just because every other sentence has to include the mandatory "Romney is one of the two frontrunners" doesn't make it so.
If he is the frontrunner- why in EVERY national poll on the RCP average is he in FOURTH place? It is so tiring being subjected to the lies here.. |
|
He couldn’t have meant Rudy and Mitt, since as the link indicates, they have the same record of nonenforcement. ;)
BTW, I do agree with the argument that it’s a very feeble Rudy camp non-response to try to turn the issue around on Mitt. It’s true that Governor Mitt was no better than Mayor Rudy, but it’s also true that that’s not a defense of Rudy.
No wonder everyone wanted Fred or some other conservative savior. |
|
Where did Romney make any declaration close to what Rudy said regard to sanctuary? As Governor, Romney vetoed instate tuition for illegals, signed bill allowing the state troopers to apply immigration enforcement, and fought against issuing of driver licenses.
|
|
Rudy and Mitt are behind the curve on the Illegal Alien Issue.
Tancredo and Hunter did not wait on this issue until after sticking their finger in the air to get the political winds for direction.
I am glad Mitt is seeing the light. Better late then never.
Why not get behind Tancredo or Hunter sense they were right on the most important issue affecting our Country at this time from the start.
We do not need Bill Clinton lite (Mitt & Rudy) in the 08 election. We need conservatives. |
|
|
Regardless of where they started, they're moving in the right direction on these issues, which is not a given anymore on the border issue (see Generalissimo's post today). Personally, I don't much care about the pre-9/11 Rudy, Mitt, OR GWB. (Mitt, who has experienced his own political conversions, ought to leave Rudy's conversions alone.) Post-9/11, which of the viable candidates is likeliest not only to secure the borders, but to be a champion of the issue who will push it when it has to be pushed? Mitt and Romney are hardly "Clinton lite." But the test will be to see which if any of them (including Fred) picks up the mantle on border issues. Looks like Mitt's got the head start. |
|
|
USAF, I have to wonder whether you've watched a primary election up close before. Is this your first ride? Have a look, for example, at the polling for the democratic presidential candidate in 2004 prior to Iowa and New Hampshire. Now have a look at those same numbers for the 1992 election. Seeing a pattern? National polls at this point in the game mean nothing. You're not being lied to, you're being educated. |
|
For those who have yet to realize it, Governor Romney's victory in Ames was as significant as Giuliani, Thompson and McCain's absence. Further to the point, AGR released its recent national poll, below are the results:
Giuliani dropped from 30% to 27%
Romney increased from 10% to 16%
F Thompson dropped from 17% to 16%
McCain dropped from 14% to 13%
While some were sleeping, with the Iowa victory and the recent polls, I think it is fair to say that Mitt Romney is one of two front runners. In fact, given trends and Romney's continued rise and Giuliani's continued decline, Romney is the one to beat. |
|
None of us has any real clue how the next weeks and months will play out.
Discussion over.
|
|
Brian -
Your comment, (unfortunately) like many others on these boards, take a comment and cherry pick from it to attempt to make a point. David didn't state (or even suggest), that Mitt's bounce was due to the Ames results. They are two separate things.
Further, given that Fred! isn't even a candidate yet, putting Mitt in the "two frontrunners" category isn't terribly outrageous.
Finally, while I am certainly a Romney supporter and would love to believe the AGR numbers, unfortunately AGR has been the oddball pretty much throughout this cycle. It will come, I just don't think it's come yet. |
|
|
The Man continues to impress... |
|
..if you say so. Like I believe Romney will do anything about illegal immigration. Tell me, what did he do about it when he was governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation?
Did his Romney-care provide coverage for illegals?
Hmmm???? |
|
|
|
No RINOS need apply.
With a Conservative like Hunter in the White House, we'd all be better off.
Wishy-washy, poll-driven, globalist wannabees gave us Bush 41, Dole, and Bush 44.
If the Republicans want my vote, they need to put up a Conservative. Not someone who changes his mind on important issues based on how the polling numbers tell him to feel.
Romney might be a swell guy; but his pro-aborion stand nixes him in my book. Same with most of the others.
Romney has not been up front in the fight against illegal immigration, either. That second strike takes out his Kerry-esque "I was for it before I was against it" argument on everything else. He is apparently only a man of strong convictions when that is a popular choice.
Mind you, I'm not saying _I_ am better than him. I'm not. But that isn't important as I'm not running for President.
Duncan Hunter is the best choice. |
|
Just look for a second at Mitt in Ames? How much of his own money did he spend per voter? If that is what he would do with his own money, just think what he would spend other peoples money on.
The nomination process to run for President is messed up.
We were stuck with Bob Dole (fine man, lousy run for President) and got Billie Whoe. We could have elected Steve Forbes and we got a great President for the people of Mexico in G. Bush.
Some how we screwed up and elected a great President in Ron Reagan but was that a fluke?
Duncen Hunter, Tancredo, and even Hukleberry with his fair tax are better then these guys running in the front.
What has Mitt, Rudy, or Fred come up with to fix our tax system? |
|
I am troubled by the prospect that somehow Iowa and New Hampshire decide who the eventual candidate will be. That seems to be the accepted thought line {especially among the romnelians) and the "Historical" predictor. There has got to be a better way to pick the nominee. The way it is set up now you either start out in front and stay there by way of your fame or popularity {Rudy}, the party says it's your time {Dole} or you buy your way in {Romney}. What if the best man for the job is not famous or rich. What if someone who could really change the course of the country never gets his chance. Should Iowa have so much swing?
I know this is just the way it is but I got a bad feeling about this...or maybe a true conservative party can rise form the ashes of the country club GOP.
dirL |
|
and folks who know more about pigs, soybeans, and corn than is healthy allowed to make such momentous decisions?
Because they mirror the rest of the country? Seems to me that Pat Robertson did really well in Iowa. Or because it passes the MSM "smell test"...
Just like Scott Thomas Beauchamp's lies.
Smell that.
|
|
Romney is not self-funding his campaign. He has augmented it twice, but the great majority of his money is contributions. I do not think you will see him throwing large amounts of his own cash in.
Iowa is just a begining and a way for candidates to show they are serious. Romney did what he had to do and it should not be diminished because Rudy and McCain were afraid to show up and get clobbered. He showed his excellent campaign strategy, his organizational skills (CEO), his ability to conect with voters, and his committment. I don't know how you can fault a guy for that. Apparently the folks in Iowa think he is a real conservative.
Then there's Fred who refuses to do anything but sit on his arrogant rear end.
Gee, is it not obvious which guy is going to make it to the end? |
|
Bob Dole made it to the end and we got 8 years of Billie Whoe.
G. Bush made it to the end and Mexico got a windfall.
Who gives a rip if a wannabe gets to the end game or not.
The only question left between Mitt, Rudy, Fred, and the Hilderbeast is will Mexico be happy taking over California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, or will they insist on the entire burito? |
|
Bob Dole made it to the end and we got 8 years of Billie Whoe.
G. Bush made it to the end and Mexico got a windfall.
Who gives a rip if a wannabe gets to the end game or not.
The only question left between Mitt, Rudy, Fred, and the Hilderbeast is will Mexico be happy taking over California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, or will they insist on the entire burito? |
|
Gay Marriage
Mr. Romney agrees with 3000 years of recorded history.
He disagrees with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman and our Constitution and laws should reflect that. We must remember that every child deserves a mother and a father. Like Mitt, I believe each child in America has the right to have a mother and a father.
Mr. Romney recently said “It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.”
I am deeply touched by Mitt’s statement.
Hazing in the U.S. Army Infantry Bootcamp is tiddly winks compared to the Hazing liberals hand out if anybody stands up and defends their conservative values in the state of Massachusetts. I can personally attest that defending the traditional definition of marriage in Massachusetts is essentially considered criminal behavior.
May the next President of the United States reflect the values of those that founded this Country and not the values of an extremist sect of the population.
Stephen Dunne
Stephen@avisionofdemocracy.com
http://www.avisionofdemocracy.com |
|
Hugh is just a dispassionate observer of Romney's campaign. He hasn't endorsed anybody notwithstanding his writing an entire book about the man, maximum campaign donation, appearance at almost every California Romney event, and propping him every day on his radio show and blog. He's still weighing the facts of who to endorse. He hasn't made any decision yet who he will vote for. He has to weigh everything carefully. Yeah right.
Endorse the man already Hugh. |
|
|
I must have missed that statewide straw poll in Iowa, where Fred! got 90,000 votes. Could you give a link to that? Odd that I missed that, since I live in Iowa. |
|
|
I used to love Hugh's show. Now it's just a Romney lovefest. It's so irritating and borders on embarassing. I might have considered supporting Romney. He seems capable and a good man -- but Hugh's obnoxious enthusiasm makes Romney almost repellent to me now. Anyone agree? |
|
Voters that decide who to vote for based on how obnoxious a talk show host's support for a candidate is.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|