Thursday, December 06, 2007
|
|
Rush To Judgment On Romney's Speech
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
2:29 PM
|
Rush Limbaugh's overwhelmingly positive reaction to Mitt Romney's speech --with compliments like Rush's commentary, you don't need a formal endorsement-- confirms for me that the speech was an overwhelming success on many levels. There is simply no better predictor of conservative reaction than Rush. He's not infallible, of course, but his understanding of the center of conservative opinion is as good as it gets.
For more commentary on why the speech worked so very, very well, read Dan Riehl's commentary. Of course there are some nay-sayers. There always are. I don't trust their judgment about the campaign at this point if they didn't think the speech was at least very good. Getting too close to the campaigns or too inside-the-Beltway can blind some observers to what the average Republican thinks or how he or she responds. That's why the combination of being a talk show host who actually talsk with scores of Americans from all over the country every week and living on the other side of he country from the Beltway-Manhattan media elites helps a great deal in judging how events impact center-right voters.
I also had the advantage of watching the speech while waiting to go onto CNN International to discuss it, thus thinking throughout Romney's masterful delivery of the international audience watching --huge and diverse, full of friends, competitors and hate-filled enemies-- and this perspective made me even more appreciative of Romney's manifest pride in America. It is a wonderful thing to see an unqualified endorsement of this country's place in history and role in the world, and Romney will get an enthusiastic reaction from 90% or more of the center-right voters as a result. The anti-American left will hate him more, but that goes with the territory. Every lefty blogger denouncing Mitt means another scared and increasingly desperate Hillary booster seeing their dream crumble.
UPDATE: Reactions like Laura Lee Donoho's must make Team Romney very happy indeed:
It seems I only have time to blog lately, when the lack of time and stress work together to knock me out. I am home sick today and was able to view Mitt Romney’s speech in Houston on religion. Anyone who includes John or Samuel Adams in a speech will make me sit up and take notice. For the past year I have read every book I can on John and Abigail Adams. To me, they are the Adam and Eve of our nation.
After viewing the speech, I have a new found respect for the good man, Mitt Romney. He delivered the speech brilliantly, sincerely and with grave respect. As I watched the speech I could picture Romney delivering it from the Oval Office. Romney has always seemed to have all the right qualities and stature to be the Republican nominee for 2008 but for some reason came off a little too slick. He doesn’t now.
Read the whole thing.
|
|
"Getting too close to the campaigns or too inside-the-Beltway can blind some observers to what the average Republican thinks or how he or she responds."
Your head could litereally explode with the ironical jokes that stacked up for this one!
Too...many...jokes!!
Must...mock...Hewitt's...hypocrisy!!
Just UNBELIEVABLE! |
|
In your previous post you said that all who view the speech as less than "magnificent" forfeit all trust.
You've just downgraded the minimum acceptable review to "very good."
Actually, the speech wasn't half bad.
|
|
your name says it all. the regular "troll".
guess you're too much of a coward to post under your real name . . . but then again, you'd have to get off the McCain payroll (*wink*).
Mitt is right. I'm a Mitt guy, loved the speech, it moved me (and I've never found him a particularly great speaker). What surprised me is how many non-Mitt people around my parts really appreciate what he said and have new-found respect for him.
Net result? The MSM faces challenges in making their memes stick. Romney is authentic, and today the nation got to see that side, rather than have to hear other candidates and the MSM try and spin him.
Whether he wins the nomination or not, he's made himself a player on our nation's stage for a long time. |
|
Romney is a bonafide genius. If you doubt it, consider that he drafted that speech himself.
Could Huckabee draft a speech that detailed, thoughtful, informed and moving?
I sincerely doubt it. I don't think he drinks that kind of "America Juice".
If the GOP passes up on a cantidate of Romney's caliber, it does so to it's own (and sadly the nation's) detriment. |
|
|
|
|
I know a lot of far right Evangelicals, heck I'm one myself, and I must say even though I do not agree with the outlook of those I am eluding to here it is a fact. Like it or not the Evangelical base will not be swayed by Romneys speech. This same base who turned out in droves to vote for Bush because they think/thought he was a "brother in the Lord" will NOT turn out to vote for Romney because in the end they think Mormons are decieved and the LDS church is demonically inspired and tehy feel they would be going against God to vote for him. Like I said I don't agree but that is the large view out there in Evangelical land and it is a large enough view that unfortunatley it will cause Romneys defeat. Just as it was large enough to secure Bush's victory. The Evangel.base does not care what Rush says. |
|
I listened to Rush and he basically said Mitt hit a homerun!!
|
|
Regtroll beat me to it, but this demonstrates how out of touch Hugh is. This ranks right up there with his comment about being on the frontlines because he broadcast out of the Empire State building once:
"Getting too close to the campaigns or too inside-the-Beltway can blind some observers to what the average Republican thinks or how he or she responds. That's why the combination of being a talk show host who actually talsk with scores of Americans from all over the country every week and living on the other side of he country from the Beltway-Manhattan media elites helps a great deal in judging how events impact center-right voters."
Who is the blind one Hugh? |
|
|
Ralph Reed, Rush, Pat Buchanan and now Hannity loved the speech. Sean also said it's shameful that some so called conservatives are attacking Mitt on religion and that's simply anti american. |
|
I did not have scales fall off my eyes and get struck to the ground by Mitt's message, but I thought he did well. |
|
...keep shouting to the world your undying support for this flawed candidate and hope they drink the Kool-Aid, too.
Hugh, I AM A CONSERVATIVE on almost every single issue...no, not right-of-center, firmly on the right. And as a conservative, I can say that somehow you have managed to lose any respect I had for you through your blind support for this candidate.
Was Flip's speech good? Yes. But most Americans aren't so naive to believe that just because he sets his jaw and looks earnestly at the camera, he actually MEANS what he says. Why? Because he looked JUST as earnestly at the camera--and set his jaw--when supporting abortion, gay civil unions, and more. What a phony.
AMERICANS, if we choose this guy, we'd better be ready for a "leader" who waffles and backtracks at the first hint of controversy. Is THAT the best we can expect? Is Flip Romney the best we can do? I sure HOPE not! |
|
Hugh has a direct IV into the President's Base so he is much more effective in getting out the message to the base (than the unreliable MSM):
"Q: Yeah, or what if Hugh Hewitt called?
Bartlett: That’s when you start going, “Hmm . . .” Because they do reach people who are influential.
Q: Well, they reach the president’s base.
Bartlett: That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-01-01/talks-2.php
|
|
|
and just give the nomination to Romney. Hugh says Mitt's the best and no one can disagree with his opinion on this or else we're un-American or something. |
|
Romney said all the right things, though not everything he said is correct.
F'rinstance, he said that all of us are "children of God."
That is not true.
Is he saying that a child of the Devil is a child of God, too?? Jesus differentiated.
If what Romney said were true,
there would be no reason for God to require that we be born again;
there would be no reason for God to separate the goats from the sheep;
there would be no reason for Jesus to say that the gate to Heaven is strait, not broad, and that few will find it;
there would be no reason for Jesus to say that He is the ONLY Way to the Father.
God does not treat the obedient as He does the disobedient. Were He to treat both alike, there could be no justice. Though He loves all, His love does not preclude and stay His justice.
Romney also said that the settlers came here to establish "religious freedom." A diversity of "religious" views.
They did not.
They said that they came here to advance Christianity, to keep the "king" from enforcing an imposing the will of the Church of England on those who refused to give the Church of England what the Church of England thought was proper respect. It is the Church of England, backed by the king's power, that DENIED the access to God by the people, except through the Church.
So, they came here, Word in hand, to cause Christianity -- not an every-which-way diversity of "religious" views -- to flourish where it couldn't flourish under the Church of England and the king. In other words, they came here, where the King of kings would lord, where, they thought, everyone would embrace Christianity.
|
|
What this really underscores is how important religion is to the right wing. Democrats have been extremely shrill about how the right wing is trying to enforce a theocracy on America. Mitt's speech reinforces this notion because he has to defend his faith as an outsider to the Evangelicals. To wit, the evangelicals want an evangelical government and Mitt ain't it.
Would a Democrat ever have the need to give such a speech? However, I can see Hillary giving the same kind of speech on the war in Iraq. Given Hillary's support for the war at different times and different levels, I can see her scheduling a speech at some presidential library (cough, cough) and getting wide media coverage: if the topic were to explain her flip-flopping positions on the war in Iraq.
There you have it. What defines the right more than anything, to the point a special speech, is religion.
What defines the left is the issue of the day, the war in Iraq. The left is going to use this as yet another example of how out-of-touch the right is with the important concerns of the American people, but rather the right is still jockeying over who is more pious, Huckabee or Romney. |
|
As Hugh declared from his papal pundit throne at CNN: "Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst."
So John Podhoretz you cannot be trusted saying this:
For those who don’t know Romney is a Mormon, well, they sure will now. For the next two or three days, it’s all anybody will know about him. Chances are it is the word that people will most associate with him from here on out. I don’t think that’s a good direction for a campaign that finds itself in the fight of its life in Iowa against the most explicitly Christian candidate in the field. (The only response so far comparable to mine is David Frum’s, though his typically trenchant criticism has more to do with the underlying meaning of the speech.)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoret z/1506
And David Frum, you cannot be trusted either:
Sorry to dissent from my colleagues on the Corner, but once the murmurs over the oratory subside, people are going to realize: that speech did not work. Here's why:
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."
To be blunt, Romney is saying:
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the son of God?"
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?"
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTUzYTIwZWNiMDg1YWJj MjE1MWI1MWJhYTI0OWU4OWM=
|
|
|
If you and other evangelicals truly believe what you could not vote for Romney of his faith, then you deserve another Clinton... Romney would at least not encroach on your religion, as exemplified in his governorship of Mass, and in his speech... |
|
I personally think Romney's or any religious particulars are irrelevant. I do have a few prejudices (not in a perjoritive sense) against a couple of faiths for what I believe are legitmate reasons, but the LDS faith in my mind is no different than Judaism, Christianity, or other mainstream faiths. I want to judge Mitt Romney on objective facts and when it comes to his personal life he is a good guy. His values seems sound to me. I think Mitt Romney is a better candidate than Mike Huckabee based on policy not religion. I also think McCain, Thompson and Giuliani are better than Romney.
But. . .
I think Podhoretz and Frum have a point. It will not affect my vote one way or the other, but I can see it affecting others. Hugh's trusting or not trusting aside, their point is pragmatic fact that Mitt's faith will influence some segment of the voters. |
|
I get it.
You liked the speech and your only regret is that the speech isn't corporeal so you'll never have the chance to marry and make sweet love to it. :P
|
|
...I mean, the level of ignorance exhibited by this character is laughable.
A democrat, JFK, did indeed defend himself and his religious beliefs while campaigning in 1960.
I guess drivebyposting's definition of "ever" does not go back further than 45 years. So be it.
It also goes to show how much the democrat party has changed during this same period of time.
1.) No democrat today "suffers" from the chains of religious beliefs and practice as do republicans. This frees them up from the scrutiny of "holier-than-thou" claims they love to levy against the religious right (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek).
2.) John F. Kennedy stood for fundamental principles foreign to the democrat party of today; strong military, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes. These are principles anethema to democrat candidates running today.
I'll stop here---laughing too hard at "drivebyroasting" and the inane comment made.
|
|
»»If you and other evangelicals truly believe what you could not vote for Romney of his faith, then you deserve another Clinton... Romney would at least not encroach on your religion, as exemplified in his governorship of Mass, and in his speech...««
No Conservative in his right mind will vote for the Democrat next year, just because he doesn't like the Republican's "religiosity."
No Conservative in his right mind will not vote next year, and, thereby, enable and empower the Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, just because he doesn't like the Republican's "religiosity."
I won't vote for Romney in the primary. However, if he is the Party's nominee, I will have no choice but to do everything I can -- to vote -- to deny the Democrat. In other words, I would be stuck voting for the one I don't want just so I can help to keep out the one I don't want more. |
|
We understand this speech was "the balls".
We understand you ar egoing to sleep very well tonight with the comfort that Rush is giving huge kudos to Mitt.
If I were your supervisor, I would pretty much give you the rest of teh day off so you could go out and celebrate on this one. |
|
Was of course this part:
http://www.elfyourself.com/?id=1194211841
You can copy and place on your address bar to watch. Enjoy! |
|
Romney has now made his religion an issue in this campaign where previously it was limited to a small minority of conservative evangelicals. Recent polls indicate that more than 50% of the country have no concept about Mormonism. Now, because of today's speech, there will be a closer examination of Mormonism and my suspicion is that the religious right who were not previously put off by Romney's lack of conviction, will be disconcerted by some aspects of the Mormon faith.
Hugh as much as anyone is responsible for this development. By capitalizing on a book that raised Romney's faith to a front-and-center issue, he and others have now elevated an issue which really should have played no role in this election. No one ever brought up Harry Reid's religion before he was elected Senate Majority leader. No one ever raised Orin Hatch's religion while he served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee or ran for President in 2000. Now, Hugh and company have been hoisted by their own petard. Romney and Hugh rejected any questions about Mormonism as being bigoted. Now, Romney has opened the door to further examination and questions. How unfortunate. |
|
Dimowits would be shouting & foaming at JFK as an EeeeekK Neocon?? Rest assured, at Harry Truman, too. John Kennedy's Innaugural Address was a moving, pumped up classic of what the slicks sneer at as EeeeeekK Neoconservatism. I just LOVE IT.
Swampy, we'll happily take your vote, Duuuude. |
|
|
|
Hundreds of millions of Americans are too close to the Beltway to judge the speech objectively. It takes an outsider like Hugh Hewitt to capture the mood of the average American. Good points, regtroll and others.
LOL. What's next - the usual round of HH quoting KLo quoting HH quoting KLo on how brilliant everyone found the speech?
Most people didn’t see the speech. It’s barely being reported on other than on these political blogs that only we 0.1% of early horse race fans are already watching. Go to CNN and look for it. You’ll find it, but it’s not exactly “WW2 Ends!” It’s nestled in-between stories about the Natalee Hollaway case and My Coworkers Are Making Me Sick. The big story is Bush’s bail-out of the sub-prime borrowers, and the associated stock market rally.
If Mitt can’t even dominate a slow Thursday morning, it’s hard to see his speech dominating the race for the next year or even for the eight weeks that would do him some good. By Sunday, this will be as distant a memory as Western Wats is. |
|
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoret z/1506
John Podhoretz says exactly, and much more eloquently, what I've been trying to get through to those falling all over themselves about this speech: It was a good speech. But it was irrelevant. It was knocking over a strawman. No one outside the Beltway will care.
Folks, it's not Romeny's religion that is causing his free fall in the polls it is John Kerry-esque flip floppoing and Hillary Clinton-ish pandering that has voters running to the Huckster.
Hugh, you've proven yet again that you are completely out of touch with the electorate on this one. |
|
Dimowits, as you say, are protected by their short term memory (among other safety valves). They do not need to concern themselves with what happened decades ago----it's "apples to oranges" for them.
That is why they do not want to be reminded of Hillary as First Lady during the 1990's. That was then, this is now. That is why they chastise you and others for bringing up Billy boy's failures of the 1990's. "Been there, heard that" (among many other deflective rants they spew when hearing Bill's name raised).
JFK, if running today, would be mincemeat for their grinder. During these "debates", he would be relegated to that position on the stage, over near Kucinich. |
|
|
Truman has recently proclaimed, Let the word go out from this time and place that my FORMER Party has lost its clarity, focus, moral bearings, character and I'M OUUTA HERE. Hello, Repubs!! |
|
I'd expect that . . .
Just as I'd expect Mitt to be enthusiastic about the speech.
The surprise to me has been the support of Rush, Hannity, and the other taste-makers who, till now, had been only on a Fred-Rudy kick. |
|
An enlightening little apercu about the Bush White House's interest in talking to certain bloggers. Bartlett doesn't put great store in worrying about any particular journalist, but there are exceptions:
Q: Yeah, or what if Hugh Hewitt called?
Bartlett: That’s when you start going, “Hmm . . .” Because they do reach people who are influential.
Q: Well, they reach the president’s base.
Bartlett: That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
Meet the regurgitation chorus. So much more reliable than the MSM.
|
|
However, there are exceptions to every rule. In this case, memory is elephantine for dems, when it has to do with hillary's lack of allowing bygones to be bygones for those involved in the impeachment proceedings of the 1990's.
It seems that one-time congressman, James Rogan, has been given the "blue slip" by Senator Barbara Boxer, preventing this well qualified individual from being even considered (via Judiciary Committee) for a position on the federal bench.
Hahahhahhahahhaha.
If you recall, Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Boxer, are very good friends (Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham, married Boxer's daughter in the Rose Garden in 1994----even though that ended in divorce, Boxer and Clinton stay close).
So, the 1990's are "off limits" when speaking of Mrs. Clinton's bid for the presidency----except for vengence meted out against anyone who crossed her, disagreed with her, or, were part of the, "VAST-RIGHT-WING-CONSPIRACY".
Rogan indeed falls within these parameters. |
|
However, there are exceptions to every rule. In this case, memory is elephantine for dems, when it has to do with Mrs. Clinton's disallowing bygones to be bygones for those involved in the impeachment proceedings of the 1990's.
It seems that one-time congressman, James Rogan, has been given the "blue slip" by Senator Barbara Boxer, preventing this well qualified individual from being even considered (via Judiciary Committee) for a position on the federal bench.
Hahahhahhahahhaha.
If you recall, Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Boxer, are very good friends (Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham, married Boxer's daughter in the Rose Garden in 1994----even though that ended in divorce, Boxer and Clinton stay close).
So, the 1990's are "off limits" when speaking of Mrs. Clinton's bid for the presidency----except for vengence meted out against anyone who crossed her, disagreed with her, or, were part of the, "VAST-RIGHT-WING-CONSPIRACY".
Rogan indeed falls within these parameters. |
|
Huckabee has been asked by reporters about whether or not he thinks mormons are a cult and if he thinks mormons are christian or not. He refuses to answer the question and maybe its not even a fair question in a political debate. But if Mitt's religion is an issue, shouldn't Huckabee's former role as an ordained babtist minister be an issue?
It will be political suicide for Huckabee to answer the "mormonism" question either way. If he answers "yes, they are a cult and no, they are not christian", then any reporter should ask if he, Huckabee, would ever higher a mormon to work in his administration. If he would, then why would he knowingly higher a member of a cult? And if he wouldn't higher a mormon, then that clearly puts Huckabee in the category of a biggot.
Or...Huckabee could answer "no, mormonism is not a cult and yes, they are in fact christian". I think this is a problem because I would be willing to bet money that as a former babtist minister, Huckabee preeched from the pulpit that mormonism is a cult and are not christian. I don't know that he has, but as a life long mormon myself, having served a mission in southern Florida, I've never met a baptist who would admit that I was christian and would then proceed to convince me that I was in the grasp of an evil cult. Either way, Huckabee is getting a free ride. If he ever does have the courage to answere the question posed above, he runs the risk of coming off as a biggot or a liar.
As a mormon, my support of Mitt has nothing to do with our shared religion. Who else but Mitt, has the kind of experience to solve a multi-billion dollar cannon ball called social security already in the air and headed toward my generation, "gen X"? Mr. "gang of 14" John McCain? Mr. "I'm tough on crime" Guliani? I think not.
Now, i'm off to yet another evil cult meeting. Maybe I'll run into Mitt.
|
|
In 5 hours since the speech, MR has been falling on InTrade. Why? I don't know but suspect that the second shoe on this speech is not positive.
We now will get a primer on Mormonism from the media ... not good for MR.
He really does not want to be talking about religion.
I will give you one other semi-hot rumor from a non MR or RG campaign staffer.
JM is going to drop out and endorse RG with a blistering attack on MR who he abhors. He simply does not have the resources to go on plus he and RG are splitting the NH ant- Mitt vote. True? Based on the source ... I give this only a 40/60 but the source says "done - deal". It will supposedly occur over next 72 hours ... IF it is true.
InTrade Numbers 5pm Eastern
RG got the bounce and not MR.
National - MR now 21.7 down to RG and up from 18 pre speech.
MR down more in Iowa, Mich and NH (but way ahead still).
MR up slightly in SC.
These people are not just people with opinions but those who wager their money on their opinion.
|
|
»»Swampy, we'll happily take your vote, Duuuude.««
As I say, I will vote for Romney only IF he is the Republican Party's nominee. I would vote for him only because want to keep the Democrat out of office. I'm taking less of a chance with Romney, in that case, than with some stupid Democrat who will get us all killed, especially if lined up with a Democrat Congress.
|
|
|
If you don't like Mitt (I haven't seen a single intelligent criticism posted here yet), just make believe YOUR candidate spoke those words. Do you still see a problem? This was a great speech. My only qualm is that Mitt was not up to the delivery. I am very impressed that he wrote it though (if true). Shows a depth of understanding no one else has yet displayed. Certainly not the twin Caligulas, Hillary and Rudy. |
|
|
or at least, it reads very well. I had no idea old George Romney marched with Dr. King.. |
|
|
|
Romney Rocks !
Outstanding...
Great day to see a fine American who advocated for FREEDOM and our historic belief in the FREEDOM of Religion.
Excellent. |
|
is that the 2nd post at 3:37pm today represents the most laughable, juvenile post of the year. Is this poster for real. Does this pass for intelligent discourse on the left? This is proof positive that medical marijuana is not a good idea.
Swampy, i agree with your post at 3:37pm.
|
|
|
C'mon guys...he is more of a flip flopper than John Kerry with the same great hair. The one difference is that Mitt seems like the type that pickpockets you while smarmily talking to you, but with Kerry, you are still trying to figure out what he said 5 minutes before. They both suck. |
|
|
I haven't been able to wipe the smile off of my face since he made that speech today. I even found that the speech gets better on second reading. Go Mitt Romney! |
|
cottoneyed writes: Thursday, December, 06, 2007 5:46 PM »»Swampy, i agree with your post at 3:37pm.««
'Preciate it, pard'!
|
|
This is what Hugh's madness is all about. It's all about the words in all caps:
"I don't TRUST their JUDGMENT about the campaign at this point if they didn't think the speech was at least very good."
Hugh knows that respect for his political judgment took a massive hit in 2006. He has convinced himself that he needs to prove he knows what he's talking about.
Romney is not going to be the next president. I fear for the lunacy this will bring out in Mr. Hewitt. |
|
|
That's what Mitt sounds like to me. The minute the spotlight gets off him he tries and figures a way to get it back on himself again. Heck, Huckabee should come out and give an identical speech just to shut the Mittbots up. |
|
|
...go home and wait it out. The more you grumble, the funnier it gets. |
|
Hugh just got his hat handed to him over on RCP.
They wrote an entire piece mocking Hugh and what a shameless Romney shill he is.
Money quote:
"Indeed, the one person who cannot be trusted as an analyst these days is Hugh himself, who has taken his Romney boosting to surreal heights by posting press releases from the Romney campaign verbatim on his blog, constantly slagging every one of Romney's opponents, suggesting criticism of Romney on the right is rooted in anti-Mormon bigotry, declaring victory in every debate, and just generally being so in the tank for the guy that it's hard to take him seriously at all any more."
This, plus the revelation by Dan Bartlett that Hugh was a puppet of the Bush White House:
Q: Yeah, or what if Hugh Hewitt called?
Bartlett: That’s when you start going, “Hmm . . .” Because they do reach people who are influential.
Q: Well, they reach the president’s base.
Bartlett: That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
|
|
"Is Flip Romney the best we can do?"
If at first you don't succeed...
...keep shouting to the world your undying insistance that Mitt has flip-flopped and hope they drink the Kool-Aid, too.
Mitt has not flip-flopped on his positions. He, like many conservatives, has grown more conservative as he has gotten older. There is nothing wrong with that and to deny someone credibility because they didn't come out of the womb as a staunch conservative is a position that is 180 degrees out of phase with conservative ideology. |
|
|
but my stomach and my brain wouldn't allow me. I'm a Fred man right now. |
|
|
Going from "I'm staunchly Pro-Choice, and you won't see me wavering from that" to fully pro-life in 4 short years isn't just "growing more conservative as he has gotten older." To me, his conversion on ALL the social issues, guns, gays, and abortion, around the time of his interest in the Presidency is too convenient. He may not have "flip-flopped" but I don't believe him. |
|
So the numbskulls who bet on intrade are some sort of psychic political gurus?
Geesh, stop with all the "the speech sucked cause intrade didnt't improve" bs. It's just stupid. |
|
|
That is a credible argument. I have, as I am sure most voters, wondered about these types of conversions with their candidates. Without any real proof of what is going on in his mind, I have to look to other things to figure him out. What I have learned is that Mitt has always kept his campaign promises. That's good enough to put the sincerity question to bed as long as he promises to govern as a conservative. |
|
|
Oh give me a break. There is NO way that you would allow a Democrat to change his or her opinions on core issues in such a way as Romney has. |
|
|
Oh give me a break. A conservative becomes more conservative and a liberal becomes more liberal. Sounds about right. |
|
Oh that certainly addresses the issue.
|
|
"Getting too close to the campaigns or too inside-the-Beltway can blind some observers to what the average Republican thinks or how he or she responds." hahahaha. Good one, Hugh.
Romney did a great job on the speech. Have not heard that level of ideas and language from a pol in 4 score and 7 years. |
|
Except Romeny went from liberal to conservative in about as much time as it takes to get through high school.
"A conservative becomes more conservative and a liberal becomes more liberal." What? |
|
I am amazed at the Mitt gushing going on here. All he did was deliver a speech, any politician can do that. Please stop the comparison to Reagan, this man is NO Reagan, actually closer to Carter if you were to make comparisons. And yes, the flip flopping does remind one of John Kerry as well. He also reminds me of someone trying to sell me a used car and fancy speeches will not change that!
Oh and finally, stop telling us that if we do not support Mitt, then we deserve Hillary. I still remember holding my nose and voting for Dole because of that same argument. |
|
"Except Romeny went from liberal to conservative in about as much time as it takes to get through high school."
No he didn't. He was a conservative that became more conservative over the course of 4 years.
What do you mean, "WHAT"? People normally have a general belief system that becomes more so as the years go on. I am no more bothered by Mitt becoming more conservative than I am by liberal becoming more liberal. I expect it. It's natural. You seem to think that once a person decides he is a conservative that there is no more room for growth.
We you the perfect conservative or liberal (whichever you are) the day you decided what you were? I think not. Life is all about growth. We strive to be better today than we were yesterday. |
|
"All he did was deliver a speech, any politician can do that."
hahaha! Tell that to Fred Thompson! The guy is a complete dullard when it comes to speaking in front of a group. We call him the Sominex candidate.
This was no simple speech. This has the potential to be a pivotal point in American politics. If he wins the nomination, this speech will be the reason why the evangelicals voted for him. If he plummets, this speech will be the reason why. Only history will put it into it's proper context.
And claiming he flip-flopped doesn't make it true. And it cheapens the real act of flip-flopping. Ala, Kerry. Mitt did not flip-flop. He grew as a conservative. He admitted he was wrong and grew from the experience. |
|
I am one of those Evangelical Christians that the politicians seem so worried about. My husband and I listened to Mr. Romney's speech today, and though we both have serious reservations about his religion/cult, we both found ourselves very impressed and both said that if the election were tomorrow, we could see ourselves voting for him. My first thought was "who wrote the speech" because it was very patriotic and struck all the right notes. I was very surprised/impressed that Mr. Romney wrote the speech mostly himself.
I have to say listening to the speech may have been better than seeing it at the same time. When I saw highlights on the news later in the day, I didn't like the speech as much. He seemed too polished.
I still have questions, and am still not sure about any of the Republican candidates. I was very excited about Fred Thompson, but don't see him going anywhere. Mike Huckabee's politics make me very nervous, no matter what his religious beliefs are. I look forward to hearing more from all of them. 2008 is going to be very interesting!! |
|
As a fellow evangelical I would vote for him today as well. He impressed me. I was not surprised that he wrote this speech. Romney's intelligent and useful as opposed to being just intelligent. (see Clinton, Bill)
Romney, on a thoughtfulness scale, is a step below Newt and David Horowitz. |
|
|
Politically, what Romney needed from this speech are about 3 to 5 points in Iowa. We'll have to wait for polls to confirm whether he gets that or not, but I'm guessing he will. I listened to Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Rush today, and I will be very surprised if he doesn't get more than that. When Chris Matthews says of a speech given by a conservative Republican: "I saw greatness today." Or when diehard Rudybots like Mona Charen, Kate O'Beirne, and Michelle Malkin gush like school girls about a speech by Rudy's chief rival, you know he knocked it out of the park. |
|
|
Chris Matthews also had a man-crush on George Bush. Geez. These posts should be preserved for posterity as to the definition of delusion. |
|
I listened to the top of Rush's show because I wanted to catch his first stuff on Mitt. I felt pretty confident that el Rushbo would love it...And he did. Really strong, unqualified praise.
Two surprises for me tonight: 1.)Little Chrissy Matthews LOVED it and had guests on who LOVED it. Hell has frozen over & a cow just jumped over the moon with a flying pig! 2.)Mark Steyn, sitting in for Hugh on the radio, to my astonishment had some reservations. Marko, say it ain't so, Bro!
A Good Day all around and a very solid Homerun for Romney. |
|
|
|
|
Ah yes, Rush's ego-maniacal bloviator vote was positive for the MittFlip speech. Now THAT'S an alarming endorsement for running in the opposite direction if I ever saw one! |
|
|
altanfan...just WHERE in my post did I say I would/could not support or vote for Romney ? How dare you accuse of saying what I did not say, on the contrary I SAID I do NOT agree with Evangelicals who say they can't. You might digest what you read before you spout off. |
|
think about it please .. Romney was running for governor and senator to represent and govern the voters of Massachusetts .. what do you think he is going to do ? He is going to do the best job he can to make their state better .. but he is not going to go against them on things that are important to them .. that does not make any sense .. remember Romney is an EXTREMELY effective person .. he gets important results .. look what he has done as a practically complete unknown two years ago .. you have to understand this .. he does things for one reason .. to get the best result .. but he is also very religious .. he is devoted to doing the best in everything ..
if Romney was president and thought he could do better governing as a Democrat .. he might change to being a Democrat .. the name doesn't matter .. the result is what matters .. |
|
|
|