Sunday, September 23, 2007
|
|
Campaign 2008: Who's "On Plan?"
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:28 AM
|
Yesterday Powerline's John Hinderaker asked "[W]hy hasn't Romney done better, given his deep resources, obvious talents, and policy positions that line up well with the party's base?" John went on to speculate that "I think we may be finding out that [Romney] lacks some of the skills necessary to be an excellent candidate."
John did note Romney's leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, which is to me the complete answer to John's question --Romney is doing "better" because his plan is rolling out as he had hoped: Romney is betting the campaign on the idea that demonstrated success in consecutive actual votes as opposed to polling will catapult him past Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. (Senator McCain is simply not a factor except as a spoiler, probably for Rudy more than anyone else since Senator McCain's primary appeal is his absolute firmness on pursuing victory in the war.)
So Romney's entire strategy depends upon the early contests. Mayor Giuliani's strategy depends upon surviving weak showings where campaigns have actually been run and concluded and winning in the big states beginning in Florida, but especially New York and California where his general reputation currently overwhelms the campaign efforts of Governor Romney and the star power of Senator Thompson.
The key measures of the effectiveness of the candidates how they are doing in their central challenges: Is Romney establishing the leads he needs in the early contests, and are eith Giuliani or Thompson holding on to their leads in the big, later states. John frets that Romney doesn't seem to be doing well in the national polls when he isn't focusing on the national polls. The key question ought to be is Giuliani or Thompson holding on to or building upon their leads in the big states?
Romney has in fact built the leads in the early states that he needs, and will spend the next three months defending them. He's doing exactly what he set out to do.
But the latest numbers out of California suggest trouble for the Giuliani/Thompson strategy. Here's the AP report of the latest PPI California poll. Key graph:
The poll shows Republican voters to be more divided. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, is slightly ahead of the GOP pack, with 22 percent of likely primary voters saying they will support him.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at 16 percent, as is former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who only recently joined the race. Arizona Sen. John McCain is at 15 percent. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Democrats allow independents to vote in their primary, although Republicans do not. The survey results reflect the views of 455 registered Democrats and independents likely to cast ballots in the Democratic primary and 353 registered Republicans likely to vote in their party's primary. Both contests will be held Feb. 5.
PPIC is a nonpartisan think tank based in San Francisco. The poll results were based on a telephone survey of 2,003 California adult residents who were interviewed from Sept. 4 to Sept. 11.
Though the sample size is relatively small, it does represent likely voters, and the numbers show Rudy falling, Mitt rising and Fred failing to explode. (And today's front page Los Angeles Times hit on Rudy on immigration isn't going to help the mayor either, though GOPers hardly read much less trust the Times.) Again, the Giuliani and Thompson strategies are built on the idea of their general popularity surviving Romney's run in January or February. These numbers suggest that in the country's biggest state, the Giuliani and Thompson numbers are falling and Romney's rising --in the absence of an actual campaign presence by any of the candidates. This wasn't supposed to have happened. The Fredheads expected their guy to have matched Rudy (or even beat him) in a place like MSM-dependent, Leno-watching California. The sinking feeling among them is that Fred's moment did in fact pass months ago, and the flavor of the month in May doesn't sell in the fall or winter.
So, back to John: What do these California numbers tell you? To me they signal that a currently wide open race will indeed pivot on Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, and that Teams Giuliani and Thompson cannot afford to lose all three. It isn't the Romney campaign that needs to be second-guessing how their efforts are working --they are on plan.
The numbers also tell m --again-- that the national polls are useless in analyzing how the race will break, and the California poll is an early warning sign of just that fact to pundits and candidates alike. Analysts pointing to national polls are like ESPN commentators talking up Michigan in the preseason college football polls.
|
|
I don't know where people get the strange idea that a man as inteligent, as educated and as successful as Romney is can be credibly compared to a used car salesman or a televangelist. What a joke! Romney has an extremely impressive record in all areas of his life and deserves a little more respect than that, Jane.
So Fred makes you feel secure and safe because he is in charge . . . (sigh) - you're livin in the wrong century girl! Hilarious - you are like one of his former (young) girlfriends who sad that Fred will give the women of the country a soft place to lay. Too bad you were not around when the Tenessee Stud was dating, or would you have been too old for him? You know he likes 'em young. |
|
The national polls may be interesting. They may even be accurate, but it's the primaries in the states that count. People in the media seem to have forgotten that we are a federation of individual states, not a single country-wide voting precinct.
Mitt Romney understands that, and he's approaching the primaries in a manner that shows it. He started with lower name recognition, so national polls can't really represent how well he'd do after more people get to know him. However, in those states where he has put in the effort to get acquainted, he's done very well.
It's a logical strategy and reflects his general approach to problem solving: first, gather as many facts as you can and make sure you understand the process and then arrive at a strategy that makes sense. Probably his greatest strength is one that doesn't show up in polls: his ability to analyze a situation and address it logically and with leadership.
The "debates" are a big waste of time, because they always focus on what the candidates would do in a briefly described hypothetical or how he would solve a problem if he had unlimited power to dictate a solution. The answers are bound to be speculative or unrealistic.
I think the Republican race comes down to three main candidates, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. Thompson and McCain have no experience running a large governmental organization. |
|
...unless the phrase you wrote inside the quotation marks is the question, the question mark belongs on the outside of the end quote. |
|
Even Nick Clooney, who actually is a TV weatherman and movie host and is George Clooney's pop, couldn't parley his telegenic looks into a political win.
As for Mitt's "good looks," there's something about his too-tight, too-orange skin and his Kerryesque hair that reminds me of this Simpsons exchange:
"Why is that one Muppet made of leather?"
"That's not a leather Muppet; that's Troy McClure!"
I always get amused when people start telling women how they'll vote (based on looks). Sure, there are good-looking male candidates who get a lot of female votes. But there are also plenty who don't. Not all women are complete airheads. We always hear about how the taller candidate supposedly always wins, too, because of the female vote, and yet it turns out that this is an urban legend and the shorter candidate wins half the time. |
|
|
Remember, that's 9% of Republicans. Unlike McCain, Guliani, and Obama, he gets essentially no support from the other pary or even from independents. And with only 30% of the electorate identifying itself as Republican, it's hard to see how even as savvy an expert in financial leverage as Mitt is can seriously hope to lever 9% of 30% into 270 electoral votes. |
|
John Hinderaker get it almost right. Romney does come off as plastic. And a phony. He comes off as someone who will say anything to get my vote.
He reminds me of a slick car salesman or a televangist.
Someone mentioned Romney will get the female vote because he is handsome. Yes he is.
But someone like Fred Thompson would get my vote if I was to base my vote on looks. Fred isn't handsome. But he does have the ability to make me feel secure, that he is in charge and I can feel safe.
|
|
|
Now THAT'S a line I can imagine Sanctuary Romney, Amnesty Mitt, and of course McCain all delivering with great sincerity. Go Fred! |
|
Fejj,
Let's see how well Mitt does when he can't buy votes. |
|
Richard 223
I guess the moment was so awkward that it caused him to win the straw poll hands down. Romney's ad is not a trashing - he speaks the truth about the RINOs who have dominated the GOP for too long. |
|
From RCP:
"In a lunchtime speech to over a thousand Michigan Republicans gathered here for a retreat, Romney cast himself as a "Republican for change" and told the faithful in a marked denunciation of his own party that the Washington branch of the GOP has lost its way.
"I think we'd have to admit that the blame doesn't all belong to the other party," Romney said of the unanswered challenges of recent years.
Romney was reading from a teleprompter and punctuated his statement with emphasis -- clearly indicating that it was meant for applause. But there was none.
A bit later Martin says there was "an awkward moment when one person began to clap but nobody else in the crowd joined."
That doesn't sound like a very impressive showing, especially for a candidate who is the state's favorite son."
A good example of Hindraker's complaint - Mitt cannot connect with his audience, and he MUST connect with this audience. Who came up with the idea of trashing his own party, Hugh? |
|
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
|
|
All of us political junkies seem to forget how little the average person is paying attention to the candidates outside of the first primary states. I live in Illinois, know hundreds of Republicans, and can count on one hand how may of them know anything about Romney. Once he wins a couple states, people hear the "quick pitch" on Romney (saved the Opympics, saved MA budget, fixed hundreds of broken companies) people are going to flock to him. The fact that he looks the part is very important too. He was neck and neck in the polls with Shannon O'Brien in MA when he was running for governor, and last minute he won by a full 5 points. Most commentators agreed that "looking like a leader" gave him an edge with the last minute deciders. If he wins the first 3 states, Romney will steamroll the rest of the primary.
D |
|
A "simple test, a simple speech" you say, SteveL?
You say you can't imagine Romney delivering a one line speech as memorable and influential as Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"? I can. Easily.
So I guess Romney passes the test. It's your imagination that is impoverished.
(BTW, I can imagine Giuliani delivering a similarly memorable speech) |
|
|
|
portlandmom writes: "I agree that Rudy has leadership qualities....but there is a lot more to it than your simple test. He is not right on the issues - and that is too big a problem to overlook for conservatives."
Believe me, I understand that. That is why this primary season is so difficult. We conservatives don't all have the same priorities, and no one candidate has yet shown that he can put it all together in one package.
I heard from the usual blogger grapevine that Fred Thompson did NOT come off as inspiring when he addressed the Mackinac GOP conference in Michigan this week:
http://robertbluey.com/blog/
and see also
http://tinyurl.com/2dophd
Any hope that Fred Thompson is a new Reagan is rapidly fading.
So we've got a long way to go. It may go all the way to the convention before we know for sure who the nominee will be. The last time that happened was 1968.
|
|
|
I can picture Romney and Thompson saying 'Tear down this wall" because they are saying the equivalent in their campaigning. Romney, in particular has been saying a lot of things that need to be said. Some call it pandering, but I think it is a mark of leadership. I've heard people who know him say that when he says he'll do something he can be counted on. I believe that. |
|
|
I agree that Rudy has leadership qualities - I love to hear him speak because he is commanding, but there is a lot more to it than your simple test. He is not right on the issues - and that is too big a problem to overlook for conservatives. Not to mention that his bizarre behavior and personal lifestyle choices that are questionable. Those things matter too. |
|
|
Thompson being nationally known can only help him for another short while. He is stumbling badly and needs to do something spectacular at this point to stay viable. He will probably end up taking himself out and that leaves more room for Romney, who is a more substantial candidate for conservatives by a wide margin. |
|
Maineac writes: "I was talking to a kid in my office the other day who I would consider a kind of bellweather voter....Let's call him a Reagan Democrat....He said he [Romney] seemed to speak well"
That's nice, but largely irrelevant to our current discussion. Because only a very few states like New Hampshire and Iowa allow crossover voting by Democrats in GOP primaries, and most folks already expect Romney to do well in those states. So the votes of "Reagan Democrats" don't matter that much in the GOP primary season (though they obviously matter in the general campaign for the November 2008 election).
|
|
A simple test for you:
One of the greatest, if not the greatest, speeches made by any Republican president in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan's exhortation at the Brandenburg Gate to the Soviets to "Tear down this wall!" [the Berlin Wall]. That moment of eloquence marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War.
OK. Now try to imagine ANY of the current crop of candidates making that same speech:
Can you picture Romney saying "Tear down this wall!" to the Soviets? I can't.
Can you picture Fred Thompson saying "Tear down this wall!" to the Soviets? I can't.
(And needless to say, I can't picture Hillary or Obama or Edwards giving that speech either.)
Because these candidates just lack Reagan's combination of sheer presence, vision, and forcefulness of personality that could put across a speech like that.
Indeed, the ONLY leading candidates I can see who could give a "Tear down this wall" speech are Rudy Giuliani and McCain. Because so far, only they have shown the passion and the forceful presence in public that Reagan did.
And that's why I am supporting Rudy Giuliani. Because while most of the GOP candidates have their hearts in the right place on the War on Terror, Giuliani is the only one who, as President, could address the nation and get the country to MARCH. Getting the people to stand up and march is what leadership is all about.
|
|
I recognize and respect the analysis of Romney's strategy, but disagree. The fact is, most voters won't have the privilege (?) of Mitt Romney sitting on their lap. So what you'll be left with is a GOP front-runner who has no appeal to the general electorate who experience the campaign through the TV, internet and newspapers.
That's if you're right.
If you're wrong, here's how you're wrong. Thompson and Guiliani are funded by people who have looked at Romney and say "no thanks." They will be prespun by their respective candidates' managers to expect defeat in these early primaries/caucus. The main halo effect of wins in those states is to scare off fundraisers, but I don't think that will happen here if Romney continues to be low in the polls. For different reasons, Guiliani and Thompson are already national candidates. They have high name recognition. They don't need the good publicity of an Iowa caucus or NH primary win.
I think you'd have to agree with this: If Romney loses either Iowa or New Hampshire, he is dead. Deader than McCain. |
|
..Like & Trust about Obama in this Huge Historical time we're living?
..And Biden.Same?
(It's almost constitutionally impossible for me to withold wise cracks in the Biden query...But,I did it!)
Sincerely,
Neoconservative & Sleazy Hollywood Producer Type |
|
Id take neophyte Obama against the corrupt Hillary any day.
Check out Flips blog for more info on Hillary financial dealings. Scary stuff.
Hell, I'd take the idiot Edwards over Ma Clinton. |
|
|
Re the presidential race. This is fast becoming the blog of lost causes. Rudy's sinking, Fred was a much better unannounced candidate than he is candidate, McCain nuthin' but a spoiler, Mitt's strategy is working like a charm if only the rest of the country doesn't vote. I never thought I'd say this, but George Bush is right: Hillary's gonna be the next president. (He's wrong about what she'll do about Eye-raq, however). |
|
The Cons are going down in 08.
The appeasers will saunter in and throw it all to the UN; the problems will fester and blow up in any case.
Pick your poison. |
|
Romney is at 9%. 9%!!! He's a TERRIBLE candidate. He's spent tons of money, been on the trail for months and has leads in a couple of states to show for it. Take those leads away and he must be at 6% in the other states. There will be a brief spark and then total darkness for Mitt. He's not going quadruple his numbers all across the country because he wins in Iowa. I'm sorry, guys. Not gonna happen.
The ad that richard_223 linked to is the perfect caricature of Mitt. That's the feeling I get every time I see him. |
|
From Rasmussen:
'The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% of Likely Voters would definitely vote against Romney if he’s on the ballot in 2008. That’s a point higher than the 43% who would definitely vote against Clinton.
Finally, Mitt can go head to head against Hillary.
Was Mitt a conservative who pretended to be a liberal in Mass, or he is he a liberal who is pretending to be a conservative to win the nomination?
I have no idea. |
|
the Importance of Michigan "moving up." The effects of a "decent" win in Iowa could be entirely dissipated by a skin-tight margin in NH, and a loss in SC; but, a Decent win in Iowa, a tight win in NH, and a decent win in Mi, followed by a win in Nv would be pretty Strong "Mo," even with a corresponding loss in SC. That would be a LOT of Name Recognition.
Besides, an awful lot of folks just vote for who they "think" is going to win. They figure they haven't followed it very closely, but surely "those other folks have." |
|
directly out of Romney's, er, skin. Romney had a rough week during the NH debate. The Iraq is a mess comment while the Pubs were mad about the Petraeus slurs, the yapping about his kids, Thompson getting a pop, etc.
However, Rasmussen (the one I trust the most) has him back up to 13% in their last National Poll, and going after the "elites" on immigration should get him a few more. Giuliani's probably at his height, right now, and McCain will probably fade back a few points. Thompson's the "wild card." If he fades back like I think, Romney will benefit.
And, he DOES NEED to talk some about National Defense. I'm still a little "squishy," there, myself. |
|
|
Just saw the new ad on T.V. this morning. I have to say, I liked the message. Still want Hunter to be the nominee, but could vote for Romney in the general. Could not vote for Rudy or McCain or any other candidate supporting amnesty for illegal aliens. |
|
Full disclosure. I've been a Romney supporter for years and I handed out fliers for his father in New Hampshire when I was in second grade. Also predicted in he would be the next president in 2004. We'll see how that works out.
Anyway, I was talking to a kid in my office the other day who I would consider a kind of bellweather voter. He's a young guy who considers himself a Democrat. But he's also a guy who a Rush Limbaugh or Hugh Hewitt could convert. Let's call him a Reagan Democrat.
After beating back a bunch of points he obviously got from his cursory exposure to the MSM, he admitted that he did like some of the Republicans. I asked him who, and he said there was one guy, but he couldn't remember his name. Rudy? No. McCain? No. He said it was some guy who kind of looked like a businessman, not a politician. Mitt Romney, I asked? Yes, he said... that's the guy.
He said he seemed to speak well and "looked" like he would make a good president.
To Hugh's point, I think a lot of the talk about Rudy being the front runner is really based on name recognition and national polling. I suspect when Mitt carries some of the early primaries, his name recognition will go through the roof and a lot of people not presently paying attention will carry him well into the national primaries.
That said, my worry about Mitt is the same as John Hinderacker's. If there is weakness, it is that Mitt doesn't play to the big issues well enough. Americans need the "vision thing". Sometimes I wish Mitt would study Ronald Reagan a little more and try to take the rhetoric up a peg. I |
|
I've really wanted to like Romney, but he strikes me as insincere to a fault.
He's too polished and slick. I can't relate to the guy at all. There's something vaguely Clintonesque about him. I can't put my finger on it but it bugs me.
I think Giuliani comes across as a more honest candidate. He's a wierd guy, no doubt, but I feel like I know what I'm getting with him.
Thompson absolutely bores me to tears and will get his clock cleaned by the Clinton machine. |
|
I believe Romney will rise. I used to be 'wild for Fred', but when his people called the other day I told them I was concerned about his age and health, and that I am leaning strong Romney.
The current campaign will require the toughest trench warfare candidate we , and determined enough to beat the lefty slime. |
|
|
top tier is as silly as looking for Elvis. Rudy/McCain/Romney/Thompson will be the last whimper of the GOP as conservatives migrate to third parties......And salvaging Mexican votes will not save it. Abort your babies and replace them with Mexican Nationals to fight Israels wars will be the legasy. |
|
I'm for Barack, but its not looking good. Oh well, there's still time. I like Biden too, but that ain't gonna happen. I'd probably vote for a Republican before I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich. His heart is in the right place, but he does not belong in the Oval Office. But other then him and maybe that loon from Alaska, I'd pretty much vote for anyone the Dems have over anyone the Repubs have. I'm sure you feel the same way in reverse.
On your side, I like Huckabee and Brownback. They are the real deal. |
|
It never ceases to amaze me how people will overlook the obvious, serious flaws of their favorite and well-known candidates yet dump on a relative unknown before he has had a chance to become known. Hey Rudy, is that your new girlfriend is on the cell? Use your Don Corleone voice on her!
If we you guys can tolerate that guy, try giving Mitt a chance before you judge. If you like Hunter, a Mitt surge is a big positive. Califormia can be won and Hunter is the best bet. Giuliani will not win CA. Heck, he quit in his run for Senator against Hillary so he probably can't win in NY either. Romney/Hunter running against the RNC crowd is exactly the message we need to get the troops excited again. When McCain was leading, Republican registrations declined. Same with Rudy. Thompson? Is he ambling or sauntering for president? Can't tell. Visit some of the junior circuit blogs here and see some of the excitement that is beginning to form. Young, vibrant, human and ON MESSAGE. That's the way to go. |
|
|
|
The only ones that matter are the ballots cast by us in primaries. We must nominate someone who will secure the borders and enforce the laws or kiss our country goodbye.
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
If the GOP thinks they can continue to import cheap labor for their donors at the expense of the citizens, they will. I will not vote for that again. If we continue to play the game of "the other guy is worse", we will lose our country. Sorry, but I will not participate in that game any longer. The GOP power brokers think we will vote for "anybody but a Democrat" so they can continue to ignore securing the borders and enforcing the laws. I'm hoping GOP primary voters give the party elites some surprises in the primaries. If it takes crushing the GOP so a new party representing American citizens can arise, so be it. It's going to have to be a grass roots effort. The levers of power and the money in the GOP are all in the hands of the cheap labor express. I want to vote for a GOP candidate in Nov.'08, I will not vote for any of the amnesty supporters. I oppose changing the laws to suit those breaking them.
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
of the Country. Where it gets cloudy, I believe, is "Commander in Chief," especially during Dangerous times. Is he "Tough" enough? Strong enough? He lost 5 points in the National polls after his "Iraq is a Mess" pronouncement. We all agree, "it is a mess:" but, we want to hear some ideas. Some Strength.
He needs to focus a bit on "National Defense." Missile Shields, B-2's, F-22's, Radar/MD in Poland/Chzechoslavakia, future weapons systems, etc. I'd like to hear how he plans to keep the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz open until we can get less dependent on oil. We're sending almost A Billion Dollars a "DAY" offshore to Buy Oil. What are we going to do about that?
See what I mean? |
|
I don't see the attraction of Romney, frankly.
To me he comes of as completely plastic, Mitt Headroom. Plus which, he's a political chameleon, and makes incredibly stupid statements about foreign policy (his UN letter about trying Ahmadinejad for genocide, for example).
I don't subscribe to the radical interventionism of the leading GOP candidates, including Giuliani, but Rudy seems intelligent and authentic, even when he changes positions. Mitt's not stupid, but he strikes me as inauthentic.
Of course, Mitt may be on to something--if he carries Iowa and NH, he may get a bump in the polls above the 9% he's showing on the RCP averages (the post-Ames bump is gone). |
|
The more I see and hear of Mitt, the less I like him or am attracted to him as a candidate. In many ways, being anti-NRC is a negative in CA since so many, like me, are independents now and cannot vote in primary.
Mitt is the only guy/gal running to whom I would entrust part of my 401k. He is one of the last I would entrust with the presidency. Incredibly enough, I would even favor McCAin over Mitt.....and hewas one of the reasons for dropping the R in my registration (judges, back stabbing fellow R's, attack on our free speech rights and rights of association, immigration). John won't get me killed and is unlekely to rationalize himself into dhimitide. |
|
Hewitt has already stated that he believes Republicans will loose the White House over the war in Iraq, yet he continues his attempts at meaningful analysis of republican candidates. Why does he bother?
Hewitt is correct. The election will turn on the War in Iraq. Unless there is some kind of miracle transformation in 13+ months, there will be no change in the status, and, people will demand a different leadership as a sign of rejection of the Bush doctrine.
Hewitt cannot conceive of other strategies to deal with the global jihad and avoid the sure disaster and dangers that will come with another Clinton White House. He will stick to his principles and will not reject a party that has declared a doctrine that is dedicated to a.) pre-emption which depends on which way the political winds blow (spell I-R-A-N)and, b.) bringing democracy to foreign muslim nations having no capacity or desire to recognize the superiority of the rules and laws of men over the will of Allah. And even if democracy were force fed to them, what would they do with it? Democracy is the engine of the slow jihad. See. Hamas, see Egypt and the muslim brotherhood, see Turkey ("Islam is Islam, and that's it").
Its not too late to leave Iraq and declare that Islam is the enemy. We can declare Islam is no longer worthy of our efforts. Leaving will result in internecine battles that will only have favorable results for the infidel west- a weakening of the Camp of Global Jihad.
Leave Iraq- support Kurds and agree to accept non-muslim minorities. Deal with Iran and NO democracy projects thank-you -very-much. Condition foriegn aid to Egypt, Palistine, Pakistan on fighting the global jihad with us. SA is no ally. Identify Islam as the enemy of all infidels, constrain it, isolate it, and watch it fail. Let muslims realize the source of their own failings is their ancient cult.
Know your enemy-study Islam.
|
|
If Romney can hold Giuliani off there he might make it. Them Yankees are funny people. You just never know. Common knowledge would say that if Mitt is tied in NH by the time of the Iowa Caucus he would get a big enough bounce to take NH, Mi, Nv, and be on his way; but, with the Granite State you just don't know.
I'll say one thing: With this attack on Bush, McCain, and Giuliani on "Immigration" he's about to get ME back. |
|
|
|
|
For Mitt to take on the GOP establishment is exactly what many of us have been waiting for. Shake things up a bit. It's clear that Mitt has been making the Rudy/McCain crowd nervous and the GOP establishment, including FOX, have been doing the little things that hurt Mitt. Mitt will never get this GOP leadership's support. This is good news for us conservatives. The problem now is that the GOP sees Giuliani winning in NY (he stood down against Hillary when he saw he was going to lose) and CA (dream on). Were Mitt to win the first three primaries with the anti-GOP establishment message, he could take off. That would bring in Duncan Hunter who has been carrying the load so far on this message and Hunter actually could carry CA. One of these guys would then look like "the man". There is something clarifying and empowering by getting behind the right message in lieu of all of the over-coaching. We may be looking at a Romney/Hunter ticket as the only combination that can win big. Sarkozy did exactly that by running against his own party with the message voters wanted. He is also delivering on his promises which is the other question. Does anyone really think Rudy is serious about judges, border control, 2nd amendment rights and the rest? Leopards don't change their spots and no one likes chameleons. Rudy, is that your cell ringing again? That schtick is getting old, man. Try answering like Don Corleone next time. |
|
Until the last few days in which you really seem to be smoking the same bong as Buffobore & S-Tido,
you've seemed far more balanced,serious and sober than kosroids here.So,I'll skip responding to your
assessment(Wildly INaccurate)of the prez.,and just skip to: WHO,AMONG THOSE ON YOUR SIDE,DO YOU WANT TO SEE FOR PREZ??AND,WHY???????
Gotta be gone for a few hours with Mrs.Neo,but look forward to seeing your response. |
|
|
The guy is behind McCain with only 9 percent in the real clear politics average national polls. It's obvious he's not connecting with the American people. I think people are waiting on Thompson. If he bombs in the debates (which I think is very likely) voters will move back to Rudy, if he does ok they will move to Thompson. |
|
According to Steve Benen at TPM, Romney is now offering to move "In God We Trust" to the FRONT of coins. On the upside, his willingness to pander knows no bounds. It may reel in a few extra votes among the "God doesn't bless America--and who can blame Him?!" crowd. On the downside, his willingness to pander knows no bounds.
Another downside is that he's surrounded by creeps. There were those guys impersonating police officers. I think there was a shady fund-raiser--Hugh probably didn't mention him over his shouting for a special prosecutor for Hsu. And there is that Blackwater VP, a creepy and unAmerican organization if ever there was one.
The Republican base may get suckered by this guy. Hell, they are easy to flimflam. Just look at GW. The Repub base actually thinks he is a man of fine principle, rather than what he is, a savvy and shrewd manipulator. But the rest of America will not be bamboozled. America almost fell for the con in 2000 (GW straight-armed his way to the Presidency anyhow). We did fall for it in 2004, in the searing aftermath of 9/11 and the illusory glow of Iraq. But the broader public, if not the Republican base, is going to demand a little more from the GOP this cycle than just another hustler. |
|
|
Could it be Hugh, that the so called leads by Mitt in those 3 states are also ify? After all, it is polls there that say he is leading. You question national polls but not those polls. Mitt may be on track or on plan but even an optimist like you must wonder why likely voter polls keep him at 10%. What if Mitt slips in any one of those states? Is he through? |
|
|
|