Thursday, November 29, 2007
|
|
Romney Rising
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:52 AM
|
My Townhall.com column on the debate last night is here.
Patrick's enthusiasms for Governor Huckabee aside (what debate was he at?) the next 45 days are about whether Rudy or Mitt runs against Hillary.
David Broder calls it the race between Mr. Nasty and Mr. Nice, but it really about whether the GOP has the confidence to run on the future and on its social values, or whether it believes the only way to beat Hillary and to win the war with the jihadists is with the toughest guy in American politics.
I gave a speech last night to a group of serious conservatives who are also supporters of Hillsdale College. The room was slightly pro-Romney, but only slightly. Other than one hand in the air for Fred, everyone who wasn't for Romney was for Rudy. That's where the party is generally, and if I had to bet the house right now, I'd bet that the desire to nominate a conservative wins out and Romney emerges as the nominee by mid-February.
UPDATE: Marc Ambinder writes in a debate re-cap post:
Romney had a strong night, seemed raring to go, seemed to be willing to take on everybody, anybody, all comers, seemed to want to pick every fight possible. It’s as if Alex Gage whispered to Romney as he went on stage: “Governor, remember: you want the headlines to be “Romney Fights For Conservative Principles.”
|
|
1. If Huckabee beats Mirr in Iowa, Mitt is finished.
2. If Huckabee comes close to Mitt in Iowa, Mitt is probably finished.
...and the the point I am MOST sure about:
3. If Romney somehows wins the nomination, the GOP is finished.
I still cannot and will not believe that the Republicans would put up as their candidate such an unispiring no charisma, faceless man such as Mitt Romney. Did they even pay attention to what happened to John Kerry? Romney is Kerry on steroids.
It's an unfortunate truth that politics are much more about personalities than issues. That is the main reason Romney is such a weak candidate. If he is the guy, we are going to get killed in the general. A Democratic sweep, and this will be well-deserved because of our stupidity in listening to obtuse pundits like Hugh... |
|
What a ridiculous statement, Mike.
Romney would be a strong contender against Hillary.
If Huckabee is the candidate, he'll be roadkill, with a huge landslide victory for not only Hillary, but huge gains in Congress.
If you want to see America on the fast track to oblivion, then drink some more of that kool aid and pull the lever for Huckabee. |
|
If either Romney or Giuliani get the nomination, we will lose the election. Period.
Huckabee is the only one who can beat her (or him). |
|
Rasmussen of all polsters and has a big night (basically because no one really attacked him and he spoke well) at the debate. This does not worry you? Come on, you are starting to panic like the kids in The Blair Witch Project when they can't find their way out of the woods.
Captain Ed gave last night to Huckabee. "Now, who won among the candidates? I'd have to lean towards Mike Huckabee. He steered clear of personal attacks, allowed his natural personality to emerge, and used his sense of humor to great effect. If people wonder why Huckabee has made a major move in Iowa, they saw why."
|
|
Bill Kristol: But what was on display in this debate were Romney's and Giuliani's weaknesses more than their strengths...It's a fact that Romney has the thinnest record of the major candidates, and a somewhat inconsistent record at that. One saw tonight how his rivals will be able to highlight this.
Both men are in many ways impressive--but tonight the other three performed better than the top two. McCain seemed by far the most plausible commander-in-chief. Thompson reminded people that he is a steady, consistent, and thoughtful conservative. Huckabee showed off his considerable candidate skills, including his sense of humor and his ability to seem sincere.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/014/416aihxr.asp?pg=2
Ponnuru said: [Rudy] still had a good day, because Huckabee had a good day...I have always thought that Giuliani could not win a two-man primary. I no longer believe that. He could beat Huckabee even in a two-man race. He can root for Huckabee to take out all his stronger competitors.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDI0NDBiMDMzYjgyYW I4Nzg1YTEwNDZhMDM5YmE5Y2M=
Kate O'Beirne said: Mitt Romney had a really good night, but it would have been even better if Huckabee hadn't had such a good one too.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDRmZTZlYTc1ODA2Yj U5ZGQ3NzhjOGMzYTUxZjhhMjE=
K-Lo says: Yes, I don't think Huck's going away anytime soon, my personal preferences aside. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQ0YjljMjE2ZmUwY mZhZTZmZThjM2FiYzA1NmVhNmI=
|
|
If Huckabee had been challenged last night (with his poor record on taxes, immigration, the WOT, pardons and ethics) would anyone be saying he won? Very doubtful. He didn't get a hard question all night.
If Romney were not LDS, would Huck be leading in Iowa? Doubtful, again. Apparently, it's evangelicals who are helping him. They don't care that he's not conservative. Why not? |
|
|
Is it surprising that most of those who go to a speech by an avid Romney cheerleader would be Romney supporters? |
|
Has the Republican party gotten so off track that they'd rather choose a social liberal (Rudy) than a social conservative (Mitt)?
These social issues are moral issues. They affect everyone right to the core of who they are and what they stand for - they are questions about family, integrity, and personal responsibility. They are at the core of Republican values.
I believe Hugh is correct. The Republicans will stick to their moral compass and choose Mitt Romney. God, at least I hope so. |
|
huckabee cannot win the general election, the democrats are praying he gets the nomination, especially hillary and bill.
there were more plants in the audience, journey's abortion question is for edwards, the mother and her kids question regarding lead in toys for Edwards (steel union)and the log-cabin republican is for obama.
my guess is there were more plants. but, yes, i do not see where 'huckabee' won. his one liners will not get him the 'win' in 08. he will be hamburger meat after the clinton machine gets him. they want him to be the GOP candidate. Romney can beat hillary cause her 'healh care' issue is all she has as a platform and he already did this as governor.
Please GOP wake up!! |
|
While I believe that it is almost impossible (now I might modify to highly improbable) that MH can beat or come in 2nd at 5 points or less loss in Iowa, InTrade now has the spread at 17 points - 55 (MH) to 38(MR).
This is over a 40 point swing in last couple weeks against MR and about 10 since the debate last night.
IEM also shows MR bleeding.
Perhaps I overvalue these markets but they have been ahead of the experts and polls.
I suspect there are new "whisper" numbers about Iowa that are not public. Again, MR is going to unleash a huge Iowa TV campaign and he has a really solid Iowa ground game ... he is almost impossible to beat in Iowa on January 3.
All other national and state markets are fairly stable today.
|
|
Rudy: "NYC is not a sanctuary city"
McCain: "First of all, it is not amnesty..."
These guys are STILL stuck on stupid. They are going to keep playing on the track until the train runs them over. That is why neither will EVER be president. So long as Mitt keeps pounding the table on border control as an essential and primary part of national security, he has no competition and will win. Rudy had a horrible day yesterday and spinmeisters or not, he is going to have a worse day today. Graft and draft dodging combined with sanctuary nation is not going to sell. Regardless of what the Kristols, Fox News and the other open-borders crowd says, the GOP is in deep trouble if Rudy wins. He is probably the ONLY one who can't beat Hillary because he is the only one running who is dirtier. |
|
The Florida survey conducted with the Florida Chamber of Commerce showed the following results:
Huckabee: 44%
Giulani: 18%
Romney: 13%
McCain: 10%
Thompson: 5%
Paul: 4%
Hunter: 1%
Tancredo: 1%,
Rest: undecided
also the same debate Iowa voters watched:
A survey of Iowa Republicans of over 1,035 Iowa Republicans taken in the last twenty minutes of the debate showed Huckabee the winner in that state as well. The numbers virtually mirrored Florida. They were:
Huckabee: 32%
Romney: 16%
Giuliani: 12%
McCain: 10%
Thompson: 7%
Paul: 6%
Tancredo: 2%
Hunter: 0%
Rest: undecided
|
|
|
Folks, please check out Dr. Ron Paul for yourself without the bias of the mainstream media. The man never voted to raise taxes, always voted pro life, never voted for a raise for himself, never taken junkets, returns money for his district back to the US Treasury, has been married for 50 years to the same woman, is a Doctor, not a lawyer, and is an avid supporter of personal liberty and the Constitution! Last time I checked that was what a true Rebublican was all about. Google him and he will surprise you. See why a lot of Ameericans are bypassing the media pundits and learning for themselves who the best presidential candidate is! God Bless Ron Paul! Ron Paul 2008!!! |
|
Huckabee will not win the nomination, at best he will run well in IA and delete Fred as a Southern candidate by spliting that vote.
That leaves Romney and Rudy. It also allows Romney and Rudy to win in the South.
Romney has the money and the political power to survive running 2nd in IA. First he will counter attack Huck who is peaking to soon and who has a ceiling anyway. Second Fred is already attacking Huck. Other will follow.
|
|
anyone noticed that whatever person or issue hewitt supports in his wimpy cheerleader style always ends up a loser.
the guy is a jinx |
|
ing a different show than you. I needed some Mitt convincing and felt I got it from 30-minutes in the second hour, which is all I watched.
I don't see him as a milktoast at all, MikeS, and I know one helluva lot about screen experience.
Huck is running for VP and, if Condi doesn't want it, I'm fine with that. :-) |
|
President Huckabee?
R-The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Iowa caucus finds former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 28% of the vote, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 25% support, and everyone else far behind. National frontrunner Rudy Giuliani gets just 12% of the vote in Iowa at this time while former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is the only other candidate in double digits at 11%
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/huckabee-28-romney -25
|
|
How many questions can Mitt Romney waffle on before someone sees him as he really is - the closest thing the Republicans have to Bill Clinton? How many times is he going to refuse to answer and say that he'd have to talk to his advisors, people who we (presumably) are not electing to anything. He'll say anything he needs to say just to get elected, just like he did in Massachusetts.
In a previous debate, he said he'd ask his lawyers if it was OK to bomb an enemy that was about to attack us; I believe he said "You do what your lawyers tell you to do..."
Now he won't tell us whether he still looks forward to the day when gays and lesbians will serve openly in the military? Just tell us if you still believe that, Mitt!
Romney also missed a golden opportunity to slamm Huckabee's ridiculous "we don't punish kids for what their parents do answer". That's a joke. Setting up a program where children of illegal immigrants get free education without persecution is like creating a magnet for illegal immigration. What parent doesn't want a good education for their children?
Illegal immigration shouldn't be incentivized. Why couldn't Mitt say that, instead of talking about how there is only so much money to go around?
|
|
Last night. Whhoooooooooooeyy!
Ron Paul is wildly crazy and must not be anywhere vital. Splash him down with Thorazine. Yikes. |
|
Patrick was more impressed with YouTube technology which is obsolescing by the hour, than he was with a live person of incredible accomplishment and leadership, Mitt Romney.
He seems more impressed with the medium than the message.
|
|
the polls cited by DwayneH are the most unreliable ... but I would sure like to have them if I were MH.
Todays WSJ article shows how almost impossible MH's task is. He has little organization, little money etc etc.
He is against King Kong ... albeit one with apparently very soft support. |
|
Romney's got a warchest. And Huckabee has a horrible record as a conservative. He's a tax-raising RINO with a record of ethics violations.
The ads will start running soon, and I anticipate his little balloon will deflate.
All these guys get a little surge until people get familiar with them. Huckabee is an aw-shucks walking soundbyte.
He's got no cash to counter the soon-to-come avalanche of advertising that is going to broadcast his real record.
Now, I might be totally wrong. If I am, it's still not doomsday for Romney. This is an expectations game at this point, and Huckabee is coming on a little early. We're more than a month out, and if the expectations change so that Huckabee is expected to win Iowa, then if Romney doesn't, it will not be as bad as it would if he were expected to win going into the lever-pull. If this was one week out, then it might have a big impact. But 5 weeks is a long time.
And I still stand by my prediction that Huckabee will whither once people see him for what he is - a bigger bleeding heart than George W.
His answer on education subsidies for illegal immigrants made my skin crawl. Look, you can personally feel compassion for kids of people who have broken the law, but it's not your place to hand out OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. And that's his problem. He thinks government will solve these problems. He's got a liberal heart. |
|
Romney was very good but not as good. He was especially weak on the gays in the military question. He came across wishy-washy. It turns out that the questioner was a Hillary Clinton plant.
Huckabee is going to be a problem for Romney among conservatives and will tend to split this vote. Hopefully, that won’t make Guliani the defacto choice because of a splintered base. Romney will not go away. He’s got the money and is a strong enough candidate to last. However, I’m thinking Huckabee could really make some waves by winning Iowa, finishing in the top four in New Hampshire, and then winning South Carolina. I don’t think that is out of the realm of possibility.
Since I believe Romney is trustworthy on abortion and reliable on most other conservative positions, it comes down to who is a better leader and executive. In the meantime, I’ll enjoy Huckabee’s skillful answers to the “you’re a crazy Christian” questions from the mainstream media. They’ve only begun to ask them. His answer on the Bible was delightful. However, I hope he doesn’t use “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me” as a justification for supporting more government sponsored social welfare programs.
|
|
The CNN questions forced the candidates to dance "Swan Lake" in a minefield.
Most of the questions were asking Presidential candidates to insert the Federal government in local matters. Evidently expressing CNN huge left wing bias.
I am sorry to report that most Republicans took the bait. All of them saying what they have done to expand government and what they intend to do.
Ron Paul was the exception; but he is more dangerous than Jimmy Carter when it comes to foreign policy. McCain had to lecture him about the obvious differences between Vo Nguyen Gyap and Usama bin Laden.
Ron Paul is the proverbial ugly American.
Mitt Romney expressed the right ideas but in a clumsy and dry form reminiscent of George Bush.
Mike Huckabee was right on Theology but wrong on Taxes and Illegal Immigration. Is he running for President of the Southern Baptist Convention?
"Our country does not pusnish children for the mistakes of their parents?"
You were punishing American children Mike!
You were creating an incentive to illegal immigration Mike!
He is the candidate for voters with tunnel vision.
I wish I could have Ron Paul's internal policy with Rudy Giuliani foreign policy. The debate only contributed to increase my confusion.
So many Republican voters fail understand that good moral values is only the begining. You certainly would hired your surgeon based ONLY on his morals, would you?
I'm sure to end up having to make another Bush versus Gore type of decision. |
|
|
Huckabee does have a liberal heart. How else can you explain his record on taxes, immigration, the WOT and the pardons? (Not to mention the thical lapses.) |
|
If Romney were not LDS, would YOU be supporting him? Likely not.
You don't care that he is a slick, packaged, squishy Northeastern flip-flopper. Why not? |
|
"Has the Republican party gotten so off track that they'd rather choose a social liberal (Rudy) than a social conservative (Mitt)?"
se7en, perhaps you haven't heard that Mitt is a...Mormon? (shudder - how *unpleasant*).
Yes, the party *has* gotten so far off track. Scary.
As far as Huckabee goes - please. This guy has no chance. He was coddled in last night's debate ("I'll get rid of the IRS!" (wild cheers from the crowd)). Let's see him perform when someone actually turns the screws. And while I'm sure he's a nice, upright guy, can anyone really imagine Gomer Pyle as President of the United States? Honestly?
Apparently some of you can imagine it, but the American electorate will not. The Hillarybeast would have him for breakfast, lunch, and dinner in a presidential campaign. Of Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee, Clinton 08 would choose Huckabee in a New York minute. |
|
Hugh, there’s a tendency for everyone to think their own guy won. You need to look at what everyone, the general public and pundits alike, think won, even if it doesn’t match what you want to be true or even genuinely think is true.
I thought McCain did the best, and the conventional wisdom is that he did pretty well – but the CW is overwhelmingly in favor of Huckabee. So I have to defer to that; I can’t realistically claim that on Debate Judgment Day, when the “actual” winner is infallibly declared, history will record that it was McCain. If more people think Huckabee won the debate, then Huckabee won the debate in the only sense that matters.
McCain still did very well for himself. Attempts to marginalize him have all been unsuccessful. Fred did nothing, but the hits Rudy and Mitt dealt each other will help him in the short run.
Mitt and Rudy hurt each other. A lot of their dueling accusations may have been unfair or pot-calling-kettle-black, but all of them stuck to a certain extent. It would be best for both men if the verdict was that neither man’s charges had much substance. But what came across is that every negative thing Rudy says about Mitt is at least somewhat well-grounded, and vice versa.
The race you are looking for is not going to happen, Hugh. Mitt and Rudy are engaged in a battle for the northeastern RINO semifinalist spot, to see who will face Huck. There won’t be a showdown between the two most Democrat-like candidates. Huck has the positive momentum, and he stands to benefit greatly by the ongoing diminution of Fred. Fred’s candidacy was always based on his supposedly being a conservative alternative to Rudy McRomney. Now that Huck in actuality is what Fred was supposed to be, Fred support has been steadily trickling toward Huck and will continue to do so – and yet there’s still plenty of Fred support left for Huck to keep adding to his own.
McCain is the wild card. Who he will help or hurt more, it’s hard to say. |
|
Not true. I'm supporting Romney by default. And I don't think the evidence supports your contention that he is slick (he's smart), packaged (how so?), squishy (not at all), Northeastern (true there), flip-flopper. Every other candidate has flipped as much if not more than Romney. Look at their records. He is NOT squishy on life, the WOT, taxes, spending, economics, trade, or immigration. He supports the Human Life Amendment and banning gay marriage. He couldn't be more clear on these issues. He governed as a real conservative.
I can't stand Huckabee - and he's got too many dealbreakers for me. McCain is a nasty man and betrays conservatives right and left. Rudy is a liberal and has character issues, and Thompson is a deadbeat, who blew it on McCain-Feingold, Chinagate and the Human Life Amendment.
It really is Romney by default. He has the least delabreakers/negatives. And he has the best resume, best work ethic, best strategy to win and best personal history. |
|
|
There's no way the dems are scared of Huck. He's one of them. He's also got ethical issues just like Hillary. Must be something in the water. |
|
|
I haven't seen Hugh spin this much following a debate. Pretty telling sign about the desperation he must be feeling about the Romney campaign after last night's embarassment. Romney came across last night like a local TV news anchor reading the teleprompter. He was totally devoid of conviction and unwilling to answer any question directly for fear it could hurt him later. Last night marked the end of the Romney campaign. Just keep an eye on the Iowa polls..... |
|
You obviously watched a different debate than I did. Mitt was not horrible (and I agree he did well on some issues) and if you count punches thrown and landed he probably beat Giuliani, but it was hardly a knock out and both fighters came out pretty beaten up.
McCain raised his standing and landed some hits on Mitt.
Fred held even or slightly improved his position.
Huckabee managed to dodge any serious attack and through a bit of charm managed to "win." I agree there is not that much there, and it is unfair that Huck coasts while everyone has to battle, but given his lead in Iowa (according to Rasmussen) it is a big deal. Now I am wondering if Rudy is going to ask Fred or Huck to be his running mate.
|
|
Livy, I would disagree with your charaterization and submit that you're acutally not watching the debates and following spin, not content. Romney never said he would consult lawyers on whteher to bomb any country. That question was in regards to the constitutionality of war poers - and he said he would consult lawyers on the constutionality of the war powers, not about actually bopmbing someone like Iran. A small difference? no, a big one, and something that is easily spun. don't fall for that.
as for the huckabee question, i thoguth he answered it well, Huckabee tried to play class warefare, suggesting he knows immigration better because he worked his way through college. Guess what, a lot of us did - I certainly didn't get any free breaks, the only thing I got to pay for college was a job. Huckabee is playing the John Edwards game, I respect him too much to allow him to do that without calling him out. |
|
Poll the general electorate. You consistently find the same results. McCain and Giuliani are competitive with or lead Hillary/Obama/Edwards. Thompson loses by 10% or more - Romney loses by 15% or more. Huck's too new to the top tier for there to have been many polls of him vs. each of the Dems; I'll be interested to see how they look when they start appearing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nati onal.html |
|
Ouch
Among Republicans in Iowa, 32% believe former Gov. Mike Huckabee won tonight's Republican debate; former Gov. Mitt Romney gets 16%, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani 12%, Sen. John McCain 10%, former Sen. Fred Thompson 7%, Rep. Ron Paul 6%.
Among Republicans in Florida, 44% believe Huckabee won the debate; Giuliani gets 18%, Romney 13%, McCain 10%, Thompson 5%.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_insideradvantage_post_de b.php
My guess is Huckabee did not have a problem with last nights format. |
|
|
you keep predicting the demise of Romney. How do you figure, other than wishful thinking? |
|
The reason VOR keeps predicting Romney's demise is because he/she lives on some other planet in the Delta Quadrant.
VOR's future lies in calculating the price of latinum.
|
|
|
I am not a Romney hater, in fact I am completely undecided, I feel I am very objective. My dad and I watched the debate together and both of us cringed at Mitt during the debate. He was awful in our opinion. My dad leans heavily toward Guliani with Romney in second. He was really turned off by Mitt. Mitt is still in the running for my vote, but gosh he looked like a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry. I am not a fan of Huckabee, I think he is too liberal economically for my taste, but Huckabee gained the most from the debate. He looked the best, I still don't think I will vote for him. I still think it's a four way race (Romney, Guliani, Thompson & Huckabee). I am still considering the top three evenly, but will vote for Ron Paul as a protest vote if I can't make up my mind. Hugh, please give us honest unbiased opinion on the race, or don't cover it at all or at least do a full disclosure and speak as a member of the Romney campaign. |
|
Giuliani.
I thought he was going to wet his pants when Mitt didn't back down like he assumed Mitt would.
Bigget winner?
Fox news. |
|
|
Did YOU watch the same debate. I'm not even a fan of Huckabee but that guy toasted the rest. Giuliani and Romney couldn't answer a question in a straight fashion to save their life. It was infuriating to hear them just vacillate. |
|
was when he said to Huckabee, "That's not your money." This reminded us of what is best about Romney: the executive decision maker, a guy who saved the Olympics and knows how to make millions in the corporate world.
But the other Romney is the one who says he needs to consult experts about water-boarding, just as he consults attorneys about terrorism. While this actually makes sense and it is what anyone else would do, it is not what people want to hear. He doesn't come off as a firm decision maker.
However, High may be right and Romney's formula may be enough to win him the nomination, especially if Rudy's negatives continue to grow. If that happens, you can kiss the election goodbye. Despite Hillary's "negatives", she will just trounce this guy. He is John Kerry.
Our only hope is Rudy, and the only way Rudy wins is if guys like Virginia Patriot come to their senses and realize what a financial disaster for our country Hillary would be.
Please keep in mind, when you're voting in the primaries:
A vote for Romney is a vote for Hillary |
|
Hugh has sold a book. That book stops making him any money tomorrow if Mitt drops out. Hugh is no surprise. I have been very interested in Mitt, but he can't even look at his own record and say that is who I am. He has selectively changed his position. Reagan changed his stance on abortion, not everything else.
One minute Mitt says "look at my record as governor," then next he says, "well don't look at that part,"
Rudy says, "I know you disagree with me."
Huckabee says, "I know you disagree with me."
McCain says, "I know you disagree with me."
Paul Says, "I know you disagree with me."
I can trust a man who disagrees with me.
Mitt is a brilliant and articulate guy, but he has become unpredictable and the American people won't back that. |
|
What a freaking embarrassment. I'm not sure who deserves more calumny: CNN, for planting questions by Democrats clearly hostile to the candidates, and for accepting the mortifying "Bible" question -- the mentally ill should not be given a national forum -- or Huckabee, who simply by being himself revealed his inner Jimmy Carter. I was imagining Christopher Hitchens suddenly bursting (somewhat tipsily?) out of the wings, thrusting his unshaven face into Huckabee's simplistic phiz, and growling, "Oh BUGGER all! You speak such piffle! God is a fairy tale!" etc. Would have been a big relief.
No religion in politics. I'll say it again. No religion in politics. Not now. Not ever. Never. |
|
Sure, he gushed over Romney, but he also praised Fred, caressed McCain, and gave Huck a passing grade. He was negative not just about Rudy, but about the Rudy/Mitt squabbling bringing down the tone of the debate.
I do wonder though about the judgment of someone who could claim:
“Is there really a difference between Romney, Giuliani and Thompson on immigration. No. What is the effect of a debate that produces false distinctions? As Tom Tancredo noted: ‘All I’ve heard is people trying to out Tancredo Tancredo.’” |
|
Both Rudy and Mitt will not run away with this, that means it will go down to the convention. That is great news. The more GOP candidates discuss and fight over the issues, the better. It keeps us in the news over the Dems and makes the convention more exciting.
I have been critical of Mitt, but if he is the top dog to come out of this I will support him. If Rudy prevails, I will support him. If McCain or Thompson prevail (and I like them in that order of preference), I would be thrilled. If Huckabee or Duncan Hunter prevails (unlikely but it is possible) I will support them.
It may still boil down to Rudy or Mitt. But nothing is guaranteed. And I think that helps the party. |
|
He is not conservative. He has said repeatedly in the past that he is a liberal, his record is liberal, he ran for mayor on the Liberal Party ticket. Know that you are voting for a liberal.
The GOP cedes their best issues by running Rudy. He agrees with Hillary on abortion, gays, guns, and amnesty. I want someone who doesn't.
America is worth saving. Vote conservative.
|
|
When you vote in the primaries, choose the candidate who most closely mirrors your values. Don't buy the propaganda being pumped out by the MSM. They want Rudy to be the nominee, they know it will split the GOP.
If a cross-dressing, former mayor of a sanctuary city who marches in gay pride parades reflects your values, vote for Rudy. If not, vote for the man you think would make the best President.
|
|
Huckabee can not win!
He has awful record on crime, taxes, immigration, ethics, spending and light weight on economic and foreign affairs. He also would lose his home state if Clinton is the nominee so yuo tell me where in the electoral college can he make gains that Bush could not? Romney on the other hand can lose AR and win in PA and Michigan more than making up for losing AR. Think people. |
|
Good point on why this media's crush on Huck helps Romney:
John McIntyre over at Real Clear Politics---"For the Romney campaign the silver lining in Huckabee's move into the first tier--and it is not an unimportant silver lining--is that Huckabee has totally shaken up the expectations for Iowa on the GOP side. Because of this resetting of expectations in December, if Romney is able to hold off Huckabee in Iowa it will be a huge win for his campaign. A win that would allow the Romney campaign to get the kind of momentum they were looking for when they originally laid out their sling-shot strategy to the nomination." |
|
|
if Romney loses to Huckabee in Iowa then he is finished |
|
All you naysayers can go stuff it. Romney has now risen to second place in Iowa! There were some that thought Romney would never reach second place from where he was only a week ago, but he has. So there!
Read it and weep. |
|
Won the debate despite his record and stance on the issues?
|
|
|
|
Swanmans already laying down the excuse Hugh will use in Iowa. If Huckabee wins somehow it will not matter but if Romney wins even by the slightest (and bought) margin it will be an incredible victory showing his strength, never mind the fact that he has blown a huge lead.
weak!!!!
just lame Romneybots!!!!
Cheers dirL |
|
Norquist: "I commend... Huckabee"
[the truth on November 29, 2007 4:36 PM]"Huckabee.... has [an] awful record on... taxes, immigration,... spending"
12/3/01
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) today awards Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas "Friend of the Taxpayer" for the month of December.
http://www.atr.org/content/html/statepre2004/120301pr-2.htm l
"Governor Huckabee clearly possesses the courage to act upon his convictions," said Grover Norquist, President of ATR. "I commend Governor Huckabee for the choice he has given the taxpayers of Arkansas: contribute additional income to the Tax Me More Fund, or don't. In the meantime, state government will cut spending. State government officials across the nation should take note of Governor Huckabee's example of how to handle a spending shortfall."
entire 20-minute Huckabee speech to special AR legislative session (many have seen the out-of-context words)
http://savetalkradio.com/2007/11/15/huckabees-entire-speech /
apologies for the ads:
"During my [Huckabee's] tenure as governor, we:
*Eliminated...."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Hope_Higher_Ground_Tax_R eform.htm
Huckabee & taxes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1194888194.530639.1384 10%40v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Huckabee reply to taxes & spending criticism--
4:23 on the video, to the video's end.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zgc-R9iAWhg&feature=related
Huckabee reply to immigration criticism: 3:53 - 5:35
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ax-mZfWSQn8&feature=related
|
|
[TPSoCal on November 29, 2007 1:27 PM]"....I am completely undecided, I feel I am very objective. .... I am not a fan of Huckabee, I think he is too liberal economically for my taste"
Details about your belief that Huckabee is "too liberal economically"?
28 November 2007
Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative
by Dick Morris
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/
|
|
[Gabriel Grossman on November 29, 2007 2:50 PM]'He [MR] has selectively changed his position. Reagan changed his stance on abortion, not everything else.
.... Rudy says, "I know you disagree with me."
Huckabee says, "I know you disagree with me."
McCain says, "I know you disagree with me."
Paul Says, "I know you disagree with me."
I can trust a man who disagrees with me.'
If the Republican base supported amnesty, would Mittster currently support amnesty?
If the Republican base supported abortion-on-demand, would Mittster currently support abortion-on-demand?
If the Republican base nominates Mittster for the general election, and the country has a view rejected by the base, would Mittster:
support the base's position? or support the general population's position?
|
|
[bot_feeder on November 29, 2007 10:28 AM]"If Huckabee is the candidate, he'll be roadkill, with a huge landslide victory for not only Hillary, but huge gains in Congress."
31 October 2007
former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transc ript.aspx?ContentGuid=a1209c9c-7e6b-431a-b36a-e4ba35fe396f
....watched my record as a Republican in the state, going against a strong headwind of the Clinton machine. And you know something, Hugh [Hewitt], there’s…people need to remember, nobody knows Hillary Clinton better than me, and nobody’s ever run against her like I have, because every time I was on the ballot in Arkansas, I ran against her political machine. And I beat it not once, twice, three times, but four times.
|
|
[pbgiv on November 29, 2007 10:30 AM]"If either Romney or Giuliani get the nomination, we will lose the election. Period."
What's your reasoning?
Do you think nomination of a pro-homosexual-rights nominee would cost the Republicans victory in the 2008 election?
///////////////////////////////////////
Being solidly pro-life and pro-family is *critical* to the Republican nominee being able to beat Mrs. Clinton. Folger puts it well:
9 October 2007 "It's Huckabee or Hillary" by Janet Folger
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58045
Look, if all you care about is strong borders, less
government, low taxes and a strong stand against
Islamo-fascism, you had better hope the nominee is
pro-life and pro-marriage-- because that's the only
way you're going to get not just the vote, but the
heavy lifting it takes to win. Pro-lifers are known as
the ones to go door to door, pound in yard signs
and make the get-out-the-vote calls, and if they are
not motivated, excited and mobilized (as the
Democrats will be), you will not get their help....
|
|
[Thaale on November 29, 2007 1:03 PM]"Huck's too new to the top tier for there to have been many polls of him vs. each of the Dems; I'll be interested to see how they look when they start appearing."
26 November 2007 Zogby Poll: Huckabee tops Clinton by Widest Margin
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews2.dbm?ID=1393
|
|
|
Not that I trust Zogby further than I can throw him (looks to me like he prefers Obama to Hillary, BTW). But if there's any legitimacy at all to his report, Huck isn't any less viable a candidate than anyone else. |
|
|
First Huck also lost to the CLinton Machine and only won when CLinton was gone and he won by being a liberal. He lied to the American people many times (not changed his postion lied). This should be a problem to people but you seem to be drinking his Kool-aid with no questions. HE LIED ON FOX NEWS, HE LIED IN THE DEBATE PLEASE QUIT SUPORTING CANDIDATES THAT LIE AND WOULD GET US KILLED IN NOVEMBER! |
|
|
I love Janet Folger and have heard her speak in person,however she is wrong about pro-lifers. Pat Robertson's rational for Rudy is because after all the success in the 90's with getting a Republican Congress, a majority of GOP state legislatures & governships and finally a pro-life President in 2000, we were never able to overturn Roe. Judges are the key (to undo Roe) and I think Rudy would appoint good ones. He is not my first, second,third,or fourth choice but I will go door to door if he is the nominee. |
|
[the truth on November 30, 2007 10:27 AM]"First Huck also lost to the CLinton Machine"
When?
"and only won when CLinton was gone and he won by being a liberal"
"By being a liberal" on what issues?
"He lied to the American people many times (not changed his postion lied). This should be a problem to people but you seem to be drinking his Kool-aid with no questions."
What are Huckabee's 2 most-severe lies?
What are Bill Clinton's 2 most-severe lies?
"QUIT SUPORTING CANDIDATES THAT LIE AND WOULD GET US KILLED IN NOVEMBER!"
Do you think a Northeastern Republican Jehovah's Witnesses nominee would retain Jesusland i.e. the South in a presidential election? |
|
|
|