Friday, January 25, 2008
|
|
Vice President Newt?
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:05 AM
|
I asked Newt Gingrich about the #2 job on yesterday's program (transcript here):
HH: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people would love to see you in the number two slot on the ticket. Are you open to that?
NG: Well, Ronald Reagan once said that he was hoping that Gerald Ford would not ask him in 1976, because a citizen would have a very hard time turning it down as part of their duty. And I always thought that was a wise admonition. And so I can’t quite imagine a nominee foolish enough to offer it, but I would have to consider it seriously if somebody did.
He also had this to say about the GOP race:
NG: John McCain is John McCain. He’s a very stubborn, very self-righteous, very indignant guy who really believes what he believes, and frankly, if you don’t like him, that’s your problem. And yet he’s also courageous and hard working and has great integrity, and is a true patriot. And so, he’s…and it really helped him in New Hampshire, because that was exactly the kind of cantankerous personality that kind of fits the New Hampshire tradition.
HH: But you know, Mr. Speaker, in your book, Real Change, one of the things that really resonated with me on Page 89, you call for cheerful persistence for change. And you cite FDR. And you know, that’s so crucial to governing, and I don’t think Senator McCain has any cheerful persistence for change in him, does he?
NG: I didn’t…listen, you asked me what I would advise each of those three guys, and I told you what I’d advise them. Look, I’m not defending any of the three. Each of them has great strengths, each of them has great weaknesses. That’s why no one has broken loose yet. And Florida become really important in part because either McCain or Giuliani has to win Florida to keep the nomination open. If Romney wins Florida, I think he’s on the way to becoming the nominee.
|
|
|
Newt wants to see a brokered convention and...get drafted as the savior of the GOP. |
|
I'd love a Romney/Hunter ticket, but most people have no idea who Duncan Hunter is. So he can't provide any broad based boost to Romney. He cannot deliver his home state of California for Romney either. Put that one out of your mind. If Hunter has any role in the Romney administration, it'll be in the cabinet.
Romney/Huckabee is probably a no-go as well unless Huck as VP can diffuse the anti-Mormon bigotry on the national level. Otherwise, he'll just be delivering Red States to Mitt (and he has those already).
Romney/Gingrich might not be a bid ticket, except that Newt would tend to upstage any nominee. Also Newt can't run in 2016, so we'd, again, be without an anointed successor in 2016.
My favorites are Romney/Santorum and Romney/Allen. Both Rick Santorum and George Allen are solid conservatives who have enjoyed some popularity in purple states. They're both young enough to run in 2016 (so we'd have a natural successor). They're both plenty smart, but they would not upstage Romney. |
|
...brings nothing.
Duncan Hunter for veep, for at least some national security cred. |
|
or P McCain in the general election. Newt has strong conservative credentials. With a Romney/Newt vs. a Clinton/?, dems would have a hard time making much out of Newt's marital problems. Such attacks would be dangerous because they draw comparisons of VP Newt = P Hillary leaving the dems without a top of the ticket candidate.
A VP Newt would also give Republicans a credible opportunity to make another "contract with America." |
|
The new face of conservatism over here:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30434.html
The author gives a pretty clear comparison of the remaining GOP candidates. |
|
I'm not at all sure Newt's the answer, for POTUS or V-Potus. But the baggage mentioned with his name is usually the adultery issue, which I sure don't condone, but is far different from that of Giuliani. Either way, I really don't want those wives as my First- can't say it- consort???
But McCain- did you people see the illegals so bold as to march repeatedly through the streets of Phoenix shouting Obama's new slogal- si, se puede- yes we can! They fully intend and plainly say in English and Spanish they want to take over the US, starting with the border states. And McCain would let them, immidiately upon- heaven help us- his election. Do we want to keep the US or not? Not a frivolous question. |
|
Thomas Sowell:
"Quite aside from age, there is all too much evidence already that John McCain is not the kind of man who has given in-depth thought to many of the serious issues on which he shoots from the hip, which some people equate with “straight talk.” The media have dubbed him a “maverick,” which is another way of spinning the fact that he is headstrong and unreliable.
Senator McCain’s teaming up with Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration, and with equally left-wing Senator Russ Feingold to violate the First Amendment in the name of “campaign-finance reform,” are classic examples of a loose cannon.
Senator McCain is not a bad man. He has some admirable qualities. But there are plenty of good people who would be dangerous in a job for which they are not suited.
Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said that some people “may do the worst of things without being the worst of men.” The White House is not the place for that."
|
|
From Time Magazine, April 1980 (the year Ronald Reagan could not possibly beat Ted Kennedy or a sitting president in January)
On almost every key public issue—electing a President, responding to the Soviets in Afghanistan, reacting to anti-inflation initiatives—there is a process, part deliberative and part intuitive, by which people eventually settle their views. Any single opinion poll will catch the American public, as in a snap shot, at a fixed point in the process. But which point is it? Percentages alone do not reveal whether people are at the vague beginning, the turbulent middle or the conclusive end of the process of making up their minds.
Even in the most obvious uses of polling, in pre-election surveys, a 2-to-l lead in January and a 2-to-l lead in late October are clearly two different numbers, because in the interim the public has passed through most stages of the making-up-one's-mind process. In examining poll reports, the public needs to ask: "Is this poll focusing on questions to which people have given serious thought, or is it culling top-of-the-head responses — and how do we know which is which?"
And since you love links, here's the whole article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924079-4,0 0.html |
|
A year ago very few people outside Massachusetts knew who Mitt Romney was. Because of his intellect, experience and powerful message he is now the leading Republican candidate for president.
His campaign success is a clear statement of his leadership and executive talents. He has organized and run the best campaign in either political party.
He has invested millions of dollars of his own money and has stated he will not accept the presidential salary if elected. He is running for the right reasons.
Romney will do to the Democratic nominee exactly what he has done to all the Republican nominees, only this time it will be much easier. |
|
We must elect someone who will not try to shove "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", amnesty, down our throats. We tried that once in 1986 and it failed miserably. We now have 10 times the number of illegal aliens. We will either elect a President who will uphold the laws or one who will change them to accomodate the illegal aliens. If we do the latter, we are voluntarily committing national suicide.
|
|
are meaningless right now. I don't know anything about your poll, but it looks quite fishy. There is groundswell of opposition to McCain right now, so it doesn't rign true. Evren if that poll is accurate, it won't last long. It doesn't make sense, and that's why I'm suspicious of it.
Right now, Romney has more votes than anyone, not to mention delegates. That is the actual proof that Romney has appeal - more than McCain. |
|
Conservatism works every time it's tried. That's the only way the GOP can win this one - if we are true to our values.
Romney's position changes are largely a myth, all but one. Clinton has more flip-flops than anyone running, so I doubt she'll want to use that strategy.
Romney is the antithesis of the Clintons. McCain is closer in idealogy to them. I think the contrast is a better way to go. I doubt there are many cross-over dems, anyway. The indies who hate the Clintons are going to vote for anyone who is not Hillary, anyway.
And, like Rush, I'd rather lose being true to our standard, than win having compromised our principles. A LOT of conservatives are on that train. |
|
A recent Pew Poll on point found the following:
McCain receives solid favorable ratings from all key groups of Republican voters. Republican-leaning independents offer nearly identical ratings of McCain as do those who identify as Republicans. Fully two-thirds of conservative white evangelical Protestant GOP voters have a favorable view of McCain, as do nearly three-quarters of other conservatives (72%), and moderate and liberal Republicans (74%). McCain also receives virtually identical ratings from younger and older voters, men and women, and voters of different educational backgrounds.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=385
Looking at the flip side of the issue, Pollster.com’s Charles Franklin recently observed:
Also surprising, given McCain’s testy relations with so many Republican groups, is the relatively small number who would refuse to vote for him. McCain suffers only 9% of Republicans who would never vote for him in the Pew poll. Huckabee is at 8%, Giuliani at 15% and Romney at a devastating 20%.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/an_emerging_republican_consen s.php
|
|
Mitt's unfavorables are really really bad. Some of it is anti Mormon bias (you see that here all the time) but fortunately it is a minority of voters I think that will be cancelled out by people of good will. I think Mitt can over come that.
But Mitt is all over the map on positions and the Clinton Machine will be relentless.
Pat Buchanan just had a great line on Morning Mica about Mitt Romney:
"He's campaigning as an outsider, even though he looks like the chairman of the admission committee at the country club."
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/cb160c97-759d-4232-b5d0-27f6 aef24c26
Now in an election that favors the Democrats (and I am sorry that is just the flat out honest truth) Mitt is not going to swing enough Indies and x-over Dems to win. And unfortunately that is exactly what we need to win. |
|
What do you say about the polls being meaningless in the same way that the polls were meaningless about Guilian for so long?
I think it's a very good question. Those polls are not going to stay the same once we have our nominee.
And there's the very real possibility/likelihood that if McCain is it, people are going to stay home in droves. Many will simply choose not to rally around McCain. This is the hole I'm tlaking about. It's MORE reliable than your polling data. |
|
Are you forgeting he's LIBERAL, as dumb as a post, is running a deceptive, religion-baiting campaign, and that there is mountains of ill-will between him and Romney?
He's also so gaffe-prone that it would be a full-time job to keep him on track.
Huck is finished and will never hear a VP spot with anyone. He is unfit to be a GOP office-holder. |
|
"Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax 'loophole' closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees. Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005. Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders."
- Club for Growth's White Paper on Mitt Romney
"Romney continues to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax 'unfair.'"
- Club for Growth's White Paper on Mitt Romney
The Governor would also seek to raise $128 million in revenue by closing corporate tax loopholes (Rick Klein, “Massachusetts Governor’s Proposed Budget Includes Layoffs, New Fees”, Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 2/27/2003)
Despite the governor's pledge of no new taxes, his proposal does increase some taxes and fees: The administration says it can collect an additional $70 million by "closing loopholes" in corporate and sales tax rules (Scott Greenberger, “Massachusetts Governor Sets $22.98 Billion Budget Blueprint”, Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 1/29/2004)
“…business groups objected so strongly to a proposed $170 million tax increase that Romney snuffed the idea and proposed $85 million instead.” (Alexander Bolton, “Romney’s Tax Record Gets A Closer Look,” The Hill, 3/27/2007)
Governor Romney even raised taxes on some New Hampshire residents who worked in Massachusetts, taxing their income and their pensions. Learn more
And PC, those polls are not "my whole argument" for McCain. But they are a very important part of my argument because electablity and the ability to beat Hillary is critical in this race.
|
|
McCain and the Dems. support amnesty for tens of millions. They consider and label American citizens RACISTS AND BIGOTS, if we don't agree to lie down and allow our country to be taken over by every third world inhabitant that seeks to extort financial gain from the success and ingenuity of generations of hardworking Americans? If illegal aliens are granted amnesty by these deceitful and vile politicians , we will surely be engaged in a culture war in the not too distant future that will turn violent. The abundance of polling information that condemned the McCain/Kennedy farce and the irrefutable living examples of why this shouldn’t continue is simply overwhelming.
There is nothing more ridiculous than for McCain and other liberal RINOS to think we will forget. They must pay the price for their hatred of our laws and their constant attempts at using Christianity to create a moral excuse for their decision to violate the constitution of the United States-the same nation these greedy traitors want to lead! The same constitution that would grant them executive powers! For the sake of your children, grand-children and America vote Romney 2008. |
|
I almost died laughing when Mitt talked about Bill in the Whitehouse with "nothing to do." I hope he uses that again!
Huck a great line about nonrepublicans....
If Mitt wins the nomination, uniting and healing the GOP should be his number one concern. I believe chosing Huck for VP would be the best move possible. That would bring in the Evangelicals and southerners for sure. I don't think McCain would make a good VP. He just doesn't seem like a guy who could play second fiddle and I believe Mitt will be strong in the west anyway. |
|
And they are basically meaningless right now. Your whole argument for McCain is built around them. But there is widespread dislike and mistrust of McCain within the base.
Can't you see the big whole in your premise?
We, as a party have to get our fundmentals right. We have to be solid on our values, first - then we move forward into the general.
Those polls favoring McCain are just like the meaningless ones showing Guiliani in the lead for months. They mean diddly squat right now. |
|
Mitt Romney opposed the Bush tax cuts back in 2003. Romney is not one to chide McCain about them.
Romney didn't support President Bush's tax cuts in 2003. That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.
“Shawn Feddeman, Romney’s spokeswoman, said the governor has neither endorsed nor opposed the tax cut plan because ‘it’s just not a state matter.’” (Wayne Washington, “Romney Weighs In – Carefully – On Bush Tax Cut Plan, Governor Won’t Give His Endorsement,” Boston Globe, 4/11/2003)
|
|
|
|
The Rep convention is after the Dem convention. We can wait and see who the Dem candidate and VP are and then decide on a VP.
If it is Hillary/Obama or Hillary/Richardson we are going to have to find a way to negate the gender gap and minority turnout.
We do not have any really strong Hispanics that I know of who could be President in waiting. Rice or maybe even Powell may have to be considered but I do not believe that we will ever get much of the Black vote unless the Obama fans are really ticked off. |
|
From today's piece by Pat Buchanan:
In 2004, the voters of Arizona, by 56 percent to 44 percent, enacted Proposition 200, requiring proof of citizenship before an individual may vote or receive state benefits. Forty-six percent of Hispanics voted for Prop. 200, giving the lie to those who say Hispanics support the illegal invasion of their country. Over 190,000 Arizonans petitioned to put Prop. 200 on the ballot. As it simply required proof of citizenship before receiving the benefits and privileges of citizenship, who could oppose it? Answer: the entire GOP congressional delegation, led by Sen. John McCain. This is the same John McCain who battled the border fence and colluded with Teddy Kennedy on the amnesty bill rejected by Congress last year after a national uproar. Bottom line: If the presidential race is between Hillary and Amnesty John, the border security battle is over and lost. |
|
Today on Fox and Friends Geraldo said he can vote for John McCain because of illegal immigration.
If the G.O.P. can't see that the MSM is trying to shove McCain down our throats than they are blind.
McCain lied on stage last night. Russert asked him about his own statement about not knowing about the economy and he said he didn't say it. He just said it a month ago.
In these economic times the G.O.P. is gonna nominate a man who admits to not knowing about the economy?
Howard Feinman said it last night. The dems are scared of Romney and it's obvious. Romney can run as the outsider against Washington which includes Hillary Clinton.
McCain has been in Washington 24 years and in a change election Hillary will look like the agent of change.
McCain is labled a maverick for stabbing conservatives in the back but when Zell Miller went against the dems he was labled a nut. They ran Lieberman out of the party.
Go Mitt!!
|
|
|
|