
And I thought it fit Mitt Romney very well, allowing him to demonstrate his intellectual strengths and his command of detail far more than little sound bites do.
I also thought that Senator McCain came across badly, and that Romney, by not hitting back vindictively, looked very good in contrast.
Whether New Hampshire voters will see it the same way, I can't possibly predict. But that's the way I saw it.
Thompson had some good things to say, but wasn't very energetic. Huckabee did okay, but not great. Giuliani did pretty well.
I actually thought Governor Romney won it, if anybody did. I'm a Romney supporter, but I'm trying to be objective. |
|
|
I'm glad I found this web site; I enjoy the insightful commentary. Obviously people have different opinions on who won the debate. I suspect it's based more on their preferences going into the debate that objective evaluation. One thing I think everyone can agree on, ABC ran the best debate - on both sides of the aisle - so far this election cycle. Let's hope FOX raises the bar even higher for the next one. |
|
|
Yes I support Mitt, but I saw the debate, and trying not to be biased (OK--I'll admit a bit difficult), I think Mitt came off as very well spoken, very knowledgeable on the issues and called his the other candidates on the issues. He was respectful (unlike McCain and Huckabee). I think people don't like being called when they've "flip-flopped" themselves. The difference is Romney admitted he made a mistake on the Abortion issue, the others have all flip flopped (and some major ones) but won't admit it or concede they were wrong. |
|
You guys really are. I love this comment:
"Romney has his attack ads, AND now he has the public sympathy."
Trust me, Romney does not have th public sympathy. People are laughing at Romney. He got roasted tonight...and that was clear to see.
Romney is finished. The Romney supporters just can't admit it. They couldn't admit he was going to lose Iowa...and he did.
Now they can't admit he is going to lose NH...but...he will. |
|
they want to be. The creepy old men taking potshots at the class president was just pathetic. Way to rip apart the party, guys. McCain is just a mean old man at this point, and Fred, whom we all want to like, is searching for a break out line at the occasional cost of dignity. If people respond to that garbage by voting for McCain, then it's a big middle finger to the party. If they respond to that by supporting Huck, then we're all simply doomed.
They treated that like an eight grade friday afternoon class. Embarrassing. Rudy is well versed and highly intelligent. Romney is extraordinarily bright and ready to engage knowledgably on every issue. Fred knows more about issues than we ever get a chance to hear about... Damn it, stop with the f'ing popularity contest and step up to the plate with real discussion.
We'll never get Huckabee to really debate the details, because that's not his game. But McCain, for God's sake, should be ashamed of himself. He's just an angry old man. It's over, John McCain, it's over. Enjoy your seventies. you're no Ronald Reagan. Stop tearing down a candidate we're lucky stepped into the race.
Ack, I'm too into it.
|
|
|
|
You guessed, another Pro Romney post by Hugh Hewitt…let’s do some de-spinning. Of course, this is the first debate that Dick Morris has picked Mitt…the vast majority of past predictions have gone the way of Mike Huckabee and you could hear crickets chirping when that happened.
So, on to the analysis of the Romney Cheerleader Hugh Hewitt:
Negativity… “John McCain lacks the essential graciousness towards his critics and opponents that a president must have --the Reagan touch, the iron discipline that Bush has shown never to attack even his most partisan and harshest opponents in personal terms.”
That’s like calling the kettle black. Matt Lewis references Jonathan Martin piece in Politico about how all of the candidates hate Mitt Romney. Why, because he is unlikeable, and he uses attacks as his sole method of campaigning. It has been well documented on just how negative Romney has been and how the voters in Iowa rejected that. Now he wants to criticize McCain for a few one-liners, again the pot calling the kettle black. Hugh goes on to say “John McCain seems incapable of not making politics personal and bitter. “ Hmmm, if you remove John McCain and add Mitt Romney, then he would have got it right.
|
|
Inaccurate reading of the electorate... On Friday before the Iowa Caucus, Hugh said that the mistakes made by Huckabee a week before was never reflected in polls and he would surely suffer come Jan 3rd. WRONG! Now he says, “John McCain gave undecideds lots of reasons why they may not want to vote for him.” Hugh, he is rising in the polls not falling.
This quote says it all, “I don't often agree with Dick Morris, but tonight he was right.” Hugh, more accurate would be you don’t agree with ANYONE unless they PRAISE ROMNEY.
Bottom line, you can take anything and spin it to work in your direction and against someone else. Candidate X can get 35% of the vote, beat Candidate Y by 15 points…and Candidate Y will say, see 65% of the people rejected Candidate X. Mitt Romney kept saying “can’t we make this campaign about the issues” when he perceived he was being attacked. Was it an attack when Ronald Reagan joked about not using his Mondale’s age and inexperience against him? That was a Reagan touch, right Hugh?
|
|
Huckabee
"Which one"
McCain
"You sure are the candidate of change"
Tells you all you need to know about this debate. |
|
McCain will win NH by 5 + points on Tuesday. Seriously, if you think Romney did well tonight, you are blinded by Romney love. The guy was stuttering at one point, was the butt of all the jokes, and what's worse is, the jokes were all legitimate criticisms. All the other candidates were calling him out on his flip flops one after another and Romney stood there with no comeback. It doesn't matter what Romney said. Romney had to win the debate tonight by showing he wasn't a flip flopper. But he didn't. He flip flopped again and said he was for "change" and then McCain smacked him pretty good.
Romney is done after he loses tomorrow. Done!
|
|
"Yes I support Mitt, but I saw the debate, and trying not to be biased (OK--I'll admit a bit difficult)"
Nigh, impossible! You didn't watch the same debate I watched.
Mitt got hammered tonight and came off very shaky at times. Ultimately, McCain benefited tonight and Fred did himself some good while Huck and Rudy did nothing to hurt themselves. |
|
|
Mitt's complete record because it can not be defended without Romney coming across as a phoney and untrustworthy and unpredictable. Hence, there lies the problem. Rich Lowry, is asking Romney to answer the question that is clouding his candidancy - whether he is an authentic candidate who is in this race for the right reasons - unfortunately for Rich Lowry, Mitt can not answer that question without drawing attention to his record. Drawing voters to Romney's complete record of inconsistencies can only damage his candidacy further. The NR should not have endorsed him - today he was attacked by his colligues and people have to wonder about a guy who picks a fight with ALL his team mates. |
|
At times Mitt seemed smart and in command of the details. At times he seemed floundering and ineffectual. For the most part, he just seemed exhausted. They all did.
Personally, I thought Rudy won the debate, and that Huck did well too. I guess many people think it was "Gramps" Thompson--to me, it seemed that he and McCain were making common cause against Mitt. One thing for sure, the other candidates don't like Mitt much.
And I think the fact they don't like him is telling. Mitt has been playing fast and loose with their reputations. He has tried to short-circuit the process and give democracy the bum's rush by assuming an aura of inevitability. And he has been focus-grouped and nuanced and painfully slippery in terms of his articulation. The man is smart, he has a problem-solver mentality, but he doesn't seem to have much of a moral core, beyond grabbing credit and dispensing blame.. |
|
I lean towards Romney (with Fred or Rudy as healthy choices as well), and feel again he showed great Presidential qualities in this debate, including his articulate grasp of the issues.
Deeply aware of the vivid bias against the Candidate, but the sources are questionable, as the anti-Mormon, or anti-North East, or even anti-Success, has proven quite ugly.
But during this debate, McCain’s bitter, jaded, Beltway Elite demeanor seemed even more insulting.
His conception that he could defeat Obama by talking about his ‘experience’ is really bizarre, especially with the Amercan Public’s frustration with the ‘failures’ entrenched in Washington today.
Then, as cool as Fred is, it seemed entirely tiresome to see Mr. Thompson play the Senatorial defender of John McCain.
The Senate remains the lowest on this poster’s list, and the debate proved to be yet another real reminder of how tired even the best Senators are…
Mr. Huckabee was embarrassing again, Ron Paul even worse.
Rudy looked almost as unhealthy as McCain and Thompson, but still has a fine expression.
And yes, all the nasty demeanor spent towards Mr. Romney, only pushed me towards the fine Candidate.
He may not get the gig, he maybe a square, but Mr. Romney is becoming the most unfairly treated Candidate, with the absolute best record, demeanor, strength for the Job. |
|
|
Because he flips like a quarter tossed in the air. His positions don't stay the same long enough to discuss them |
|
He is by far not the most likeable guy. And by saying that I'm like some mean guy that made fun of you who knows when, shows that you can't stick to the issues and are lashing out at someone that hasn't even made a glance your way.
The fact is that everyone was after Mitt for a reason, because he is, to steal a phrase " a target rich environment".
If you want to go on believing Romney won, go for it. It's obvious from most of the press so far that he didn't.
I don't know who you are. I'm not going to make accusations toward you. Saying I'm like some mean jerk because of my perceptions of a candidate shows more about you than it ever could of me. |
|
Those aren't attack ads they're comparative ads.
Big difference. |
|
Carl Cameron, "The Crowds at events in New Hampshire have been for McCain and Huckabee, not so much for Romney. He took a bludging tonight and he's going to need a turnicut quick to survive."
Now if Carl Cameron would have said "Romney is seeing record crowds," we would have heard about it.
It's called CHERRY PICKING!
Why is Wyoming even talked about? 3 people on the ballot and if Romney couldn't win that, then talk about bludging! |
|
He was bombarded with snide (best word I've seen for it so far) comments from many of the other candidates. They know who has the best chance of winning the nomination and they took their shots.
McCain came of the worst of all. Like a bully. When a candidate takes out an ad that highlights an opponents position on an issue and contrasts it with his own position - how is that an attack ad? At times the others looked like bully sidekicks - feeling empowered by the opportunity to hammer a superior opponent when they think he's vulnerable. Very unbecoming. Not presidential.
On the Dem side, Hillary (whom I've very been fond of) came off the best I've ever seen her. Not just the points she made, but her tone and likability. |
|
|
..was when Rudy (?) pointed out that even Ronald Reagan, given his position of Amnesty, would have been on the receiving end of a Mitt Romney attack ad. If the "nasty demeanor" towards Mitt was cheap, it may not have been uncalled for. Like I said, these guys are ticked at Mitt, and my guess it is because Mitt (or his people) has been doing a bunch of below the radar type stuff. |
|
Romney looked a little pale to me. If anyone thought he won the debate - you a living in fantasy land. I have been wondering about something...
A funny thing..before the 2004 election, we never heard about illegal ailiens....as soon as the election was over we were "all of a sudden" on the brink of total destruction by the invasion for illegals...makes me go hmmmmmm....
This is a big political ruse...Why didn't this group of fear mongers demand Bush get thrown out of office on 04. Better yet - why did they support him in 00? His policy never changed --ever. But that wasn't politically useful for this group frauds ---after the 04 election they thought the war would be only a negative and they wanted to drop it is a "conservitive" issue. Talk about lack of principles. Instead they found another issue to fear monger over. illegal immigration. They are political and moral cowards - and unfortunately most of the canditates are frightened by them - except John McCain. Illegal immigration is certainly an issue but the only adult on the issue is McCain. All the others want the votes more than standing on principle. There is something more important than someone's idea of "conservatism". There is something more important than party politics. Our country! Our founding fathers didn't fight for the "Conservative" States of America but the United States of America. John McCain is the only one who understands that and has the courage to stand up for what he belives in. By the way...Mitty got caught in another lie...saying he wasn't saying that McCain was for amnesty. Poor Mitt - maybe he hasn't watched his own ads which specifically say "John McCain supports amnesty". I also question the character of anyone who would hire Warren Tompkins to advise him on campaign matters. He's a piece of slime and for that reason alone, Mitt can never have my vote.
|
|
Mitt Romney?
Is it because he is beautiful?
Like Daymon Wayans' Men on Film character on "In Living Color." |
|
|
because you could do a WHOLE series of "Mitt was for this, now he's for this" ads and all would be compare and contrast ads. |
|
I would keep an eye on Huckabee in NH.
I think he is going to finish third...but there is a chance that if Romney has another bad debate performance tomorrow night...Huckabee could break late with undecided and finish second ahead of Romney.
I don't count on it happening...but if it did, man, what a story it would be. |
|
McCain is really a creep. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.
Romney is a decent guy but virtually prissy in his responses to the attacks. I wish he'd show a little indignation.
Rudy is steady and solid, sometimes combative. His views on immigration are mealy.
Huck is a snake oil salesman. He's Bill Clinton's brother.
Thompson is comfort food.
Ron Paul is the crazy uncle that is molesting your daughter. |
|
|
Yeah, and those "personal attacks," as Mitt called them, by McCain, Huck, and the others, were not personal, but simply the means those candidates used contrast Mitt's rampant flip-floppery and slippery nuance to their clear, consistent, and career-long devotion of principle. |
|
Romney has won Wyo. That ads to his delegate count. He won a good chunk of the IA delegates. He will keep on winning delegates.
The candidates are piling on Romney but he will not stop, he will be there after they are gone.
Fred is running on fumes. McCain can't win if both he and Rudy are on the ballot and he can't win unless Independents can vote. That means that McCain can't win very many states.
Huckabee has to raise monumental amounts of money and probably can't win unless there are a very large number of Evangelicals who vote on religion alone. Again that is in very few states.
Rudy will be 0 for 5 before he actually enters a real contest.
Romney is like the energizer bunny he will keep on and get more delegates.
Congratulations Romney. We appreciate your efforts against these liberals. |
|
http://stratosblog.com/politics.htm
Romney, "Governor, look don't try and characterize my positions..."
Huckabee, "which ones?"
Politico's Jonathan Martin"These candidates can't stand Romney! This was not his night." |
|
Or is it Romney-bot 9458372323496 that's in charge now?
We'll see what the voters think of all this. :)
|
|
They don't like him because he is fake.
You know where McCain stands...you know where Huckabee stands...you know where Rudy stands...you know where Thompson stands...heck, you know where Paul stands.
Who knows where Romney stands? It is all depends on what the polls say.
He is fake and dishonest. And that is why they don't like him. |
|
McCain and Huckabee have a man crush on each other. McCain, speak up, then let others speak, what a beastly angry fart.(Thumbs up on trashing Romney guys with your side remarks, not negative at all) Its on like donkey kong. You better trash Romeny hard, you have no money left.
Thompson did good, so did Guiliani.
Note, Huck supported the troop surge before Romney....hahahahahah!
Romney
Thompson-Giuliani
Huckabee
McCain
Paul
As of now, Ill vote for Romney, Thompson, or Giuliani.
The others...nada. |
|
|
Do you think Rudy, McCain, Thompson, and Huck all hate this guy with a passion? I wonder if that massive smackdown tonight was planned at all. Maybe not, but they sure looked fed up with this guy. |
|
Romney does have his hand on the pulse of America just like Bubba did.
He has always reminded me of Big Bill as a politician - say anything to
get elected - focus group it - you know he heard what Iowa said about
change and now he is the candidate of change, the awww schucks
personality.
He definitely doesn't remind me of Bubba as a person. |
|
Rudy Giuliani joined in, saying that even Ronald Reagan would "be in one of Mitt's negative commercials" for his position on immigration.
The political calculation was clear: All the candidates see an opportunity to knock Romney out of the race. But it was equally obvious the relish they brought to the task: Romney is personally unpopular among his rivals — regarded simultaneously as an attack dog, a pretty boy and an opportunist.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7751.html |
|
|
the GOP. He will lead the party to defeat. |
|
|
Romney's the man! I respect McCain as a POW, but he is part of the Gang of 14, remember McCain/Feingold?, defected with Ted Kennedy on education, plus disapproved of Bush's tax cuts. As far as Wannabee, Hickabee...look at his foul liberal Clintonesque record as governor (Arkansas is still at the bottom on every statistic nationwide since his reign...raised taxes, very weak). After Bhutto’s assassination, he did not even know that there had been a cease-fire 2 weeks prior, plus he NEVER answers a question directly, he is sarcastic & EXTREMELY unpresidential. Who cares if he can play the bass guitar, I'm not looking for a jazz playing president from Arkansas, we've done that already! |
|
|
I'm curious to hear what Bill Krystal thought of the Romney smackdown. He was a Romney supporter I believe, but he was on the verge of throwing in the Romney towel after his Iowa loss. |
|
"A mantra of flip-flopping, which has haunted Romney for months, was the central theme. “Which one?” taunted Mike Huckabee when Romney told him to stop mischaracterizing his positions."
This coming from the man who as goobernator called those who did not want to roll out the red carpet for illegals and their plantation employers, un-Christian, un-American and anti-life and now has on his web site positions on illegals and their employers that make him look like Tom Tancredo on steroids.
"John McCain said Romney could spend his entire fortune on negative ads but they still wouldn’t be true, and chortled that Romney’s shifting positions prove he is this year’s “candidate of change.”"
This coming from the biggest proponent of Shamnesty-plus who now pretends like none of it ever happened including all his vile smear attacks against Americans who (about 80%) were and are against his attempted sellout of America.
"Rudy Giuliani joined in, saying that even Ronald Reagan would “be in one of Mitt’s negative commercials” for his position on immigration."
No Mr. Sanctuary City Mayor, if Ronald Reagan were running now YOU would be in one of Reagan’s “negative commercials”. |
|
|
Rudy's comment could have backfired on him if Mitt had remembered to quote Reagan's admission that giving amnesty to the 6 Million illegals was "the worst decision" of his presidency. |
|
|
Romney's the man! I respect McCain as a POW, but he is part of the Gang of 14, remember McCain/Feingold?, defected with Ted Kennedy on education, plus disapproved of Bush's tax cuts. As far as Wannabee, Hickabee...look at his foul liberal Clintonesque record as governor (Arkansas is still at the bottom on every statistic nationwide since his reign...raised taxes, very weak). After Bhutto’s assassination, he did not even know that there had been a cease-fire 2 weeks prior, plus he NEVER answers a question directly, he is sarcastic & EXTREMELY unpresidential. Who cares if he can play the bass guitar, I'm not looking for a jazz playing president from Arkansas, we've done that already! |
|
You notice Drudge has barely anything on the Romney smackdown. All he has is one headline that says:
Republican candidates in fierce foreign policy battle...
Gee, I wonder who he's for? lol If it was Fred, Huck, Rudy, or McCain it would of been the big story. |
|
Don't you notice that Hugh is not picking on McCain Huckabee etc. anymore, but is now finding quotes from Dick Morris and other commentators. I can probably find you someone who said that Joe Biden had a good night!
Anyway my blunt honest critique is that it is clear that every candidate has a vested interest in kneecapping Romney for the same reason why Hugh supports him. Follow the money! Romney is the only candidate with the scratch to flood the airwaves with commercials and still have enough left to take on the Dems. Hugh said it clearly on Friday. Romney loses, and wall street collapses, the barbarians storm the gate and we will be facing an endless winter. If you don't like him than at least trust that he will have the money to take on the dems.
And McCain wanted campaign reform. I wonder why! |
|
lol they all looked desperate except Romney who stuck to the issues with more detail than anyone else except maybe Ron Paul.
McCain looked like a cantankerous old man. I never change should be his mantra and so if you like the way this country is being run and the direction it;s heading then McCain is your man.
Huckbee - was he even there? What is the old saying "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." He couldn't hang with the big boys with his simpleton type thoughts.
Guiliani - He was good but not great as his message is like a broken record. And not even a full album but more like a broken 45.
Thompson - Some good general statements and actually made arguments for Romney such as immigration and health Care.
Ron Paul - Did a nice job getting out the details of his position made some good points why America is broken.
Romney - Held up very well under fire which gave him a lot of the debate time to get many of his details out about how he can fix things that need fixing.
Overall, Romney came out ahead in substance and despite all the jabs stayed above the rest and seem like the only guy who wanted to do something to fix America's issues. The rest seemed like the same old thing. |
|
This was the first debate I really enjoyed. I love how ABC just let them go and didn't limit them to soundbites.
Substance wise I liked Mitt taking a stronger stance defending himself. He was damn scrappy and I like that. I liked Thompson alot there too.
McCain seemed a bit shameful and behaved worse than he should at this point. I really respect and like McCain and he is a great man but tonight was kind of sad to see. Painful watching him at times almost. He was like a mix of failed attempt at English Parliamentaryesque sniping and sorority girl vindictiveness. Sad times.
Giuliani was great in his ability to explain things in ways people can understand but he seemed to be overshadowed for alot of the debate. I like his avoiding fights with his own team and sticking to picking fights with the dems. |
|
I support Romney.
If Romney becomes untenable, I would like to support Thompson, but I don't think he has the energy or commitment to win either the nomination or the general election.
That leaves Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee.
I will not support Huckabee under any circumstances. I don't regard him as a genuine conservative (except on the important issue of abortion and certain social matters), and I find his cunning appeal to religious tribalism appalling in principle and personally galling because it was aimed (quite successfully in Iowa) at my faith.
Between Giuliani and McCain, I would probably have to go with Giuliani. He showed genuine brilliance in running New York City. McCain, by contrast, has never managed anything, has advanced several positions that I cannot forgive, and seems to be remarkably mean-spirited. That said, if he were the Republican nominee, I would vote for him, though without much enthusiasm. |
|
who will keep his pants on?
I'm sure Mitt will focus group it. |
|
Now, correct me if I am mistaken. Does not Hugh always say on the air that he doesn't quote or refer to the political prognostications of Dick Morris because Dick Morris is unreliable and cannot be trusted? I have heard him say this multiple times on his radio program.
Before I accessed Hugh's blog, I told myself that I would either see the headlines of "Romney Rising" or
"Romney won the debate handily."
What do I see?
A quote from Dick Morris supporting the notion that Romney had the best night.
So the "unreliable" and "not to be trusted" Dick Morris is now an authority on Mitt Romney.
But I really should not have been surprised. I mean, Hugh regularly trashes Chris Matthews and the rest of mainstream media, but then proceeds to appear on those very television shows when he has a book to sell. |
|
but I don't care if Mitt's changed his position on issues. I agree with what he says now.
I can't stand McCain's position on illegal immigration and water boarding or the fact that he wants to take all the credit for the surge.
|
|
I tivo'd the debate and just saw something interesting: Earlier this year there was a guy from Arkansas politics that knows Huck well but is no fan apparently and the guy said that Huck is a follower in many ways but in part b/c he often seeks the approval of so-called elites.
At the beginning of the debate but a goodways into the Bush foreign policy thing when Huck is trying to defend his ignorance and "bunker mentality" shot at Bush, Romney is calling him on it and Huck gets in a good one liner on Romney, which I'll admit Huck is good at and would be a plus if this were Jr. High, but right after the zinger and the camera is super close up on Huck he looks across at McCain and gives him a look like, "see boss, I done got him good" Then as Romney continues, Huck keeps looking over at McCain smiling and smirking. It's as if Huck is like desperately trying ingratiate himself w/McCain in some kind of weird partnership w/him,a "see, we can take him down" kinda thing.
When I saw it and looked at it again, I immediately thought about the Arkansas polito's comment on Huck's need for elite approval. It was a pathetic moment for Huckabee, very telling. I don't think we want a man w/an inferiority complex in the White House. |
|
Whats with all the republicans trashing on selling things and good business?
I think people are starting to forget success, sales and profits are virtues in this party. Sour grapes on commerce is becoming a too frequent sighting recently.
|
|
Somebody should put McCain to bed... it's past his bed time....He reminded me of a four year old that needed to go to bed...
rondooo |
|
First, these were both excellent debates. ABC was tough and substantive on both sides. Certainly, no one can complain that the Dems went unconfronted on foriegn policy.
Repeating what I said in the "Wyoming" thread about the Repubs:
Giuiliani was terrific tonight. I enjoyed when he showed some pride in his past moderation on immigration. His shot at Romney re: amnesty, Reagan and attack ads, was right on target.
On the other side I don't think Romney was as bad as some claim. He was the only one with a realistic health care proposal. But he as also, as usual, stiff and had a hard time defending his flip-flops.
McCain was okay, except when he was trying to be snide. He's the only one who mentioned global climate change.
Huckabee was pretty non-existent. Ron Paul is a nutcase. Thompson was on Ambien.
As to the Dems: it's Obama all the way. He was, dare I say, downright Presidential tonight. His foriegn policy answers were nuanced and, somewhat surprisingly, far stronger than Hillary's. She looked exhausted, though she had a nice self-effacing moment on Obama's likeability. I want Edwards to be my lawyer, but not my President (even though he's far more pro-union than Obama). Richardson was funny on admitting his ignorance of Whizzer White's judicial record but otherwise is a non-factor.
So that's this Dem's verdict: Rudy and Barack. |
|
If I give the Democrats the change in my old dusty mug will they leave alone?
Can I pass on their offer to turn me green, or if not that, say we did but don't.
|
|
Hugh, you also had a love fest with Arnold!! Another flip flopper we're stuck with here in California!
You didn't mention Fred Thompson!!!!!!! Is there a reason for ignoring him? Your credibility is really hurting here! Many people thought he won hands down....is this not worth mentioning??? Or do you feel if you don't mention him, we'll forget about him and won't vote for him?
I like you Hugh, but you have really lost a following with your cramming Mitt down our throats!!!
|
|
Thompson really did himself some good in this debate, Giuliani did OK. Romney, with the exception of the "America is a great nation", which was OK for schtick, did excellent.
McCain and Huckabee were nothing more than one-liner manufacturers, and they failed. I wouldn't put it past Medved to withdraw his endorsement of McCain. This is the kind of stuff that he supposedly dislikes Romney for, coming from McCain.
|
|
|
Why doesn't this site have a reply or quote or preview? |
|
So you hate McCain because:
He carried the president's water on illegal immigration. I guess you hate Bush too.
He doesn't like torture and thinks (Along with most of the joint chiefs) that a formal toture policy is counterproductive.
He wants to take credit for a surge he has been insisting on since 2004 and of course he is running for president.
Well I really want to go into a campaign against the Democrats with those stands.
I agree with most of Romney's policies now and if he does get the nomination I will probably suck it up with the stands he will be taking six months from now to avoid a dem getting elected. Romney clearly is someone who will contort himself to win the primaries and change again with general election(As you pretty much summed up). I fear you and I will feel very wronged when this happens, but of course we can now feel warm and cozy at night hating McCain for telling us whats on his cantankerous mind.
I wish we had a Ronald Reagan parrot. That bird would win in a landslide!
|
|
I saw the debate. I'll try to give you an honest opinion of what happened.
McCain did fairly well but, the illegal immigration thing seemed to become a problem for him, but it also seemed as though Romney was not allowing McCain to fully explain it, and in a debate you do not have much time.
Thompson did somewhat ok, but he normally does somewhat ok in debates. Fred's defense of the oil companies did not come with any solutions, as though to say gas prices are high and thats just too bad for you. I think he made some ok points but just didn't do all that good.
Ron Paul got hammered by nearly everyone. I will give him this, that atleast he didn't go into a bunch of screaming and yelling. Ron Paul mainly focused on foreign policy and something about paper money being less prefered than other forms of currency. |
|
Romney did not do good. Again Romney attacked cannidates over issues which he has a record for being just as bad in, or worse. Its the old pot calling the kettle black or however the expression goes. When cannidates bring up his record he claims that they are attacking him. Romney did do one thing good in rebuking Ron Paul for trying to say that islamic terrorists only hate America because we make them hate us. However all the cannidates rebuked Ron Paul for that. Romney also gave no plans at all for enegery independance, and argued against cases for it. Not good.
Huckabee did well. Along with McCain, Huckabee defended the surge, and spoke of the need to become enegery independant, and stop making terrorists rich by buying their oil. Unlike McCain however Huckabee still focused on social conservative values, which will have to be a big issue if the GOP wants to have a chance to win against the democrats in the general. Huckabee did a good job of standing by his positions.
Giuliani I actually will say did ok in the debate. Now understand that I do not like Giuliani at all, and find him unacceptable, but to give credit he did ok. I liked his line about how Romney would have made attack ads against Reagan. He did pretty good in his points against Romney. Romney did call his position amnesty, but then Romney said that it would be impossible to deport 12 million people. Didn't make a lot of sense to me. That being said, Giuliani did not do much more than this. |
|
I have not been a big fan of Romney's but he seemed more likable tonight than anytime before.....He was under constant fire and came off smart........
McCain's crack about Romney spending all his money in attack ads made McCain seem jealous.....
But the spin could well be that Mitt took it on the chin..... |
|
It looks like Romney did support a timetable for withdrawal before he opposed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDKCDdevWnk |
|
He was able to get through the din a list of his accomplishments, e.g, the Olympics....I had not really listened to this before....Romney actually got some extended airtime tonight :)
Romney has just turned himself into a pretzel with his positions.....Are we really going to get months of St. John the Grump?
|
|
Notice that it is Mr. Romney who remains at the center of attention, whether that attention is from his opponents or from friends, foes, or analysts on this important line. Why is Romney at the center? He has the deepest grasp of the situation and is the most skillful, cogent and articulate in explaining things. He has the lightest touch, the most elegant nuance, and is essentially more accomplished than the others except for one. Only Rudy Giuliani can really go toe to toe with Romney in terms of self development and outer world success. As every Ann Coulter Rush Limbaugh conservative here will tell you: When they can't defeat your arguments, they go ad hominem.
Bottom line: All Republicans know that being a successful businessman is the best thing anyone can be if you are a real Republican; being a lawyer, or an actor, or a mayor/governor/ambassador are all fine and dandy.
But if you are John McCain you just look over there at Romney and, like his friend will if she ever debates Romney (Did anyone see the two of them together tonight? Or, in that shot of the two of them on a park bench gazing fondly into each other's eyes?) and know that he's done the one thing you haven't done. Romney can spend his own money on his campaign and be credible in the eyes of Republicans because he doesn't have to do any of this, therefore, he talks the talk and walks the walk as a true Republican citizen who knows how the world works and can succeed in it on his own terms. This is why Rudy and Romney only can repeat the attack line: Obama/Edwards/Hillarity haven't really run, built, managed a business and the people in it and the myriad details it takes to succeed. Romney could say it in McCain's face and McCain would blow a fuse. Rudy doesn't know Romney but Rudy knows that Romney is an authentic figure and respects him. McCain knows this and knowing the truth makes him even more mad at Romney. |
|
I'm certainly in favor of energy independence, but who do you suppose is going to buy that oil from the middle east if we don't?
If energy independence means more efficient production of energy, I'm all for it--say drilling in Alaska for instance--building new refineries for instance, and so on, but if you're talking about killing our productivity by using more expensive less productive sources--that is decreasing efficiency--nope don't want to go there. We already got a nutty plan in California that won't drop energy use one bit--make it more expensive here but cheaper there--otherwise an absolutely useless piece of canola meant to make the sky-is-falling crowd feel warm and cuddly. |
|
|
I've missed your intelligent comments of late. Good to see you again. |
|
even if romney did win..may be immaterial! iowa just winked at hucaberry's illegal immigration,terrible pardons,14 times before the board of ethics,etc! so if mc cain was just plain terrible...the dense clams that baseball doc talked about voting are still going to go into the voting booth and may say..dont confuse me with the truth mitt! john was a war hero back in general custards days..so iam going to vote for him ! clams in control! the media has been pretty much against mitt since day one...they have been saying if mitt loses this , if mitt loses that,etc! never hardly ever IF MITT WINS THIS,ETC! bottom line for the debate:did you think john/mike was going to say you know what mitt..you're right! and we just love you for exposing our crap!duh! mitt won regardless of tuesday coming!
elvis p.s. even if mitt was superman ..tired of debates....!!zzzzzzz if there is another after sunday..gonna take a nap! elvis |
|
As delegate wins stand today:
Romney - 16
Huckabee - 13
Thompson - 7
McCain - 5
Guliani - 0
So why would Romney be ready to fold? He's playing the national field. Close to 60% of Republican caucus-goers were evangelical Christians. Therein lies Huckabe's great success in Iowa. And his demise. There aren't enough evangelicals left for him to continue winning. Who was next in line behind Huckabee in Iowa? Romney. Which basically puts him in 1st place in a level playing field. And people are sending him condolences?
I'm really hoping that a lot of the posters here are liberal trollers. Otherwise the Republican party has serious issues within.
|
|
Went to the YouTube site.
Listened to the YouTube site.
Didn't hear the expected, "Of course we need to have a time table for withdraw from Iraq"
Romney made it very clear that no PUBLIC time table should ever be declared. He stated that goals and time tables should be discused between Bush and Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer (I googled that spelling) - PRIVATELY.
The Huckster was trying to imply - dishonestly - that Mitt was all for public time tables. This would make it seem as if Mitt was just right in line with the cut and run Dems. Hucks cross is starting to get a bit battered.
Evan |
|
A jihadist manages to secure the firing of one of the apparent few in our government who appear to understand Islam, a British citizen is being arrested for telling the truth about the Religion of Peace, and the adult candidates for President twist their tongues and intellects condemning "radical jihadist Islamofascist extremism" while assuring us that they have "great respect for Islam," a religion "perverted" by those wanting to establish the worldwide tyranny of Allah.
It was a tragic and horrifying scene at the debate tonight: Ron Paul running back and forth, his hair aflame yelling, "Islamophobe!" Rudy obliterating Paul's nonsense about America's foreign policy being the cause of the Greater Jihad but then destroying any hope for clarity from him on what motivates it, and Mitt actually using the word "jihad" but with a modifier.
On treason at the DoD:
"Coughlin sacked," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:
Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.
. . .
He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.
Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.
Read more: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2008/01/american-and-br itish-governments-betray.html |
|
A jihadist manages to secure the firing of one of the apparent few in our government who appear to understand Islam, a British citizen is being arrested for telling the truth about the Religion of Peace, and the adult candidates for President twist their tongues and intellects condemning "radical jihadist Islamofascist extremism" while assuring us that they have "great respect for Islam," a religion "perverted" by those wanting to establish the worldwide tyranny of Allah.
It was a tragic and horrifying scene at the debate tonight: Ron Paul running back and forth, his hair aflame yelling, "Islamophobe!" Rudy obliterating Paul's nonsense about America's foreign policy being the cause of the Greater Jihad but then destroying any hope for clarity from him on what motivates it, and Mitt actually using the word "jihad" but with a modifier.
McCain and Huckabee were no better.
Where's Fred? |
|
etc etc all of you just go back thru and look at your posts. you don't see what all Romney supporters see is that you flat out hate Mitt. You don't necessarily make comments about others the way you do about Mitt. Amazing.
If everyone was honest on this blog you would admit that EVERYONE, yes, everyone of their candidates has flipped. Some have flipped flopped and there is a difference. They have all changed their positions during their lifetimes about certain issues. I don't necessarily see that as bad. If McCain realizes what a jacked up policy he has put forth the country and we Arizonans and changes his mind and sticks with it then no harm no foul. If Huckabee comes out and says you know I was wrong to give out all those pardons and the harm that it caused others I won't be as reckless next time then good to go. If Mitt says I was wrong about abortion and now I will enforce pro-life positions (and he has as he actually had to vote on them) then I have no problem with that. It is a sign of maturation that you can see that you MAY have been wrong and can admit it and change.
You all say we are blind supporters of Romney but if you truly didn't see them gang up on Mitt and he was the only MAN to show decency and let it slide as all of America could see how childish these comments were then I guess you guys have bigger issues.
Mitt showed us all why he is presidential tonight. |
|
True wishful thinking.
The room temperature IQ folks may fall lock step behind their "Christian Leader", but I think those with a bit more gray matter will soon see through the Huckster.
- 1st to negative adds, hmmm who was it that did the antiMo push pulling in Iowa and then later declared themselves "Christian Leader"? Who wondered out loud about "Satan and Jesus being brothers" and then covers up by saying, "Who me!?" Who organized a grass roots campaign to vote for the "Christian Leader" and not that non-Christian, Jesus and Satan are brothers, Mormon?
- How are comparison adds "negative" vs. running against a canidate while clearly playing against his faith? Just curious.
- Why does the guy who says he is going to run a positive campaign, call in the press to show them a negative commericial, and when called on it state, "Who me!?"
- How possitive did the Huckster stay in tonight's debate? |
|
I just rewatched the famed Huckabee one-liner...why is this supposedly so stinging? Huckabee sounded loud when the camera was on Mitt, but then he shrank back to let McCain enjoy the results.
"Don't mischaracterize my positions."
"Which one?"
Not delivered well at all. |
|
Romney twice denied his time-tabled withdrawl comments in the same debate. Unbelievable.
If Mitt could just get rid of the taped
footage he'd be home free.
OOPS.
Maybe there's a new definition of "saw" when it comes to reviewing those comments on You Tube?
It's like Mitt's earlier denial of his support for Planned Parenthood in Massachusetts. Except for that darn photo of Mitt talking to the CEO of Planned Parenthood at a fundraiser, and the cancelled check for the donation the Romney's made to PP that day. But Mitt has said he has always come down on the side of pro life.
OOPS.
I wonder what that money was used for?
|
|
Most here are political junkies. Most here saw the whole debate. Most voters did not see the debate. Most voters will see what the MSM wants them to see.
I agree with another poster from another board, it does not matter much who won tonight at the MSM will cut/paste and spin the soundbites to their hearts content. They will be the one who pick the winner of tonights debate. |
|
As with most things, what may seem "obvious" is not the true answer.
Check this out:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecar d/#R
As you can see, Romney is clearly ahead with 26 (or 44% of the delegates thus far). McCain trails badly with 3.
New Hampshire is a "proprotional" as opposed to "winner-take-all" state with 24 delegates (may just be 12 this year because NH is being punished for holding their Primary before Feb 5th.)
The delegates are divided based upon % of the vote.
CASE STUDY:
Let's say that McCain's current 5 point average lead in NH holds up and he beats Romney 34 / 29. So out of 12 delegates, McCain gets 4 and Romney gets 3.
This puts Romney's TOTAL DELEGATES after NH at 29 compared to McCain's 7 and Huckabee's 20 or 21 (if he gets any NH delegates at all).
CONCLUSION:
So what people are saying is that Romney should DROP OUT OF THE RACE when he has a commanding 29/21 delegate lead over Huckabee and a 29/7 lead over McCain?
No, who drops out when they are winning?
P.S. Because so many primaries are "proportional", all you need is second place in most to actually win the nomination (assuming no one other person keeps winning first place).
Think of it like NASCAR. Quite often, the guy that WON the most races does NOT win the NASCAR Championship. They guy that came in second the most wins. |
|
This is the SECOND TIME that FoxNews has EXCLUSIVELY interviewed Mike Huckabee after a debate to the exclusion of all other participants.
The day of the Iowa Caucuses, FoxNews ran puff pieces on Huckabee all day long. They only time they ever mentioned Romney was to go negative.
So, FoxNews is in the tank for Huck. Far and balanced? Not so much.
But that's politics. Romney has to overcome that somehow.
MEDIA SPIN:
Since the MSM is DEATHLY AFRAID of Romney, I am SURE they will be spinning this debate as a HUGE DISASTER for him and BIG WIN for McCain.
Time Magazine has already come out declaring that McCain won actually saying "McCain managed to remain above the fray, staying cool and collected..."
Huh? Did they watch the same snide, snarling attack dog I did? Above the fray? Please.
The Left is DESPERATE to beat Romney. |
|
Guess you missed the whole jist of this. Do you think Romney states he was supporting time tables as we have come to know and love them? Time tables that such couragous leaders like Murtha, Clinton, Reid, and Pelosi all advocated? Was this not Huck's implication?
Hey, if you want to get real technical, Romney supported the PRIVATE discussion of time tables and goals. Not what the Dems wanted at all. I guess this is too tough for some to comprehend. Kind of like the word "saw" being used metaphorically - but that doesn't work for the "hate Mitt" crowd. Have to take it literal when it works against Mitt, but can't take it literal if it works for Mitt.
Also - big surprise - Mitt flipped on abortion!!! |
|
The point of that is that DICK MORRIS HAS DECLARED PUBLICLY THAT HE HATES MITT ROMNEY. We also know that Dick has been on the Huckabee payroll.
So for Dick Morris to actually come out and say that Romney won the debate handily is TRULY AMAZING.
Like him or not, Dick Morris has this weird tendency to be right.
He picked the Republicans 2004 losses. He picked Hillary's downfall to Obama. He picked Huckabee's surge in Iowa 2 weeks before it started. And he says Romney won this debate and McCain was a disaster. |
|
I agree all the candidates have flipped or as some like it: changed their position.
Where I take great offense is...
Mitt Romney has taken others to task for their past record, on the same issues where Mitt is
just as bad,if not worse.
ie:
Illegals -- 6 sanctuary cities in Mass.
Taxes -- Mass. tax burden went up at almost
twice the rate of Arkansas per year.
Reagan -- everyone should know Mitt was an
Anti-Reagan independent
Meth. Dealers -- Slams Huckabee when Mitt and
Mass. laws are twice as easy on them.
War -- Mitt slams Bush saying it was not well
planned,undermanned and then said we
should look into a time-tabled withdrawl.
Maybe Mitt should apologize to Huckabee since it took from the middle of 2003 til 2007
(the bunker mentality) to change strategy to the surge today.
Believe it or not, I was once a Mitt supporter.
Now I know better.
|
|
Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire are "proportional primaries" with very few delegates at stake. No matter who wins NH, Romney looks to have a commanding delegate lead coming out of NH.
The KEY is Michigan. If Romney ca win or stay close to McCain in NH, but then WIN Michigan, he could take a COMMANDING LEAD into SC as MI is "winner-take-all" for their 61 delegates.
This is why Romney, can in fact, lose NH and still easily win the nomination.
All of the "If Mitt loses NH he is done" mantra from the MSM is just so much wishful thinking. |
|
I think it would be nice if folks would post sources to their statements!
It was kind of RJ to post his YouTube link. I'm curious to see where some of the other "facts" on Romney are coming from and what is being left out. If Romney was such a BIG tax raiser, why is he getting so much support from the Club for Growth and NR? Maybe they just don't do a good job of checking out a canidates background. How much of these "facts" are Mitt's doing vs. the result of a leftist majority he had to deal with in Mass.? How many of these facts are a tad old and have not applied to Mitt for years?
Pro-v1 I would love to see where you got your info that caused your great anti-Romney conversion. Also, what made you a Mitt guy to start with?? |
|
I am out of state for a few more days and it is difficult to post. Thanks for the encouragement.
Romney has won WY and run second in IA. His slingshot strategy is not working but it is not working for Huck or McCain. Huck got no bounce from IA. Whoever wins NH will not get a big bounce. The race is becoming a 4 way marathon with different candidates winning states that uniquely favor them.
None of the candidates are dominant. Large parts of the party are very apposed to Rudy, McCain and Huck for different reasons.
McCain has trouble raising money even though he has more K Street money than Rudy and Hillary. McCain is an insider who talks campaign finance reform while he shakes down the lobbyists.
Rudy has lost every state (so far) where McCain has also been on the ballot. They spilt the liberal vote.
Huck will be much more vulnerable to attacks in future states. His 9 months of retail campaigning in IA insulated him from attacks.
Romney now needs to change to a national strategy where he picks the states and CDs where he can win delegates. It is becoming a delegate count race and money raising will be a prime criteria.
No candidate has any real momentum. McCain's momentum is an illusion based on Rudy pulling out of the early states and by over counting Independents nationally. |
|
At least you admit that Mitt discussed timetabled withdrawl. I respect you for that.
I personaly prefer to win this war.
HOWEVER.
If Mitt fans prefer to stick with the "Gaffes"
re: Huckabee. That is (apologize vs sorry) in Bhutto response.
(East vs West Pakistan)comment.
To say Mike H.is stupid or doesn't know where Pakistan is on a map...
Then you bet the standard will apply to Mitt who is a life-long hunter endorsed by the NRA.
Mitt also stated once that "he and his dad walked the streets of Detroit with MLK"
Not just: "I saw my dad march with MLK".
The Romney supporters have gotten technical or nuanced in this debate.
Me,I'm just running a contrast ad here.
Not negative.
|
|
Romney needs to run an attack ad that quotes Judicial Watch on McCain getting more money from K Street than any other candidate including Rudy and Hillary.
The way to attack McCain is to use a 3rd party to expose his straight talk express as the corrupt lying smoke that it really is. Over and over again, McCain has looked into the cameras with a straight face claiming to speak the truth while he is doing just the opposite of what he is saying.
Attack his strength with an attack ad that has 3rd party validity and cold hard facts that are inconsistent with his image. That will turn off the independents who will then go to Obama or Paul. |
|
Michael Medved has researched the tax records of both Huckabee and Romney. I have found his numbers to be correct.
Please keep in mind that Romney served 4 yrs and Huckabee 10.5 yrs. Sales tax rose a net one cent over Huckabee's 10yr term. Romney's tax burden, went from 5.93% to 6.57% over 4yrs.
If you project Mitt's rate over 10.5yrs...
Mitt comes out much worse than Huck.
Mitt liked to let loopholes or previous tax brakes expire. To me that a tax hike!
90 fees: 37 raised 53 new ones created under Romney.
Go to factcheck.org for more info. See article titled: "Mitt and Rudy's cherry orchard"
Regarding the "Club for Growth" investigate the
Mitt's old business partner John Childs a contributor to Mitt's campaign and also a large
donor to the Club for Growth.
You'll also find a political opponent of Huckabee's is the president of the Club for Growth. Steve Stephens and his pal
Gary Faulkner.
They really don't want to detail Mitt's history in Mass. Not when there's still a deficit there.
Massresistance is another site to check although
I found it to be a little harsh on Mitt.
Happy fact checking.
|
|
If Romney won so much as the others lost.Imagine the panel without Romney in there and the choices for President look very weak. Nobody presented themselves as an alternative even if you declare Romney the loser. The primaries with this many people in them means you need around 30% of the vote to win. I think Romney is the 30% candidate with the rest of them splitting the rest of the vote.
I thought the best answer of the night came from Ron Paul on immigration. Stop the damn handouts and they'll stop coming here, to paraphrase. Absolutely right. The MSM wants youto believe most are coming here for work and that's not true. They are coming for free housing, food,education and medical care. Paul also earned my respect by not getting into the cheap shot arena. If the rest of these jerk-bags do happen to knock Romney out,I might just throw in with Paul out of spite.
One last thing. I don't know how you can come away fromw watching the debate without saying Romney is the defacto frontrunner.No one else comes close to being as presidential as he is. |
|
|
It's obvious that McCain, Huck, and Rudy were trying to deliver a knockout blow to Romney. They all smelled blood in the water, showed their teeth, and took their chomps. If I were in those three's shoes I'd try to hit hard too(2 with next to nothing budgets and all 3 closely defined by 1 issue: Rudy and McCain- National Security; Huck- Social Issues. Romney is competent on a portfolio of issues). But the personal attacks? C'mon Ugly displays from 3 trying to become the next President. If anything it highlighted the candidate they ALL fear the most, Romney, has Presidential character. |
|
My guy doesn't have a prayer in NH on Tues. so I will be enjoying the evening by taking great pleasure in Romney losing.
And trust me, for those of us who have seen what that man is all about, since the beginning, we deserve this joy.
|
|
Bill Clinton. He is SO slick in how he uses words, and his approach is a big government (which is high tax) approach. We need another man from Hope like we need a hole in the head. Just another Arkansas politician is all Huckabee is. As an example, his comment on Mormon's believing that Satan is Jesus' brother. You will note that he did not put out the Christian belief that Satan is the fallen favorite angel of God, and is therefore God's creation. Both positions are similar, and Huckabee has used a non-election issue to score points on his opponent. Sounds like Clinton all over again.
There is ONE MAJOR issue today: national security. And only Giuliani, Romney, and McCain (in that order) can make that fly. McCain is damaged with his tie to Kennedy on immigration and his buddying up with Leahy on judges. If he would start acting like a conservative instead of a "go along to get along" RINO, he might get somewhere in the primaries. Right now, I think McCain would do better in the Democrat primaries than in the Republican ones. |
|
For a more realistic assessment of Romney's performance. And don't miss the Indispensible Geraghty's take, either.
As for "Blogger Uncorrelated," I've never heard of him/her/it before. Was BU also convinced against interest? Let's see what Blogger Uncorrelated said about Mitt's sole "flaw" on Friday:
"I mentioned this as early as last year--Romney is simply too perfect. To his credit its not that haughty, pseudo-perfection of John Kerry, but perfection, whatever its character is alien. ...
Nobody looks at Mitt Romney and sees themselves. He is the ubermensch, a "natural" leader. He is sufficiently self-deprecating that he doesn't grate, and my guess is that most people find themselves surprised that such an outstanding specimen of alpha-maledom deigns to pay attention to him. The others just resent the hell out him--he has everything, and he wants this too?"
And you're reduced to quoting this (creepy) Romney fanboy for lack of any less obscure commentator's having anything good to say about Mitt's showing last night. Pathetic. |
|
|
We can only speak for ourselves, but we agree with your analysis. We strongly support Romney, but are concerned that our dumbing down culture doesn't appreciate a leader of his high quality. Since the age of Clinton and Opra, the public wants someone to make them feel good and tell them it's OK to be somewhat deficient in character, as everyone is! What a shame. |
|
In GOP debate, Romney takes fire from all sides
THE HILL-MANCHESTER, N.H. – Most of the Republican presidential candidates finally found something to agree on during their debate here Saturday night – attacking Mitt Romney.
The former Massachusetts governor repeatedly weathered shots from his main rivals at the first of two debates at Saint Anselm College. On issues ranging from healthcare to the Iraq troop surge to immigration, Romney found himself playing defense against hits from Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who is vying for a win here, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who bested Romney in Iowa, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/republicans-rumble -over-terror-iraq-and-immigration#comments
|
|
FROM POLITICO
For months, there has been an open secret among insiders working in or covering the 2008 Republican campaign: The rival candidates despise Mitt Romney.
After Saturday night in New Hampshire, it’s no longer a secret. The contempt was obvious, and relentless. And it was harnessed for clear strategic purposes at the debate. Everyone – even candidates who don’t seem to be in the center of the New Hampshire action – felt it was in their interest to pile on the former Massachusetts governor.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/republicans-rumble -over-terror-iraq-and-immigration#comments
|
|
away, apparently, from just a quick 20-minute look before running to a meeting. I've read Hugh's post and this thread with a grin, realizing Mitt came out far better and McCain far worse than my 'peek' told me. The 20-minutes of hell I watched had Huckster sleazing Mitt rather nimbly, Rudy looking good & strong, Fred being Fred, McCain being Stand Up defending the President, looking generous & confident(and NOT whacko John), Romney looking a bit off balance & startled by the the Huckster sleazing...Oh, and Ron Paul looking clinically Insane and entirely Clueless as to what our Dark Age Islamist Enemies are about, much less their jihad aims.
Reading the post and comments, I damn well KNOW I didn't get a realistic sampling on McCain or Mitt, thank God! Just read Andy McCarthy and REALLY know mine was a bad sampling. Pauley remains a sour fool and truly in need of a long rest in a quiet shady place, staffed by men & women in white. |
|
|
When Rich Lowery of NR says Mitt was "prissy", Gov. Romney had a BAD night. Romney's been running attack ads for a month straight some of which were misleading about himself or one of his opponents. When your campaign dishes it out, and then when Sen. McCain responds he's being personal. Gov. Romney seems like a thin skinned patrician who is surrounded by loyal yes men. Haven't we seen this movie already? |
|
|
Your strategy, you say, would send independents to Obama or Paul. Dubious, but let's say it's so. Would that be a desirable thing? |
|
I hardly spend time here anymore because this has become the Romney blog.
And I like Romney. |
|
So the issue here for me is:
who can lead the nation AND run the executive branch of the government?
Policies matter, but so does leadership and executive skill. And while I'm grateful to McCain for (finally) supporting Bush on the war (sort of), he has zero experience in leading an organization. Quite the opposite - he casts himself as the Righteous Rebel. His temper is corrosive.
Huckabee's a huckster just like Bill Clinton. Same bolt of cloth we're being offered there.
Fred's positions are thoughtful but I've yet to see him demonstrate ability to organize and run an effective campaign and attract funding and sufficient supporters to make a difference. Until he can do that he hasn't demonstrated the ability to lead and to run the government. Maybe not the desire either, hard to tell.
I'm not sure about Mitt's policies, but he has significant proven ability to reform and run organizations. |
|
|
Please educate yourselves on who Warren Tompkins is. I lived in South Carolina in 2000 - so I know exactly who he is. Once you understand that - you have a fundemental reason to understand the power hungry drive behind Mitt Romney. A man of character, values, integrity and substances doesn't hire Warren Tompkins. |
|
|
Thank you for your clarity on McCain. Since 1972 (Nixon vs. McGovern), I've voted Republican for President, in each case as the lesser of two evils. There are a lot of voters for Republicans like me, who are not Republicans. If McCain gets the nomination, me and my kind will vote for Obama or Clinton, because vs. McCain, they will be lesser of two evils. I tend to vote consevative, but under no circumstances could I support McCain after his attempt to ram amnesty down our throats, and his continued support of it. |
|
For those who missed the ABC tag team match last night -- CNN (the clinton nausea network) will have a re-run tonite.
And as you watch, think of the debate as a global conference in which our President is debating the likes of Chavez, Putin, Hu Jintao, Ahhmadinnerjacket and Kim Jong-il.
Who would you honestly want representing us?
Clearly -- the most knowledgable and convincing candidate on the stage last night was Mitt Romney.
Mitt didn't lose his cool. He wasn't phased by the personal or subliminal attacks. His messages, his composure and his clarity were staunch reminders of the pettiness, the instability, the incompetence and the critical need for change -- as demonstrated in certain other candidates.
Bigotry and jealousy aside -- no other Republican candidate could have maintained focus under the "piling on" that Mitt withstood last night.
You trolls and operatives can continue to paste your tiring op threads. Just keep that global stage in the back of your mind ....
|
|
|
McCain is a typical Senator. Big, bold, and arrogant. He played his part well last night. Every time I listen to the guy he makes me ill. Unlikable is an understatement. How he can be ahead in any poll after the last four years of worthlessness and his nasty Senatorial demeanor is beyond me. |
|
'The Corner' post-debate. Seems the men somewhere between my 20-minute and analysis here impressions. Tonight, it would appear, is important.
Molon: Liked your 'read' of things last night. I have stressed over and over here that McCain's Temperament--his wiring, if you will--is NOT right for POTUS. Your descriptive of his thin skin, 'corrosive', is, I believe, entirely accurate. There's a clinical archtype, "King Baby" that he seems way too much like. And a clinical term for what he showed, apparently against Mitt last night: Infantile Defiance. Not good in ANY ADULT, but especially President. |
|
|
|
Hugh has to resort to Dick Morris. Why not the usual NRO suspects? Why? Because they said Romney did poorly.
Anyway you slice it, Hugh is guilty of the most biased political reporting out there.
"If Mitt Romney can't fight for himself, why would you trust him to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?" Katherine Lopez
Ouch. |
|
Mitt wins the respect of anyone who watched the debate with an open mind. The 3 stooges Rudy, Huck and McShame looked pathetic and unprofessional with their infantile remarks.
I would never vote for McCain-Kennedy. |
|
I thought everyone except Ron Paul did very well. Romney did moderately well and would be the nominee in a walk if he just had some core principles that he stuck to. It's a sad waste of an opportunity and impressive skills and talent.
But wishes aren't horses and Mitt's going to be blown out in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Fred is being widely lauded as one of the winners in the debate. With Mitt hopelessly wounded, I'd suggest we support Fred. |
|
26 December 2006. "Sen. Biden Opposes Iraq 'Surge'"
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/12/26/sen-biden-opposes- iraq-surge/
Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden.... a famously
loquacious lawmaker and likely 2008 presidential
candidate, told reporters on a conference call today
that he would oppose any administration decision to
temporarily deploy tens of thousands of additional
U.S. troops to Iraq in a last-ditch effort to stabilize
the country. White House officials say that such a
surge will likely be the centerpiece of President
Bush's high-profile speech to the country early next
year about the way forward in Iraq.
Bluey, Robert B. Posted 28 December 2006, updated 1/1/2007. "Q&A: Mitt Romney Discusses Iraq War, Reagan's Influence and Gay Marriage"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18683
{question} One of the people who is considering a
run, Sen. [John] McCain, has advocated sending up
to 30,000 more troops to help stabilize Iraq. Do you
support sending more troops into that country?
{Romney} The process that is being pursued right
now is that the President and his senior staff are
meeting with generals and officials at the front in the
theater and finding out their perspectives. That's
something you have to do, along with meeting with
al-Maliki to determine where they are and where
they can be.
I'm not going to weigh in. I'm still a governor. I'm not
running for national office at this stage. I'm not
going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether
we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That's
something I expect the President to decide over the
next couple of weeks and announce that to the
nation. I want to hear what he has to say.
|
|
From the Corner:'If Mitt Romney can't fight for himself, why would you trust him to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? '
And that's from Kathryn Jean Lopez, K-Lo, Mitt biggest supporter at the National Review.
If Mitt has lost K-Lo, he has lost New Hamphsire. |
|
In Iowa, the Reuters/Zogby Poll nailed it.
In NH, Zogby has taken us from a 4 point McCain lead 2 days ago to a 1 point lead for Romney yesterday.
Suffolk/WHDH has also had Romney ahead by 3-4 points for 3 days now.
Then we have the CRAZY OUTLIERS (who pays these guys?) like AMR who has McCain ahead by 14 points! As a reminder, AMR picked CLINTON to win Iowa by 9! 'Nuff said on that.
THE MOST INTERESTING THING IN THE ZOGBY POLL:
McCain is doing poorly amongst Republicans (no duh) and is losing Independents to Obama.
Here's the link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN026436792008010 6 |
|
|
discussng Rudy on this blog, which makes me smile. Anybody but Rudy for me. I think all our guys did okay, even Paul was entertaining. Rudy (blech), Thompson and Romney came out as most knowledgable. I'll never vote for Rudy. I'd give the nod to Thompson, barely. But who knows? These are not like horse races. |
|
You pick and choose comments without even looking at what the majority of comments are from people on most of the blogs...
Even comments from your peeps at NR were harsh to Romney but NOTHING from you...
He was mauled last night and the tag of a flip-flopper is starting to stick, a la Kerry...
NOT GOOD...
First you quote CNN polls (that you rip on your show) and now Morris?...
You are a hack, Hugh...
|
|
Oh, I will talk about Rudy!
My favorite part of the debate was how the two draft dodgers, Mitt and Rudy called for increasing the size of the military. You know, the same military they both avoided service in during their country's time of need in the 60's.
Too good to serve, but good enough to lead? No thanks.
|
|
Because, they know it isn't.
Right now, Romney has the delegate lead with 26. Because NH is being punished for moving up their primary date, they will only have 12 delegates at the convention instead of 24.
NH is a "proportional" state, i.e., delegates get doled out based upon % of votes received (as opposed to MI, SC and FL which are "winner-take-all").
So even if Romney loses NH to McCain, he will still likely receive 4 delegates to McCain's 5.
This means that going into Michigan (winner-take-all with 61 delegates) Romney will have a significant delegate lead over the rest of the field.
So Romney can come in second if NH, but if he wins MI, he will then have 91 delegates. The next closest challanger will be Huckabee with 21.
The MSM knows that if THAT happens, it will be hard NOT to admit Romney is the LEADER (by far).
Do the math. Second in NH and first in Michigan and Romney probably wins this thing going away. |
|
OK, so I'm watching the parts of the debate I hadn't seen before. Mitt did well up until the point where McCain used his own words against him about McCain's non-amnesty plan. That's Mitt's fatal flaw and that's why he's going to keep losing.
He just has too many of these flipflops out there and they are too well documented to get away with them. Every debate from here on out is going to have several of the other candidates whacking him with his own words. It's just way too easy and all of the remaining candidates are too good at this to let him go. With the field narrowed, they all have time now to go after him like this.
Mitt did this to himself with his endless twisting and writhing and pandering on the issues. He's toast. |
|
I've skimmed most of the comments, and wonder that nobody's commented on the extent to which this is the second example of moving in for the kill.
First the rumors of Fred leaving and endorsing McCain (sourced by Novak to the Romney camp) which was the first direct move to push someone from the race. Before that, what was the need - nobody thought T. Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, Keyes(!?!) et. al. stood a chance so why bother.
Now, act two - the big loser in Iowa is the obvious target. No need for conspiracy analysis here - it's the perfectly natural instinct to go after Mitt. Perhaps the debate simply reveals the competitors actions moreso than the media's efforts - contrast what happened to Howard Dean, did any of his competitors even have to say a peep compared with the media avalanche which hit him?
Mitt's task now is to survive, and I don't know that he even has to win NH to do that, simply because the longer a large field carries on, the longer any one of them can find the knockout blow.
If anything, Rudy is doing the field a favor by his well advertised effort to delay the decision until the larger states come into play. Mitt needs to be sure to be this cycle's beneficiary of that - interesting that Rudy didn't attack Mitt much last night, huh?
PhD papers may be written in decades to come on how Rudy's strategy forever altered the caucus/primary selection timing. Then again, if McCain's NH win is big enough for them (and any margin may do) the MSM will go right ahead and create the perception that the nomination is decided. |
|
Most of the delegates are awarded by congressional district(s) won.
The overall state winner earns 10 delegates. Then the winners of each of the 15 congressional districts won each get three delegates per district won.
The remaining five of the total 60 delegates are party/bonus.
Then, as you point out, all the above are halved per the GOP penalty for MI voting "early."
MI is pretty much a toss-up. Recent polls show Romney leading Huck 21-19, or McCain leading both. But the "leader"'s support is around the 20% level. No one's going to sweep through the state by going 15-for-15.
Say the state winner takes 7 CD's and gets all the bonus/party delegates, too. Then the 2nd-4th place finishers win 4, 3, and 1 CD. Then the total delegates awarded would be (after halving): 18, 6, 5, 1.
So a net gain of 12 or 13 over 2nd/3rd place. Better to lose than win, but obviously it's not likely to be a 30-seat gain over the entire field, or the 60-seat gain it would be if the state as a whole were WTA and there were no penalty being imposed.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-R.phtml |
|
I currently lean toward Mitt, could vote for Rudi, months ago thought I liked Huck, would vote for Obama instead of McCain.
I missed the debate so that put me in the class of most that will actually class a ballot in NH. From the perspective of only reacting to the Headlines and first paragraph reads, what I heard was:
1) Pre-arranged(?) tag-team against the leader.
2) This defined Mitt as the leader if the other candidates had to collectively ambush him.
Lacking the initiative to actually study the candidates, too Many voters are concerned about voting for the winner instead of voting for the best person for the job. To this group Romney gains votes. |
|
|
Bazama neck in neck with Lady MacClinton in NH. Interesting. IF Mitt edges out McCain in thisone, he'd look very good after last night's pile on. But, it doesn't at all kill him if he's a close second. |
|
for your 1/6/08 9:40am posting.
I appreciate your links to additional sites where fact checking can be done easily.
Most Romney supporters initially think it's just a smear to post info that points out some of the hypocrisy of their candidate.
Again, thank you. |
|
OK we are sitting around with the family watching the GOP part of the NH debate. “That one is Thompson, the actor, the white haired guy is McCain, and there the handsome one is Romney.” OK, most of the family are not political junkies. So Romney smiles his way along and my daughter says, “do you think he used botox? He feels plastic.”
“But honey isn’t he good looking?”
“Hmm, something about the pauses and that smile? I like the Jim Nabors guy better”
Blink blink?
|
|
FORGET THE PUNDITS - ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG AND BEHIND THE CURVE.
WATCH THE RASMUSSEN AND INTRADE ACTION
11:20 EASTERN SUNDAY
INTRADE (RASMUSSEN IS IN SYNCH(
JM UP 2.9% OVER RG
MR AND MH STEADY OVER LAST 24 HOURS BUT MR DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY IN LAST 96 HOURS
2008 Republican Presidential Nominee
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN
John McCain to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 32.1 34.9 32.1 178587 -2.6
2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 30.0 31.8 29.2 149307 -1.6
2008.GOP.NOM.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 14.6 14.8 15.0 108351 -0.2
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 12.0 15.5 15.8 115515 +3.9
2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL
Ron Paul to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 3.4 3.7 3.4 96841 -1.0
|
|
Very Good. Let's see...Ron Paul to all Arabs:"We are so sorry that we haven't minded our own business. We understand that al Qaeda's hatred is justified and caused by our overeaching foreign policy. The fate of Israel and moderate Arab states is up to y'all." VP Huckleberry: "Yep, what the President said." McCain: "GRRRRRRRR..."
Fred: "ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..."
Shall I go on? |
|
I'm more convinced than ever that there is no logic to political debate analysis, just as there probably is none to the voting that follows. We see what we want to see, then vote based on wishful thinking.
In last night's Republican debate, my opinion is that Huckabee won, mostly through good presentation and understandable answers. Fred got second place, but not because he's presidential timber, more because he's calm and doesn't seem to care that much. McCain next: he's earnest, and not going to change, which works somewhat in his favor. Then Rudi, who actually makes a decent case for himself, but is getting tiresome about 9/11. Mitt looked foolish most of the time, despite a credible response on health care;
not a good performace. Ron Paul: angry, should be a candidate for something else, not president.
So, next comes the wishful thinking part.. |
|
it will be due to Barack taking independent votes from McCain. If McCain's independents hold fast, Mitt loses NH.
As noted above, by me and others, Mitt clearly has teed the other candidates off. It almost be worth it to buy Neo lunch in exchange for running against this guy. With Mitt at the top of the ticket, many Republicans will be listless and sullen, and some Reep leaders will actually be pulling for him to lose, so they can angle for 2012 in a newly redefined, revitalized GOP. |
|
McShame, Huckster and Fruity Rudy went after Mitt last night and ended up looking nasty and infantile. Mitt stood above it and stuck to the issues.
How anyone could possibly support McCain is beyond me. If he gets the party nomination a large % of the base will simply stay home.
I would rather see a dem president with a republican congress than a rino like McCain pandering to a dem congress.
|
|
|
Good to see your so afraid of Mitt and are rooting for McShame. Makes it all clear. |
|
|
..he showed how empty and vacuous the Reep argument about "originalism." If you think we should adhere to the Founders vision of the USA, then your take on economic and strategic policy should mirror his. If it seems a little koo-koo to you, then stop acting like you're exclusively faithful to this country's origins. |
|
If Romney gets the nomination, I won't vote. He's a fake and the more I see him, the more I dislike him. Here's who I want in order:
Huckabee
McCain
Thompson
Guiliani
Skimming over these comments though makes me realize the Republican party is in trouble. We're way to divided. Perhaps it's comeuppance. Great job, Hugh... |
|
Sorry, I'm not that clever. I mean what I say and when I say Mitt would be the easiest guy to beat, unlike Hugh and all those other guys who are too clever by half, I mean it.
Btw, I used to think that Mitt would be harder than some guys in the field. That opinion has changed over the past month or so. He's a say-anything, nuanced, flip-flopping consultant who has a taste for dirty, beneath-the-radar politics. Huck's line about Mitt being the guy who laid you off is one of the best political distinctions I have ever heard.
Don't get me wrong. Mitt will get tons of corporate support. The corporate MSM will be deferential and accommodating. Inside-the-beltway types like Hugh and Rush and Larry Kudlow will aggressively promote his candidacy. This year, at this time in history, those things are negatives.
With the possible exception of FDT, Mitt is the most cookie-cutter Republican in the field. Unfortunately for him, and for the Reeps, if they choose him, America at this moment is demanding more from conservatism than the Reeps have provided. After eight years of Bush, twelve years of GOP Congress, and thirty years of Republican ascendancy, "conventional modern Republican" ain't gonna cut it even with conservatives, much less Independents and Dems. |
|
|
and the Dims are one, huge cohesive juggernaut? You think the Hill will go away easily? |
|
You want to talk about a fake - how about a preacher with Hucks record?
On a number of occasions, Huckabee failed to report cash payments he made to himself. For example, according to The Associated Press ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15853756/ ), Huckabee received, but failed to report, “$43,150 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign for use of his personal airplane, $14,000 Janet Huckabee received from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign, and $23,500 from a tax-exempt organization he incorporated with others in 1994, but whose funding source isn't known…”
According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Huckabee “depleted the governor's office emergency fund in the final weeks of his administration in part to pay for the destruction of computer hard drives in his office.” |
|
I'm not rooting for McCain. He's the most formidable guy left on your side, in terms of bona fides with the independents, while still getting the base out (albeit reluctantly)..
I like Huck. I just like that guy. When he was speaking about the Declaration, I had a "private theatre moment," because everything he said was true. But I would say after Mitt, Huck is the least formidable. Rudy is second toughest after McCain and FDT is in the middle. |
|
On a number of occasions, Huckabee failed to report cash payments he made to himself. For example, according to The Associated Press ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15853756/ ), Huckabee received, but failed to report, “$43,150 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign for use of his personal airplane, $14,000 Janet Huckabee received from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign, and $23,500 from a tax-exempt organization he incorporated with others in 1994, but whose funding source isn't known…”
According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Huckabee “depleted the governor's office emergency fund in the final weeks of his administration in part to pay for the destruction of computer hard drives in his office.” |
|
|
When this process began months ago I received a flyer from John McCain requesting funds for his candidacy. I donated $500 because I thought his positions had merit. As time progressed, I wondered why McCain did not do well with raising funds. Did others know something I did not? I then attended a fundraiser for Mitt Romney. I listened to him speak, and was impressed that he appeared to be quite genuine. (I have reviewed the flip flops and don't have a problem with his changing positions). I then contributed money to Romney. I have watched all of the debates and have had an uncertain feeling that McCain had a short fuse. Tonight, after watching the debate, it is apparent to me that he has no class and does not only have a short fuse, but would be dangerous dealing with security issues in which he is at the top of the food chain! I thought his performance was "school yard." In addition, it appears that the gang of 4 (McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Giuliani) are a bit jealous of what Romney can do. Win or lose in New Hampshire, Romney showed the most class tonight in the debate. If McCain or Huckabee wins, I think you might as well not spend any more money, cancel the elections, and give the reigns to the Democrats! We had better select a classier candidate to run against the Democrats than what we saw with the GANG of 4. |
|
Will this work in NH?
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/romney-ad
|
|
As a long time Arizonan, you are right about McCain (McPr!ck). He can be a very nasty man. Let me just say, I know of ugly experiences.
He is a HORRIBLE Republican. He cannot be trusted. He is a loose cannon; you don't know when he will go off and you don't know which direction he will be firing. You just know he will go off. He is also not the brightest bulb on the stage. Just ask him about his monetary policy.
He was an old crank, many years ago. He has not improved with age. Few will go into a voting booth and vote for an old curmudgeon to guide us into the 21st century. His time has passed. |
|
at each other during their school girl attacks on Romney.
If I was Romney Id focus on the fact that Huck an McCain cant defend their own issues and wont let Romney defend his, and their behavior last night proves it. Huck and McCain are wahines as they looked at each other after they make their sissy remarks.
Huck and McCain showed their true selves last night. They have the class of bratty school girls.
Huck and McCain's strategy- attack-attack-attack-deny-deny-deny, smile-smile-smile-look at each other to see if the other is laughing. |
|
|
My take is the same as yours- McCain would be toughest for us, Mitt easiest. Didn't you just love his defense of the pharmaceutical companies? Go ahead make my day Repubs, nominate a multimillionaire position-switching stiff who personifies everything Obama will be campaigning against. We'll win everywhere but the deep South. |
|
You really have me smiling with your take on Paul and Thompson- which was the same as mine. This guy Paul sounds like the crazies on my side with this "we created the terrorists" nonsense.
Oh, and I watched the whole debate. Your impressions weren't wrong. |
|
I think we would learn more about McCain if we had more individuals from Arizona who really knew McCain on a personal basis come forward and share with us what the man is really like.
A measure of a man is the criticism of those who have worked closely with him. Have you seen any criticism of Romney from the national or international community that worked closely with him during the Olympic turnaround?
We need professionals to do a professionals job. McCain is not he man. |
|
Mitt's defense of pharma was awesome. Go get 'em Mitt. America is literally dying to hear your arguments in defense of those warm, cuddly, transnational corporations.
Like others around here, I wonder what the heck Mitt did to tee all those other guys off. He must be doing some nasty stuff behind the scenes. Every once in awhile it bubbles up--some phone tricks here, some phony "police" there--but you just know it is fast and furious beneath the radar. That's the way Reeps play, but it sounds like Mitt has gone even beyond their normal lawless levels. |
|
|
..on the terrorists. Everyone agrees that Rudy slapped him down pretty good. However, it is not logically impossible for them BOTH to be right, i.e., that our enemies are psycho-freaks who cannot be reached with reason (Rudy) AND our policies in the region are making the problem worse (Ron). |
|
came on the attack.
No longer innocent, no longer positive.
|
|
things dont get accomplished in Washington.
They cant focus on issues, theyd rather be petty than deal with the issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, right. Mitt is going to go to Washington and clean the mess up. Never heard that argument before. We need an OUTSIDER to take care of business. Surprised that we haven't thought of it before.. |
|
There are a number of Republicans in AZ that are very uncomfortable with McCain. Some speak openly, some do not. McCain is still powerful in the party and he can be spiteful. If I was moving up in the party or seeking office, I would NOT cross McCain.
The same things that made him a great military man make him a poor choice as POTUS. He likes 'command and control'. That's the reason for McCain/Feingold. He would like to 'control' the internet and its usage. You can see that he does not like to be challenged.
He does not have good judgment. Does anyone know where he REALLY stands on illegal immigration? Does he REALLY want to build the fence? I don't know that HE has figured it out. The Keating 5 is good example of an absolute disaster along with voting against the tax cuts, drilling in Anwar, the Gang of 14 that threw good judicial nominees overboard and the rest of the list that has been written about here many times.
McCain has been GREAT on the GWOT. But that is not enough. Do you know anyone that looks to McCain for leadership with a positive and optimistic outlook for the future; someone that we can all rally around, get EXCITED about, ENERGIZED, contribute money, campaign hard; door-to-door and making countless phone calls?
We have one terrific REPUBLICAN senator in AZ that I admire. His name is Jon. |
|
"If Romney gets the nomination, I won't vote. He's a fake and the more I see him, the more I dislike him. Here's who I want in order:
Huckabee
McCain
Thompson
Guiliani"
I am exactly the reverse!
If Huck gets the nomination, I won't vote. He's a fake and the more I see him, the more I dislike him. Here's who I want in order:
Guiliani
Thompson
McCain
Huckabee
|
|
Appreciate the links - it makes discussing these issues sooo much better. At least then people can see why someone believes the way they do. It moves the conversation out of the emotional (a favorite of the libs) to the factual (a favorite of the conservatives).
Now I do have issues with some of those and the degree to which they affect Mitt, but I am glad to get those links.
Thanks |
|
Mitt Romney: At first I was going to say, ‘hit and miss,’ but I think his answers were hit and miss. (I thought his answers on health care were the most understandable of the evening.) I think he came out of tonight a little wounded; everybody else in the race smells blood.
I think the dynamics of the evening were tough for him. He must have felt like a piñata – one moment he’s getting whacked by Huckabee, then McCain, then Thompson. Romney never quite got completely thrown off, but I think the assessment in the Corner is accurate, he doesn’t defend himself well enough. He whines about personal attacks, or says candidates shouldn’t talk about others’ views, which is pretty nonsensical.
If you went into tonight hearing he was a flip-flopper, you heard several other candidates say it tonight, and you saw Romney say it was a personal attack… and then move on to policy points. Whoever’s left undecided might conclude, based on the lack of effective refutation, that the charge is accurate.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODllMzJlMDc4 MjQxNWYzMmU3MjFjY2FkZWU1ZTYzYjk= |
|
comment fits right in with my assessment of 'His Reality'. Pauley's boy Peaky and our friend PL+LP have been sharing a bad bong!
LL: Would be tickeled if you jumped aboard the Victory Lunch I'll be wresting from PLib in Pasadena after Mitt sows up the nod. Hoping a few of my lads like Cabalista and Clarity(unarmed)might do the same. Now, if the studios & writers will just friggin' settle. |
|
|
PatLib is onto something when he refers to the viceral anti-Romney sentiment among the other Repub candidates. It does seem to go beyond the norm a bit. McCain was the most snide about it but Rudy and Huckabee both took well-targeted shots at him. Is it all the negative commercials? Not sure I fully understand the reasons but it is interesting to watch. |
|
The writer's strike is the most difficult kind of labor dispute to settle, a strike over concepts. A strike over money always has a middle ground. But the writers are seeking to expand the types of work for which they are compensated. That is a tough thing to accomplish.
Ultimately I think they will win on internet royalties, and lose on animation (which really is a jurisdictional dispute witth the Animation Guild,part of IATSE). Reality show coverage is the wild card. |
|
You seem to be a stand up blogger.
I appreciate that!
Issue's are issue's, and facts should be verifiable, I agree.
Say, regarding Romney's denial of the time-tabled withdrawl statement.
(In last nights debate)
Mitt actually made that statement on April 3,2007 in an interview with Robin Roberts on
ABC's Good Morning America.
I still can't believe he stuck by that...I guess he'll spin it later if and when confronted.
It sure doesn't help him on his strong defense of war stance.
And since asked before: I switched from a Mitt backer to Huckabee because I looked further into Mitt's record. Just being a great businessman
wasn't enough. Way too many flops or new positions. I prefer Huckabee's new positions.
He doesn't run away from his past as quickly as others do. They both have too much baggage, but one has to choose.
|
|
|
If Obama wins the Democratic nominations he'll pick McCain to be his running-mate. That will be the closest he ever gets to be President. |
|
|
His answer to the last question (a softball from Matthews to everyone) was so lame. I should vote for him because he won in Tennessee by more than 10 points. Stick a fork in this guy, he is done. |
|