Thursday, June 14, 2007
|
|
The Logic of Attacking Mitt Romney
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
11:16 AM
|
|
I don’t see it.
Yesterday, the McCain rapid response operation kicked into high gear — “engaged” in the parlance of political operatives. The YouTube clips they (or their allies) have been posting anonymously for months finally went out under the McCain brand name, under a branded document titled “Mitt vs. Fact: Say. Do. Anything.”
This is the latest step in the logical progression of the McCain-Romney rivalry. For over a year now, the battle has been joined on the ground in places like Michigan and South Carolina, with volleys being fired on both sides and frontal assaults on McCain-Feingold and “Mitt-flops.” Supporters of one practically loath the other. The McCain camp’s overriding objective is to render Romney (and presumably, eventually Giuliani and Thompson) unacceptable. McCain-friendlies seldom if ever tout the Senator’s thin conservative credentials; they know that doing so would only draw conservative fire. The goal is to muddy the waters with attacks on Romney that seem to materialize out of thin air. McCain or his surrogates have attacked three other campaigns for sharing McCain’s own position on immigration! The McCain camp’s strategy: McCain’s opponents are just as bad as he is. The only difference is that McCain was never pro-choice.
This strategy seems to ignore a few recent developments. First, Fred Thompson’s entry into the race as a conservative alternative. And second, McCain’s voyage into the second tier. It will be a good long while before McCain can be considered a viable alternative for the voters they manage to convince not to support Romney. Why then attack Romney this early? The easy answer is desperation. But I also think that their passions have gotten the better of them. They’re on autopilot, and like Sunni and Shi’a, can’t imagine not fighting the other guys. But facts on the ground have changed. When the strategy was first crafted, few foresaw a viable Rudy candidacy and Fred Thompson.
If it works, their strategy will give us a Giuliani vs. Thompson race. Two clear finalists: a moderate vs. a conservative. Where exactly does the hard-to-pigeonhole McCain fit in in this scenario?
|
|
Frankly the feud hurts both candidates, neither McCain or Romney seem to understand Rudy is the big obstacle to overcome. The supporters they have right now are likely to be loyal and aren't going anywhere, what they need to capture are undecided voters and people that support Rudy as the most electable Republican. I don't think much of anyone believes Romney would be as strong in the general election as Giuliani right now, and McCain is having to work overtime in an effort to recreate what he had going for him in 2000.
Attacking Romney diminishes what McCain is trying to do, and Romney's responses just come off as smug and even a bit arrogant--not in the least Presidential. |
|
Patrick wrote;
****************
"The McCain camp’s overriding objective is to render Romney (and presumably, eventually Giuliani and Thompson) unacceptable. McCain-friendlies seldom if ever tout the Senator’s thin conservative credentials; they know that doing so would only draw conservative fire."
****************
Yep, and this appears to be precisely Matt Lewis' blogging strategy here at Townhall.
It's why Matt Lewis confidentally demands a radio brawl about immigration between WSJ & National Review (to take place on Hugh Hewitt's show), but refuses to call John McCain out to appear on Hugh Hewitt's show to defend his own Senate record.
McCain also dodged CPAC, Club for Growth, and National Review conventions because he didn't want to risk the photo/audio opportunity of getting publicly booed---and he didn't want to have to take tough challenges about his Senate record.
|
|
|
The McCain camp evidently is shedding staff as it scratches for money. At what point will the senator from Arizona realize it's over, thanks to his partnership with Geo. Bush and Vicente Fox to admit as many people from south of the border who want to come. |
|
in your post, isn't it equally true re Mitt's campaign and *his* supporters (such as HH and DB)? Mitt and his campaign and his supporters do seem to spend a lot more time on McCain than on Rudy.
Maybe both candidates are onto something: they know they’re not in the Big Two and won’t get there, so they’re just competing for the bronze medal (veep invite?) |
|
Mitt has been smart enough not to engage in personal name calling, but both Romney and McCain's campaigns have engaged in this kind of stuff using their proxies for months. Dean and Hugh are a prime example of the McCain attack--Romney promotion strategy.
McCain is in trouble. Romney supporters are not going to flock to McCain--they will go to Thompson or Giuliani (and Hugh and Dean, McCain supporters are going to Giuliani and Thompson, not Romney). Rudy remains the big dog in this fight and he is followed closely by Fred Thompson.
McCain is actually a strong consevative on a number of issues, but he has this reform streak that continually gets him into trouble with the base. McCain-Feingold and Immigration Reform are prime examples. |
|
|
I think McCain and Romney are competing with each other because the field is a bit crowded and there is only room for three. You have to move your way up one step at a time. |
|
A video of Mr. Romney saying that he was going to continue to act in the manner that he promised voters he would, despite his personal feelings.
?
This is bad for Romney because, it shows that he is a man of his word...? |
|
|
Perhaps McCain comprehends two opposing forces, a lesser force in his immediate line of sight, and a greater force over the horizon. If he expends his time and energy attacking today's frontrunner, he allows the force over the horizon to gain strength. Since the front-runner of the moment will always be a target of the other candidates, McCain has chosen to concentrate his fire on a potentially more formidable foe. |
|
|
who are so fixated on the national polls ever think about Romney's announced strategy: Win the nomination, then worry about national polls? have you noticed that he's considerably ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, which are the two most important states to the primary contest? Has it ever occurred to you that that's why McCain is taking the risky approach of attacking Romney? |
|
|
Sure, McCain is in a world of trouble, but this makes sense. He figures -- with some justification -- that a) Thompson will fizzle once he is no longer simply an abstract representation of people's hopes; b) South Carolina will do to Giuliani what it did to him in '99 and '00; and c) Romney is sliding by without any serious attacks on his flip-flops. Giuliani will be done in by the sheer mass of his stances and the vacuity of his "strong on terror" act. His personality will not help, either. Thompson will suffer when people compare the real deal to the ideal (not to say that he will suffer to the point of defeat, but there will be opportunities to knock him in months to come). So, while things look dark right now for McCain, this is not a bad move. |
|
The most recent USA TODAY national poll showed Giuliani at 30%, McCain at 22%, and Thompson at 12%. Romney, was, uh, not in the top three. Recently, TH has been emphasizing Romney's stellar showing in a side-show known as "The Ames Straw Poll," which is right up there in importance with the straw poll held at the Romney Family Reunion.
Let me repeat again: Romney is not (yet, and perhaps ever) a serious national candidate. Yes, he's spent three-quarter-of-a-million bucks in NH and is doing well there, but so what? NH today is not NH 1976 or even NH 2000.
We keep reading on TH how the McCain campaign is "collapsing" -- and then we read that USA TODAY poll, and the two have nothing in common.
Yes, McCain is trying to take out Romney, but so what? Isn't that the point of a primary campaign? Anyway, Romney, with all his baggage, has no business running for President.
Fred Thompson is about to lay one of the biggest eggs in the history of Republican politics. MKH asked yesterday if Fred is "cutting-edge" or just plain "dull." Somehow one dull essay after another in TH and a series of pedestrian speeches to fat-cats doesn't exactly establish a dynamic campaign. He eminently deserves his 12%.
What I'm providing here are facts and conventional wisdom. Admittedly, it has nothing in common with the gush we read on TH about "Team Romney" and the big doing in Ames, but what exactly is going on guys?
Try harder.
steve |
|
That is a great strategy, except if you seem not strong enough to win the geneal election why would republicans pick you? Especially when there are alternatives such as Giuliani (who beats Hillary and Obama) and the hope that Thompson (as a likeable actor) can do better.
McCain did get back on proper track with this attack:
ARLINGTON, VA - This morning, U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement regarding Harry Reid's remarks earlier this week on a blogger conference call, as reported by The Politico:
"It's incredibly disappointing that Harry Reid would make such disparaging remarks about both the highest ranking officer in the U.S military and the commander of our troops in Iraq. Generals Pace and Petraeus are two leaders who have spent their entire lives in service to their country and Senator Reid needs to clarify his criticisms, which can only be described as highly inappropriate and regrettable." http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmJkOTcyOTFlNmZlZDEyMGQ4YTQ1ZDliYjM2NDRmMWQ=
|
|
|
McCain's videotape of Romney shows merely that Romney kept the promise that he made when he was campaigning to be governor of Massachusetts; McCain's misleading editing of the videotape shows . . . |
|
Well stated Mr. Ruffini.
Thought the same, when encountering this McCain attempt.
Better to get out of the race now, before it becomes even more embarrassing.
Still no serious answers regarding the Fred Thompson hype.
A good man, yet, he has the same voting record as McCain.
So why isn't he treated in a similar fashion as other Republicans?
Why not ask him about what he has done for illegal immigration?
Fashion over substance?
Rudy, Romney, Thompson would make some great debates and a fine race, can we get some of the others who stand no chance off the stage?
|
|
That is what Andrew Sullivan is saying:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/romney_faith_an.html I am not sure what Sullivan is talking about because the link is bad in his post--but it sounds goofy. I am sure Romney has at least one Jewish supporter left (even if he lost Michael Medved's endorsement over immigration reform). Heck, I bet Romney could even get a minyan together in a pinch.
|
|
"Better to get out of the race now, before it becomes even more embarrassing."
Why? McCain is one of two GOP candidates right now who could legitimately give Hillary that vacation she so desperately needs (if the election were held today). Even Thompson, who I like very much, cannot do that yet. Mitt is even worse off.
|
|
Why attack Romney? McCain has to win 2 or 3 of the early primaries to be viable.
Romney is pursuing a slingshot strategy of winning the early primaries to gain momentumn and votes for Super T. He will have money for the ad wars and if he has to, he will loan his own money to the campaign to win the Super T states he needs.
McCain was pursuing a national strategy while his poll numbers were high. Now that they have dropped the only option that he can pursue is the slingshot strategy. He cannot afford to lose IA, NH and SC or FL and be viable on Super T. Romney is already beating him in IA and NH. What is the probability that Romney, Rudy, or Thompson will take SC or FL?
Rudy has regional support to fall back on if he loses the first 4 primaries and his poll numbers are high enough that he can win other states with a lot of ad money on Super T. McCain will not have the money to buy states on Super T and his poll numbers are not high enough to carry him to victory in other states.
Thompson is hoping to get his numbers up enough to follow a national strategy as that fits his virtual campaign. He is also planning on taking the South which remains to be seen.
Logically McCain should attack Rudy as it will be easier to move moderate voters from Rudy to McCain than to move Romney voters to McCain. However, he has to stop Romney or he loses the slingshot which is his only hope. |
|
|
Romney actually is ahead of Hillary in one major head to head poll and close in others. Romney is actually stronger than Thompson against Hillary. Thompson turns off independent voters. |
|
Steve,
The candidates have not yet actively campaigned in every state, therefore, a "national poll" is not especially relevant at this point.
"National polls" are similar to the popular vote in the general election, where the electoral college is the actual prize.
In the primaries---just as in the general election---the candidates are trying to win each individual STATE.
But if you seek a more accurate barometer of how the candidates are currently doing, judge them by how they're currently polling in states where they're campaigning actively and shaking hands with voters, such as in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
|
|
|
|
|
You either don't know what you're talking about or are with one of the other campaigns. Yes, Romney has moved rightward since 1994, when he was a political neophyte running against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. He's changed his view on abortion rights and has explained the change. Everything else is just nuance. You make it sound like he jumps all over the political spectrum, depending on what he's running for. That's rubbish. No intellectually honest person can make that argument successfully. |
|
Coming from a guy who is about as right-wing as they come I gotta tell you that those videos, like the one linked in this original post are pretty weak tea. Again and again what I see is a guy who is maintaining a fairly consistent line on his abortion position while trying to gain office as a
Republican in Massachusetts.
So what I'm trying to say is that you're making Romney look pretty good to me. |
|
Why worry about slandering someone when you can advance your political career? In this story the anonymous researcher Romney often refers to when he recounts the moment he realized "Roe v Wade" went too far, tries to correct the record. Why does this not surprise me?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/17/romneys_journey_to_the_right/
In Governor Mitt Romney's metamorphosis from social moderate to self-styled conservative presidential candidate, Nov. 9, 2004 , stands out as a seminal date.
On that day, Romney and two aides met in his State House office with renowned Harvard University stem cell researcher Douglas A. Melton. In Romney's retelling, Melton coolly explained how his work relied on cloning human embryos.
" I sat down with a researcher. And he said, 'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days,' " Romney recalled on " The Charlie Rose Show " last June, characterizing the meeting as a watershed moment for him. "That struck me as he said that."
Melton remembers the session differently.
"Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it," he said in a statement last week. "I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases." |
|
|
There is this about human nature: We condemn the most whom we fear the most. Which of the Republican candidates already draws the snidest comments from liberal bloggers and general contempt from the press? Because perceived fourth-place-finishers are not a threat, losers do not draw heavy fire. Liberals already know instinctively which candidate they truly hate. Pay attention to them. To say his name would bring howls of derisive laughter from the left, just the way the name "Reagan" once did. But the howls would be too loud and would protest too much. He is the candidate who can beat them. |
|
You’re sorta right. No intellectually honest person can make that argument successfully to you, because if you really think that then you’re wearing some Dean Barnett issued Romney goggles that keep the unpleasant truths out of sight.
Look, if you’re okay with his nonsensical explanation about his change of position on abortion, all the power to you. For me it’s a bit too convenient that he saw the light on abortion right before he began running for president.
Do you find it at all disturbing that the researcher he had the “view-changing” conversation with claims he is misrepresenting what he said? Romney said the researcher talked of killing the embryos, but the researcher maintains he said nothing of the sort.
There are many reasons to like Romney. His political opportunism is not one of them. Might as well be honest about that. |
|
Which part specifically made you like him more? The part where he was adamantly defending his commitment to allowing abortions in 2002? The part where he said he was not trying to go back to the Reagan/Bush years? Maybe the part where they asked him to name his greatest fault and he launched into an infomercial about his community service?
Seriously though. Are you saying you are okay with him running as a pro-choice candidate in Massachusetts because that’s what it took to win? That's a pretty slippery-slope, no? |
|
|
That is right. It is at least as important to have the right enemies as friends. It is telling who the left has greatest contempt for. The contempt and derision from the left should not cause us to fear unelectability or their reproach. We should take notice and have the conviction to put up our man. |
|
You are clearly an implacable Romney foe. That's what makes America a great country. Romney has an explanation about his change of views on abortion, and people will choose to believe him or not. I have a hunch you'll never believe him on anything. So three's one more vote Mitt loses! Rats. We shall see whether enough people agree with you to stop Romney. I have my doubts, but I have no crystal ball.
Cheers. |
|
|
|
The flip flop charges are starting to wear out against Romney. They just are not news and do not resonate. More importantly McCain, Rudy and Thompson have plenty of evolution in thier positions.
McCain has changed more major positions than Romney but then McCain has been in politics for more than 25 years. It is really hypocritical of McCain to attack Romney on flipfloping on abortion.
This is the same McCain who attacked evangelicals as an evil political force.
|
|
One can argue the meaningfulness of national polls vs. state polls in a primary election campaign. But regardless, IA and NH are going to be far less relevant to who wins the nomination than they have been since at any time since the 1970s. Why? Just look at all the polling (posted on or linked to over at realclearpolitics.com) in the big states that are (or are expected to be) holding their primaries on or before February 5 - just a couple weeks after IA and NH. FL, CA, NY, TX, PA, OH are all trending heavily in favor of some combination of Giuliani, McCain, or Thompson. Romney doesn't make the top two in any of those states - whose results reflect what is shown consistently in the national polls. When one adds up all of the convention delegates in those big states, you see pretty quickly that the race will be over for at least two or three of the candidates by the morning of February 6. And it appears that Romney will be one of the guys on the outside looking in. Whatever benefit he gains from a victory in his neighboring, "favorite son" state of NH, or in the IA caucus, is going to be quickly forgotten by the far larger delegate haul in the big states deciding on or before February 5.
Romney is not going to be the nominee. He just isn't gaining any traction in any of the big states .. and it's fairly obvious that he's shooting off all his guns in IA and NH, spending much of his funds on organizing and on media buys in those two small, unrepresentative states, at the very moment their relevance is rapidly dissipating. Can't blame him for basing his strategy on prior campaigns, but events are just not going his way with the virtual "national primary" taking place from January 29 (FL) through February 5 (the rest of the big states).
|
|
McCain should attack Romney on his lack of leadership, inability to turn things around, incompetence, inability to grasp complex problems, inability to govern Democrats (own both houses) etc.
Oh yeah, he can't. The fact that a candidate can have all the above qualities and somehow be taken down because of his change on the abortion issue is asinine.
The Republicans best choices for leaders, that are also competent, are Romney and Rudy.
McCain and Thompson get out!
|
|
athingortwo: You must know an awful lot more than some very smart people do.
Do you think that perhaps the reason McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson are so far ahead in national polls is that they have very high name ID, and Romney does not?
Do you have any idea how soft the support for those three is?
Does it make any difference to your thinking that everywhere Romney has advertised and people have gotten to know him, he does very, very well?
Do a lot of money and a terrific organization, areas in which Romney is far ahead of all the others, especially Thompson, mean nothing?
Maybe after you think about those questions you'll reconsider your blithe predictions about the future. There are plenty of reasons why the other campaigns seem to think, unlike you, that Romney is a formidable candidate. There must be some reason for that. Maybe even more than one reason! |
|
|
Check out the Political Predictions Market to find out just how badly the McCain campaign is going down. Hard money on the barrel head is the currency there, not hot air. |
|
You can have your opinion...
I find the aged Senator has really overstayed his welcome on the National Stage.
His undermining his own Party and the Conservative interest in Congress is really quite regretable.
It all seems fine for him, to appease the liberal bias in the MSM, for personal gain.
But he could have united the Repubs in the Senate to rebuke Schumer and Company's unethical and unprecedented obstruction of Presidential Judicial Nominations.
McCain-Feingold Campaign, the Keating Five, opposing TAX CUTS in 2000, travels to Alaska with Hillary to peddle Global Warming Alarmism, etc., etc...
His defense of the Iraq Mission has been rather lackluster, until he began to run for President.
If Men like McCain had been leading, or outspoken all along, a great deal of the Democrat slander, the misrepresentation of the Mission in Iraq would have been greatly diminished.
Instead, the Senator let the Bush Administration twist alone in the wind.
In fact, his 'mismanaged' garbage is just another attempt to appease the MSM bias, as if McCain can defend the Iraq policy, while tossing all those who bravely tried to implement his position under the bus.
It lacks class, and Leadership.
McCain should know full well, that no military action will ever be engaged without mistakes.
John McCain knows the difficulties in a combat zone, and setbacks do not equate with failure or being 'mismanaged'.
Sen. McCain continues to show a level of irresponsibility, like his 'wasted' comment on Late Night TV.
He should step down with grace now...
|
|
Your points are well taken if you look only at the surface. Romney is delibertly not running a national campaign at this point. He said he was not going to do that 3 months ago. He is doing exactly what he said he would do and doing it brillantly so far and ahead of schedule.
The current polls ask "if the election were held today who would you perfer?" The election is not held today so we are measuring national name recognition and fairly superficial image. Romney is not trying to get name recognition in NY or other states where it is a waste of money.
I agree with you that IA and NH will be less important this year but they will still be very important especially for Romney. When the time is right he will start running hard in selected Super Tuesday states. He will have the money to compete in those states. In the meantime he needs to lock up as many of the early primaries as he can.
FL is a big test. MI is another one. If his numbers start to move up there the other candidates are in big trouble.
His national numbers show a very steady climb in Realclear Politics and in pollster.com. The last 2 most recent polls have him up 2 points over the last time they posted.
It would be nice to have Rudy's national numbers but that is not necessary at this point. Romney' national numbers should be in the 20s by the IA caucus. He will be campaigning hard in selected big states by then. |
|
I believe FT will be run over by the media in less than 30 days after he announces.
the set up articles are already written ... look at the non Lib ones already plus O'Reilly's dismissal of FT as a valid candidate etc:
American Spectator 4/9/07 on FT/Abortion - it is a killer flip/flop where he sounds just like RG "...ultimately decision of a woman"
World Net Daily 6/10/07 - attacks his truthfulness with an awful picture of his wife in the lowest of the low cut evening gowns
|
|
that is fueling Giuliani or McCain or Thompson over a stalled Romney campaign ... if you look at the fundamental data from the polls (i.e., FoxNews polls, for instance, that show that Romney has very high name recognition - in the 70s - yet is still stuck in the very low double digit range, then it is obvious that people simply aren't buying what he's selling. Romney is also not that far ahead in organizing or fundraising as compared to Giuliani, and any shortfalls will be quickly erased as Giuliani has now proved he can consistently play the game as well as he has (i.e., by winning the last two of the three debates so far, and effectively answering the questions on abortion, and easily outdistancing the other candidates on national defense, taxes, and administrative competence).
Hedgehog - You have chosen to attack me personally with smarmy comments (i.e., "you must know a lot ...") which is not called for ... apparently because you don't like the conclusions I come to from reading the same numbers that everybody else can read if they choose to. I'm not saying Romney is an idiot, or that his supporters are idiots. I'm just saying that Romney has chosen the standard dark horse candidacy strategy used successfully by others (particularly Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992). That strategy is based upon a massive concentration of money and effort in only two early (but small and unrepresentative) states in order to build a sense of momentum going into a long slog of primaries stretching out over four to five months. And Romney's problem is that that is not how it's going to work in 2008. The die is cast with Stupendous Tuesday - effectively a national primary. The campaign strategies must accordingly adapt to the new reality of a compressed primary schedule. The big states finally got tired of being shunted into meaningless late-season positions in the primary schedule, letting a couple of small rural states control the national primary agenda.
Romney has raised more money and spent more money than any other candidate so far, raising his name recognition into roughly the same magnitude as that of Giuliani and McCain. But then along comes Fred Thompson, who raised almost no money, created virtually no organization, and who has yet to even announce his candidacy, and he's already easily leapfrogged (times two) Romney in the polls (both nationally, and in all of the big states), while Romney remains stuck in near-single digits.
I'm not trying to prove how smart I am. I am just saying, look at ALL the polls (not just NH and IA), and consider the "buzz", and then look at the perception of the debate performances to date ... and it all adds up to Romney simply isn't gaining traction in the states where the winning combination of delegates resides.
If Romney is in such a commanding and rising position, and with such a winning strategy, why is it that all it took was a brief announcement last week by Giuliani, with a "me too" from McCain (and, likely soon to follow, by Thompson), to instantly turn Romney's Big Event - the Iowa straw poll, a major campaign fixture for decades - into a meaningless non-event? |
|
IF Romney can start to gain headway in the big (and now early) states, then yes, his strategy will be proved correct. But it's not happening, and I don't see how it can happen. He's not going to win in Florida (my state), because FL is very strong Giuliani country (RCP average for FL is Giuliani +15.2), with Thompson rapidly coming up. FL is a highly urbanized state dominated by the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale and Tampa/St. Pete urban areas (and to a lesser degree, Orlando and Jacksonville) where an experienced and well-thought-of NYC mayor like Rudy is a dominant figure. For the same reasons, Giuliani is a lock for NY and CA, and while TX is thought to be very conservative and Republican, it's also now dominated by the large urban populations in DFW, Houston, and San Antonio - and thus is also Giuliani country. PA, OH, and MI have all been very strong for both Giuliani and McCain in the polls so far, although Thompson is making strong inroads too. All of these states are voting on or before February 5. Unless something really dramatically bad happens to Giuliani or Thompson, I just don't see how Romney - who is spending virtually all of his money and effort on IA and NH - can ever catch up in the states where more than half of the needed convention delegates will be selected by February 5. There is simply no way for Romney to raise enough money (hundreds of millions) to spend at the rate he has so far in IA and NH within the huge (and hugely expensive) media markets of the big states.
|
|
He's like a Kamikaze pilot that wants to take out one of the fleet before he smashes into the deep blue.
Whether Romney is the nominee or not, I can tell you this: McCain will never be. He's wasting everyone's time and money at this point.
Of all the cantidates, Romney is easily running the smartest campaign. Rudy comes in second and Fred, you can't tell because he effectively has no campaign at this point. I love it how people on townhall (Gabby in particular) love to somehow lambast Romney as a "Rockerfeller Republican".
As if adding socially moderate conservatives from the northeast would be a BAD thing for the party. Yeah, you just keep paring down the size of the party until it contains just one ideologue: you. |
|
|
|