Saturday, January 05, 2008
|
|
Ten Questions For The GOP Debates
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:48 AM
|
Tonight at 7 EST ABC hosts a debate among six Republicans at St. Anselms College in New Hampshire for a 90 minutes, moderated by John Gibson.
Tomorrow at 8 PM EST, FoxNews hosts a roundtable discussion with five of the candidates. (Ron Paul has been excluded.)
These conversations could have a decisive impact on not just New Hampshire, but the Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida races beyond. Given the bizarre twists that past debates have taken away from the issues that concern most Republican voters, here are a few questions I think the vast majority of Republican activists would find useful to the campaign:
1. Will you commit, without qualification or reservation, to support the Republican nominee?
2. Given that the Democratic nominee will not be accepting matching funds, for the Republican nominee to do so will put the GOP at an enormous and probably insurmountable disadvantage. Will you commit to not accepting federal matching funds for the primary season?
3. If you are elected president and your senior advisors agree that Iran is on the brink of testing a nuclear weapon, would you use the military to stop that test?
4. Do you support or oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty and the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court?
5. In 2006 the Congress approved and the president signed a bill authorizing the construction of 700 miles of border fencing, including hundreds of miles of "double-fencing." Very little of this fence has been built. If you are elected president, how many miles of double fencing will your Adminstration construct within your first year of taking office?
6. Knowing what we know now, was the decision to invade Iraq a good decision?
7. The United States Navy will soon be or already is at 280 ships, down dramatically from Ronald Reagan's 600 ship Navy. The U.S. is a maritime power. If you are elected president, how many ships will the U.S. have in its fleet at the conclusion of your first term? If you are re-elected, how many ships will be in the fleet at the conclusion of your second term?
8. The federal courts are weighing the "Defense of Marriage Act." If any circuit court overturns it, how will you react?
9. The revival of the Fairness Doctrine regulating the content of radio broadcasts was an objective of many Democrats when the new Congress convened last year. If you are elected president and Congress puts a bill including the Fairness Doctrine on your desk, would you veto it?
10. Barack Obama has enormous momentum, plus a mountain of money and Oprah. He is 46, looks 36, and has a beautiful wife and two wonderful little girls and a way with words. All of you are older than Senator Obama, with the youngest of you, Governor Huckabee, seven years older, and Senator McCain, 25 years older. How are you going to beat Senator Obama if he is the nominee and specifically, which states that John Kerry won in 2004 would you take away from the Democratic column with Senator Obama as their nominee?
These are fair and deeply interesting questions among the vast number of Republicans. Let's see how many of them are asked and answered tonight and tomorrow.
Two questions deserve some specific explanation on their importance.
In my conversation with Michael Barone and Morton Kondracke yesterday (transcript here), we touched on the money disadvantage the GOP has. If the GOP nominee accepts the federal matching funds for the primary season, that candidate's spending will be capped at around $40 million until September 1. The Democratic frontrunners will spend well over $100 million in that time period. To accept the match is viewed by many as tantamount to political surrender. GOP voters have a right to hear their candidates swear off the idea now so they can evaluate the viability of the candidacy. Senator McCain has filed the necessary paperwork to get the funds and has played an ambiguous game on whether he will take them. (His fundraising is in deep trouble and it is doubtful it will be resurrected much even with his expected win in New Hampshire.) Governor Huckabee translated his Iowa win into a very underwhelming $350,000 in contributions --an indication that he too has an anemic ability to open donors' wallets and thus a likelihood of dependence on matching funds. Giuliani and Romney have robust fund-raising operations as well as personal wealth --in the case of Romney, significant personal wealth. Fred Thompson is in between. Clarity here is necessary.
The Law of the Sea and ICC treaties are the sort of issues that the conservative base knows about and cares about deeply, but which the MSM default position of rah-rahing all such undertakings obscures from their Manhattan-Beltway elites' view. Both international agreements are deal-killers with the Republican base that senses that national sovereignty needs to be strengthened, not eroded. Mainstream conservatives that flat-out reject the fevers about the North American Union etc nevertheless prize the ability of the U.S. to act unilaterally and robustly in the national interest without becoming a treaty breaker.
On yesterday's program Frank Gaffney indicated that Senator McCain cannot be pinned down on either of these issues as well as a few others (full transcript here):
HH: Now Frank, you’re an honest broker of this stuff, and you followed John McCain’s career for a long time. He’s back in the lead, probably double digits in New Hampshire now. What do you think of John McCain’s foreign policy approach? Of course, Iraq he’s good on, but what about the other stuff like missile defense, ABM Treaty, Law of the Sea, et cetera?
FG: It’s been uneven again, Hugh. For example, on the Law of the Sea Treaty, John McCain indicated earlier in the campaign that he was opposed to it, had serious questions about it, had problems. I’m told that he’s backsliding a bit on that, and that would be very worrying indeed. On missile defense, I think he’s largely been not a featured figure in it. You know, he makes a point at every turn of saying how he’s been at the center of every national security debate for the past twenty years. I think he’s been largely AWOL on missile defense, and if not actually unhelpful. And more generally, you know, Andy McCarthy has a good piece in National Review Online today dissecting whether John McCain would have taken action against Saddam Hussein as George Bush did under the same set of circumstances, and concludes that he wouldn’t. And again, I tend to think that’s a bit of a disqualifier. I’ve known John for a long time, personally had a fondness for him, but I’m not sure that he’s the right guy for this job at this time, on national security grounds.
HH: And if a voter comes up to you and says wait a minute, I’m supporting him on national security grounds, what’s the specific brief? What do you say first, second, and third as to why he’s suspect on those grounds?
FG: Look, I think he’s been very strong, particularly in the months since the surge in Iraq, and that’s applaudable. I think those of us who believe this is a central front in this larger war, applaud that. It would be a mistake to confuse that with a larger track record on national security. For example, I’m told he’s now in favor of the International Criminal Court, one of those litmus tests like the Law of the Sea Treaty, on whether you understand that the United States simply cannot entrust its sovereignty to these international bodies. You get that wrong, that’s a big dock as far as I’m concerned in anybody’s national security agenda. And on the other things, I think a lot of them, he’s been uneven. The jihad that he waged against the Air Force acquiring tankers, a lot of issues like this, some of which he wraps up in opposing waste, fraud and abuse. I think there’s somewhat, and at least in some cases, simply wrong. In short, I have questions about his judgment, and I’m not confident that he’s a reliable figure on national security, much as he has certainly been a prominent figure in a lot of these debates over the years.
What I hope we don't hear tonight and tomorrow are questions about abortion --must there be abortion questions in every debate even though every one of them has been asked and answered over and over again?-- the role of religion in politics, and gun control. Every time such a question is asked it is an admission that the debate has left the purpose of informing the GOP electorate and is part of the MSM's great attempt to split the GOP rather than inform its voters.
These ten questions are a good basis for conducting the debate. Feel free to e-mail me others which I will append below if they pass my 3-part test for seriousness, relative rarity in previous debates, and likelihood of informing a Republican voter about his or her choice.
UPDATE: A blistering blast at Mike Huckabee and his strategists at HotAir, which begins: "This is why people like Rush Limbaugh say that Mike Huckabee is no conservative, and they’re right to say it." The post pivots off a statement by a Huckabee strategist in the WaPo yesterday:
[Huckabee's] aides are wary of New Hampshire. “It’s all no tax, no government there,” said Bob Wickers, a top strategist. “It’s not ideal.” But they believe that the message of economic anxiety that he preaches will help in Michigan’s primary on Jan. 15 and in states in the South, which have high poverty rates in addition to strong groups of social conservatives.
Plus this from Mark Steyn's latest:
In response to the evangelical tide from the west, New Hampshire primary voters have figured, "Any old crusty, cranky, craggy coot in a storm," and re-embraced John McCain. After all, Granite State conservatism is not known for its religious fervor: it prefers small government, low taxes, minimal regulation, the freedom to be left alone by the state. So they're voting for a guy who opposed the Bush tax cuts, and imposed on the nation the most explicit restriction in political speech in years. Better yet, after a freezing first week of January and the snowiest December in a century, New Hampshire conservatives are goo-goo for a fellow who also believes the scariest of global-warming scenarios and all the big-government solutions necessary to avert them.
|
|
There ain't enough Bactine at Sam's Club to cover the beaten and broken body of Mitt Romney after this debate.
He was thoroughly whipped...mainly because he's just that vulnerable.
His weakness came through loud and clear.
Add to that he couldn't take a punch...nor deliver one.
The comments on National review spoke of "whining", "prissy", and "the erstwhile kid at the front of the class with a polished apple for the teacher while getting nailed with spit balls" (that one was the best).
In short, he is a very smart...wimp.
And it is a BIG RED FLAG that Hewitt has to turn to Dick Morris for positive spin.
It's more than that...it's PATHETIC!
BTW-Dick Morris is ALWAYS wrong...but FOX loves to have him come on and beat up Hillary.
|
|
Can't help agreeing with you both. I HATE political debates, with a swarm of candidates, but last night's was more palatable than any previous. Gibson was good at moderating and the sit & talk format was a huge improvement.
I have felt for a long time(since high school oratorical contests about a hundred years ago--well, early 1960's)that the damn things say very little about the ability and talent to lead as POTUS and much about who is the most nimble 'speech major' on stage. They generally make my skin crawl. However, seeing the brittle Hillary or the truly Empty Suit Bazama come up against Mitt or Rudy does put a grin on my face. |
|
As delegate wins stand today:
Romney - 16
Huckabee - 13
Thompson - 7
McCain - 5
Guliani - 0
So why would Romney be ready to fold? He's playing the national field. Close to 60% of Republican caucus-goers were evangelical Christians. Therein lies Huckabe's great success in Iowa. And his demise. There aren't enough evangelicals left for him to continue winning. Who was next in line behind Huckabee in Iowa? Romney. Which basically puts him in 1st place in a level playing field. And people are sending him condolences?
I'm really hoping that a lot of the posters here are liberal trollers. Otherwise the Republican party has serious issues within.
|
|
Nice man, not an original thought in his bones--filled with leftist banality and platitudes.
Pa-lease
I wish him well in his academic career. |
|
|
|
Agreed, she's a very pedestrian writer. She's the editor of NRO, and seems to to an okay job in that role, coordinating the various writers and so forth, making sure the Corner never goes too long without new posts, etc. But she doesn't have much to offer as a writer, herself.
I am however more sympathetic toward her crush on Mitt than toward Hugh's or Rich Lowry's (though Lowry may be losing his enthusiasm). |
|
|
for MikeS?? Whew. Site Admin. stuff, me thinks. |
|
Coyote here.
Most, if not all, of Hewitt's 10 questions are silly and suggest why Huckabee appealed to so many in Iowa.
1. Support nominee. No one in his right mind supports anybody without qualification or reservation.
2. Matching funds. Do what best supports chances of winning.
3. Iran. All options on table, of course.
4. Law of Sea and Int'l Criminal Court Treaties. On the top of everybody's mind these days.
5. How many miles of border fence. Federal mandates the fence; President's oath requires faithful execution of office. For specific number of miles, ask an engineer/contractor.
6. If W's stated reason for war - WMD -- was not a pretext, then of course decision was not a good one.
7. 600-ship Navy. Would 600 row boats satisfy Hugh? Question is what is the threat and what are the resources required to me it?
8. Circuit Court overturning of Federal Marriage Act. Appeal to Supremes, duh.
9. What to do if Fairness Doctrine included in a bill. Depends on what else is in the bill, doesn't it?
10. How to beat Obama? What, and tell Hillary how? (Also, if Hugh's so smart, why doesn't he tell us while he's busy painting the map red?)
|
|
Most, if not all, of Hewitt's 10 questions are silly and suggest why Huckabee appealed to so many in Iowa.
1. Support nominee. No one in his right mind supports anybody without qualification or reservation.
2. Matching funds. Do what best supports chances of winning.
3. Iran. All options on table, of course.
4. Law of Sea and Int'l Criminal Court Treaties. On the top of everybody's mind these days.
5. How many miles of border fence. Federal law mandates the fence; President's oath requires faithful execution of office. For specific number of miles, ask an engineer/contractor.
6. If W's stated reason for war - WMD -- was not a pretext, then of course decision was not a good one.
7. 600-ship Navy. Would 600 rowboats satisfy Hugh? Question is what is the threat and what are the resources required to meet it?
8. Circuit Court overturning of Federal Marriage Act. Appeal to Supremes, duh.
9. What to do if Fairness Doctrine included in a bill. Depends on what else is in the bill, doesn't it?
10. How to beat Obama? What, and tell Hillary how? (Also, if Hugh's so smart, why doesn't he tell us while he's busy painting the map red?)
|
|
Wow, Rasmussen has Hillary down to Obama 37 to 27 percent.
Yes, indeedy, we may just be seeing the end of the Clintons as a political force. If this comes true on Tuesday, I am breaking out a bottle of Champagne.
RCP averages has McCain at 32, Mitt at 28 percent, with McCain trending up, while Mitt is going down, this reminds me of Iowa all of a sudden.
Hey, why wasn't RCP tracking Wyoming? Just asking! |
|
|
yani - the conversation here is rough and tumble, but you are clearly out of your league here, yes, straighten up or go away. |
|
|
|
yani - you may well be correct.
First, we may at last be seeing the end of the Clintons. Hillary looks tired and brittle, she can't counter the youth and energy and novelty of Obama. Look how her attacks on him, like the kindergarten issue, blow up in her face.
I don't think any of the GOP guys can keep the coalition together. Rudy will peel off the right to lifers and NRA types, McCain has said and done things to alienate conservatives on speech and judges, and Fred is not going anywhere. The Huckaboom filled a vacuum in Iowa because of Mitt's lack of likability. None of our guys are uniters.
Add to this we have had eight years of Republican rule and its time for a change. Read the accounts of the rallies, Obama is filling them up consistently, and the Dems had nearly twice as many caucus goers in Iowa than the GOP. Energy matters.
The mood now seems away from bitter partisanship, and Obama (and Huck) are sensing this; see how ineffective Hugh constant invective against McCain and Huck are, its almost like his negativity is driving support to them.
And, as discussed above, talk radio's influence is waning. Demonizing the opposition is not what the voters want to here, and, if a Democrat wins, it won't be the end of the world, no matter what Hugh and Rush tell you.
Sometimes I think a stunning defeat at the polls, a la 1964, might be the best thing for the GOP, to bring the party back to its senses. |
|
My point in response is that I was not speaking of Calvinism per se - though certainly Calvinism debates have been resonsible for more than one of the various Protestant denominations.
And while I assume there are a few hardcores out there who declare anyone denying Calvinism as proper soteriological doctrine is not really a believer - the relevant point here is that Calvinists and non-Calvinists (note - they are not necessarily Arminians) still have a the same belief in Who Jesus was - and it wasn't Lucifer's spirit brother.
It is my understanding that the phrase "damned if you do, damned if you don't" arose at a time of hyper-Calvinism mirroring what you describe. Live any way you want, if God punched your ticket - destiny is determined anyway.
However, the key to your comment was once one believed (ticket punched) - for if that has truly taken place, I know of nobody who then does not seek to live life accordingly. There is plenty of Scripture to counter someone who thinks otherwise. |
|
MikeS: So the McCain TEMPRAMENT is recent news for you? It's just like HST's? Respectfully, wish to laugh myself to sleep. Sorry. McCain is seriously disturbed. Truman was not. Any, for instance, evidence that President Truman would trample anyone to death that stood between himself and a microphone? He couldn't play poker successfully with anybody above age 3. You read his FEEEELINGS from 50-yards.
Forgive the shallowness, but: Since Bazama's success in Iowa, I keep conjuring up the visuals of McCain-Obama debates. Not pretty. A disaster.
For sound, throw some gasoline from Bazama onto the thin, pale, old skin of John and stand back. The opposition is sure to have cans of gas prepared for a McCainian reaction-meltdown. Done Deal. |
|
"After Goerge the Stupid" - yani
I know it's just a typo, but still ironically funny. |
|
|
|
McCain Rising [Ramesh Ponnuru]
His events are packed: The fire marshal had to turn people away, both New Hampshire voters and visiting journalists, from his Peterborough town hall meeting. Reporters who have gone to Romney events tell me that his crowds are merely respectable. "The Mac is back!" his supporters have been chanting. So it would seem.
01/05 03:29 PM
|
|
-Who is your model for a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Roberts or Judge Ginsberg?
-Do you support the 'Fair tax"?
-Do you support making the President Bush tax cuts permanent, including the elimination of the estate tax?
Just as several European countries are recognizing that costly government social programs must be brought under control do you support expanding current government programs or developing new ones? |
|
|
Wyoming? And why did Wyoming move up their vote knowing they would lose delegates? |
|
|
Huckaboom What? Romney Wins Wyoming Republican Caucuses |
|
as Hugh has been saying ... a two person race ... but not the right combo for him
McCain +3.9 over RG
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
2008 Republican Presidential Nominee
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN
John McCain to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 34.7 34.9 34.9 177626 +2.4
2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 31.0 31.9 31.0 147858 +3.5
2008.GOP.NOM.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 13.1 15.1 13.1 107766 -3.1
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 11.7 11.9 11.9 114632 -3.2
2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL
Ron Paul to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 4.0 4.5 4.5 96754 -1.2
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 2.6 2.9 2.5 101092 -0.3
|
|
|
I'm a conservative and a Republican who wants to hear how Republicans plan on addressing social wellfare issues. Homelessness, healthcare, highschool dropout rates, chronic generational poverty, chemical dependency, etc... These are issues I care about. I have worked with private services both as a volunteer and staff to address some of these issues. These problems are not going to get better without more attention, resources and better solutions. I don't see how they can be addressed without government assistance. Why do Republicans cede these issues to Democrats? We know that Democrat's solutions in the past have failed miserably. If Republicans actually produced solutions that worked, the Dems would be done. Social wellfare issues are what keeps the socialist Democratic movement alive. We shouldn't be silent on these issues. They should be a priority. |
|
Just like FAUX News!
Ron Paul being excluded from the debate when he more than doubled Giuliani's total( Ron Paul 10% vs Giuliani 4%)
Get the real news at http://www.fight4truth.com |
|
I think that I shall never see (No, wait. Wrong blog. Note to self: could be developed into a cool poem.)
I think that Romney/Thompson as Pres/VPres would make a helluva ticket. I don't know if that is even remotely feasible - considerations to include a modicum of mutual liking and respect - but the combination of personalities, experience and origins would presage high electability and good governance. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Rabid dissenters are welcome to wander off and piddle in the sandbox. |
|
The political problem with the Mormon question is that it never will be part of the manstream protestant demographic. It is important that this is not the objective of the LDS faith. This is why Romney, Kennedy, and the Constitution have all iterated that no religious test shall be established concerning religion.
Steve is correct on his assertion about the works portion, just not the grace. Official LDS doctrine states that "It is by grace we are saved after all we can do." |
|
The Protestant reformation was a return to the teaching of salvation by grace alone. As you will see from Mormon.org - grace is not part of Mormonism, and Protestants who do not convert are not rewarded in the same way as Mormons.
Yes, I know this is not a theological debate forum - I am not looking to debate anything. I simply am posting from the official Mormon websites their positions on two issues that go against all (and I mean ALL) of Protestant Christianity.
They have the freedom and right to believe and worship any way they desire. None of these beliefs mean Mormons are somehow bad or evil people. But do not kid yourself that Mormonism will EVER be part of mainstream Protestantism. Again, note the Mormon writings as authority for these beliefs - not the simple Bible.
----------------------------------
Once you have entered the strait and narrow path, you must exert every effort to stay on the path (2 Nephi 31:16-21). You must continue to grow in understanding, exercise continual faith in Jesus Christ, repent, renew your baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament, and follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost. These first principles and ordinances? of the gospel are a lifelong commitment, often called “enduring to the end.” By patiently and faithfully following the gospel path, you will find direction, peace, and happiness in your life, allowing you to draw closer to God and qualifying you for eternal life ( 2 Nephi 31:20).
(Note the "qualifiying" you for eternal life - that ain't grace folks)
http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/jesus-chr ist-our-savior/enduring-to-the-end |
|
about McCain is just nonsensical. Sure, the man has a hot temper, but there is no evidence that it EVER affected a single policy decision the man has made.
Harry Truman, another indivudualist and great patriot whom McCain reminds me very much, also was a hothead. At one point he threatened to punch a reporter in the mouth for giving his daughter a poor acting review. Truman was one of our greatest presidents, and his temper had nothing to do with it. |
|
There can be no such alignment. Protestant denominational differences are NOT over the Person of Christ. Even though there may be animosity between demoninations, you will be hardpressed to find many Baptists who think Presbyterians are not saved, or are not going to the same heaven. And vice versa and substitute the denomination. Mormonism teaches a "latter-day" revelation that also changes much traditional Protestant teaching.
This is straight from the official website http://www.lds.org - you will notice that this is also the teaching that caused a lot of controversy this election. You will also notice that the verses cited for authority include one Bible passage and one passage of Mormon writings.
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7 db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a10ef96041 7b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 |
|
|
Agreed. I'll have to follow Gerghaty more closely - I'm not even sure I've spelled his name correctly! ;) - instead of reading the Corner and Hugh so much. As far as NOR people go, I'm still trying to figure out where K-Lo's credibility comes from to begin with. It's as if she has been created from whole cloth. She's clearly the worst writer of the bunch and just seems to parrot what she hears elsewhere. She also seems to make up for the lack of quality posts with sheer quantity. When Bill Bennet has her on his show for commentary, I really start to question his credibility. Byron York yes, K-Lo no. And who syndicates her and why? Sorry, venting. |
|
I still don't agree with your analysis. The US has been a military empire for over half a century now and we have had successful, non military leaders. Maybe we interpret military empire differently.
You said you would like an LDS member to comment on the article so here goes. I think the idea of a more "mainstream Mormonism" will never happen. I would be intersted to see who the sources are for the NYT article (which has more negative commentaries on the LDS church than any other paper). I think members themseleves may make this shift for convenience or doctrinal weakness, but for Mormons so-called, theology is simply not a matter of convenience.
You can point to things like polygamy or the priestood issue, but we believe there we valid theological revelations concerning those. Now, having discussed these points at length with people of all faiths I know every response to what I just said, so if someone disagrees, I'll save you the trouble of a post by saying this is not the forum for a theological debate.
In the end individuals may shift as in any denomination, maybe even in large numbers, but the doctrine concerning things like Jesus and God were once men is an essential difference between us and mainstream Christans. |
|
(Look for a post like this tonight after the debate concludes. I have little doubt he has written most of it written right now, with only a few blanks to fill in.)
Because Romney just won Wyoming. Obviously this is a national campaign, and this is the first of many victories for the most conservative candidate in the field.
http://www.planetjh.com/news/A_102782.aspx
The Wyoming victory, coupled with Romney's overwhelmingly dominant performance in the just concluded debate, further proves that Romney is rising. Sure he would have preferred to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but Bain guys always have more than one plan, and their business training ensures they can execute their fall-back options better than all but a very small number of Americans.
Look for the base to rally around his success in Wyoming, as it is not lost on them that the citizens of that strongly conservative state know and understand true conservatism in a way Iowa and New Hampshire residents never have and never will. Historians will look back on this moment as the one that gave us the heir to Reagan's movement. Americans in future generations will know they are indebted to the wisdom the patriots out west showed today. |
|
Hugh Hewitt's review of tonight's Republican Debate has been leaked to this commenter:
"Without question, Mitt Romney's performance in the debate tonight is destined to enter the pantheon of the defining moments of our time; for in it, we lucky mortals were witness to what was inarguably the finest distillation of passion and and brains and square-jawed herculean glory of this or any other age; an achievement of such blinding perfection that eclipsed every previous achievement of the human race, combined, and those who cannot admit this simple axiomatic truth are clearly soulless and/or deranged."
[Apologies to IowaHawk: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/12/in-my-objecti ve.html] |
|
Who wants a hothead like McCain near the trigger? Here's a list of his "top ten"...
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Straight_Talk _Detour_1.5
And as good as Huckabee is at veiling his vicious, deceitful attacks behind jokes for your listening pleasure, his crazy statements about razor blades and hot tubs, lying about Romney in a bogus ad he pretended to pull, and calling on the name of Jesus in vain so you'll fall for it... read Matthew 12, if you really are a Christian, and vote for MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT!!
Romney's wife already said his jokes are bad, but he likes them and I think some of them are kind of funny... I think he writes his own. :) |
|
"Excellent article on the political history of Mormonism, and how the LDS will eventually become a mainstream protestant denomination. Makes sense. I would like to hear what LDS people think."
I don't expect anything of the sort to happen.
Incidentally, for what it's worth, I suspect that I'm among the "voices" he has in mind who are supposedly calling for a new, revisionist form of Mormonism. I'm sometimes so portrayed in such discussions. But I'm definitely not. (I would be appalled at such move.) There are a few people out there who ARE, but they're an extremely tiny minority without any discernible influence. |
|
Lost in most of these comments, which seem more incendiary than substantive, is that despite the political fog that envelops every election, there are a finite number of core issues that conservatives should force to the center of the debate.
In that regard, and as a litmus test for all Republican candidates, Hugh's post strikes just the right balance by realigning values and principles that have been skewed and abused in the past few years.
As Republicans, we should never forget the founding principles that unite us, and, concurrently, remember that party internecines are counterproductive when they meaningful stray from those core issues.
For my post today, which weds Noonan's and Steyn's editorials, go to:
http://clearcommentary.townhall.com
Best,
Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com |
|
Thanks for the full comment on the Steyn piece.
I was disgusted yesterday after hearing Hugh interview Kudlow, where Kudlow dismissed Hugh's insanity about yesterday's market drop being due to Iowa. In fact, Kudlow was screaming BUY, BUY
He did of course comment that the markets react to who might be elected in office EVENTUALLY
Then, when Kudlow left - Hugh totally misrepresented him to the audience as "agreeing with me that markets react to politics" and then continuing his dribble about the selling being due to Iowa wins for Huck and Obama.
Hugh also tried to include a potential McCain nomination in that fear - but Kudlow said the markets would likely react very favorable to McCain. Hugh can't argue with Kudlow on that turf - so he dropped it for the interview, only to again pick it up after he came back from break (sans Kudlow) |
|
Self-perceived peasants with pitchforks -- and RVs and several cars and computers and cellphones and private homes and lots of resentment, in a reasonably healthy economy.
That's how they're beginning to come across to me. Lots of anger. |
|
This Question is for Mr. Romney
Given the fact that Hugh Hewitt has been consistently wrong on everything would he be one of the lawyers you would turn to if the United States was attacked by Terrorist?
dirLie |
|
I disagree with your inference that ones service or child's service in the military is a requirement for patriotism or effective leadership. History has proven time and again that is not the case.
I agree that the 10 questions should revolve around the economy and other domestic issues. I would go with Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson on most of these issues as their experience is pretty solid. I would like someone in the white house who understands what creates jobs and a strong economy.
Who is the ideal Reagan Conservative? Well, there isn't one running. So the question is, of those in serious contention for the white house, who will act most like a Reagan Conservative? According to their current positions (which all will probably change in the next months) I would say Thompson, Romney, Giuliani, Clinton, Huckabee, Obama - in that order.
|
|
Excellent article by someone who used to work for Governor Huckabee:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110011082
The Huckabist attacks (on this thread and others) branding the editors of National Review, Rush Limbaugh, and other leading conservatives as enemies of the People show clearly what's at stake with the Huckabist insurgency: The Republican Party is in danger of becoming a European-style Christian Democratic Party in which genuine conservatives will be demonized as agents of the New York/Washington elite. |
|
Hugh left out this part of Mark Steyn's column. How can Hugh miss the really good stuff? As the discussion above, radio hosts want to do your thinking for you, and not give you the whole picture.
'As for Huckabee, the thinking on the right is that the mainstream media are boosting him up because he's the Republican who'll be easiest to beat. It's undoubtedly true that they see him as the designated pushover, but in that they're wrong. If Iowa's choice becomes the nation's, and it's Huckabee vs. Obama this November, I'd bet on Huck.
As governor, as preacher and even as disc jockey, he's spent his life in professions that depend on connecting with an audience, and he's very good at it. His gag on "The Tonight Show" – "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off" – had a kind of brilliance: True, it is cornball at one level (imagine John Edwards doing it with all his smarmy sanctimoniousness) but it also devastatingly cuts to the core of the difference between him and Mitt Romney. It's a disc-jockey line: the morning man on the radio is a guy doing a tricky job – he's a celebrity trying to pass himself off as a regular joe – which is pretty much what the presidential candidate has to do, too. Huckabee's good at that.
I don't know whether the Jay Leno shtick was written for him by a professional, but, if so, by the time it came out of his mouth it sounded like him. When Huck's campaign honcho, Ed Rollins, revealed the other day that he wanted to punch Romney in the teeth, Mitt had a good comeback: "I have just one thing to say to Mr. Rollins," he began. "Please, don't touch the hair." Funny line – but it sounds like a line, like something written by a professional and then put in his mouth.
This is the Huckabee advantage. |
|
1. When will you give a detailed plan to deal with the economy, tax cuts, dealing with the housing problems and supporting the free enterprise system we have? How will you counter the socialism of the Dem Congress? 2. Will you campaign for House and Senate GOP candidates to give our side some chance of gaining at least one House in Congress? You will need all the support you can get otherwise all your statements of 'change', new ideals, et al will mean nothing. 3. Will you name for us at least one jurist you will trust to be on SCOTUS or on an Appeals Court? 4. Will you name for us one trusted Cabinet member that you would appoint?
5. Name one characteristic that you have that voters should commend that would make you a better Commander in Chief than any of your competitors , Republican or Democrat. |
|
(crickets chirping)
mmmm-yeah...
|
|
"My dig at Gerghaty was simply an anecdote, although weren't all the polls pretty much pointing to the results that actually came to pass? It's just kind of funny to watch all the pundits trying to impose their wills upon the voters."
That's absolutely true, that the RCP poll consensus was pretty close to the actual result (though even it underestimated Huck's winning margin). And I'm sure that was the secret to Geraghty's success, not that he would pretend otherwise: he looked at the polls dispassionately, trended them a little, and reported the observation.
I agree with what you say about pundits trying to enforce their desires on the electorate. When Rich Lowry admitted ruefully on Friday that the polls had been right after all (he and many other Romneyites had dismissed various polls like DMR as being pro-Dem or pro-McCain or whatever), it just emphasized for me that many pundits are too close to the forest to see the trees. Geraghty, though also a pundit, seems to have a reporter's nature.
Funny how if Lowry and KLo and the others had just listened more to their in-house expert's reading of the polls, they wouldn't have sold out for Romney and been left looking foolish the next day. |
|
Peak Oil - Hugh's Mitt infatuation is what opened my eyes to talk radio.
We elected Reagan twice without Rush and talk radio. Since Rush came on we have had eight years of Clinton and eight years of expensive 'compassionate' conservatism. Why do we need them?
I put on the Classical station now, Bach and Schuman are much better company,and they can carry a better tune. |
|
I stand by my question as I think Hugh is dead wrong on matching funds but I find myself in a minority here when it comes to economics.
It is all well and good that Mike Huckabee can "feel my pain." I would rather he told me what he can personally do about it, which, as the President, is little.
I would rather the so-called out of touch privileged millionaire who made his money dealing with economic downfalls and turning them around were looking at how to help me. I would rather have an actual articulated solution than empathy.
Therefore, the only place Huck's "understanding" goes for me is leading me to the question, what do you propose should be done about it? |
|
|
My dig at Gerghaty was simply an anecdote, although weren't all the polls pretty much pointing to the results that actually came to pass? It's just kind of funny to watch all the pundits trying to impose their wills upon the voters. Not that I'm under any illusion that most commentators are unbiased. They see what they want to see, and that's unfortunate for voters like me who simply want to know the facts about the candidates. I wish I could get paid thousands of dollars to be interviewed on tv to explain how my predictions were actually right even though they were exactly opposite of how things turned out. |
|
'There's a painful truth about Romney's candidacy: Republicans in general and conservatives in particular are resisting him in droves. This was first suggested in poll after poll that found Romney stuck in the high 20s. And it was confirmed by his dismal showing in the Iowa caucuses, in which he captured only a sliver of the conservative vote and roughly a quarter of the Republican vote overall.'
Fred Barnes at Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/014/555fzjrd.asp |
|
Yes, Rudy was a draft dodger too. Another example of a disconnected GOP elite from the peasants they want to vote for them.
Actually, I don't think questions to the candidates matter much, and who needs another of these 'debates'? This is a personality driven race, not an issues one. Hillary is tanking because no one likes her, not for her stand on the issues. Obama is the heart throb who is a great orator, but if you listen to him closely, he does not say much on the issues.
Iowa Dems had twice the turnout of the GOP - Obama is much more attractive than any of our guys. Its most likely going to be Dem win in Nov.
On the GOP, the more Iowa voters got to know Mitt, the less they liked him, as indicated by his sudden drop in the polls starting in December. |
|
Hugh,
"6. Knowing what we know now, was the decision to invade Iraq a good decision?"
AN ANALOGY:
Let's compare this to trading stocks. Let's assume I have throughly researched a stock. Looked at the fundamentals and the technicals. Based upon all of my research at that point in time, I decide to BUY.
A week after I buy, the company gets hit with a huge lawsuit and a drug that was in trials which everyone thought would be a big winner fails. Both completely unforseeable events and the stock tanks.
THE COMPARISON:
You then ask me, "knowing what you know now, would you still have bought that stock?" Well, of course not. But then again, perhaps unexpected good news will come out tomorrow and the stock will sky-rocket, making my original choice look correct.
THE POINT:
America made the best decision we could with the facts we had at the time. Even the Democrats in Congress agreed.
Although the decision looks dicey right now, if democracy takes hold and spreads through the Middle east in 20 years and our Iraq Policy was the seed, Bush will look like a genius and visionary.
So the point is, we just can't tell. What we DO know is that we ARE there and we MUST win, and if elected President, I will make sure we DO win in Iraq. |
|
|
served his ocuntry in Vietnam, but he got out of what he vasically considered an unjust war. This was while he was voting for George McGovern. I'm not sure exactly when he got the epiphany that communism was bad, but it took a while. He was in his forties when he prosecuted the mafia. I'll point out that being a lawyer is a little less dangerous and noble than being a soldier, at least to me. |
|
Peak Oil, I think Mitt was too busy trying to convert French Catholics to LDS to be on the beach, but your point is taken.
Any how about our talk radio leaders, all the ones who praise military service, but never found time to get down to the recruiter? Rush, Hugh, Savage, Hannity, Ingraham? No service as far as I know. I have Medved admit to being a draft dodger during Viet Nam. But they all support the troops!
I am beginning th think the veil is coming off talk radio, and to paraphrase Oz, pay no attention to the little man behind the mike.
|
|
|
|
|
..about how Chickenhawk is not a legit issue, watch the Republicans make hay with McCain's military record once they nominate him. All of a sudden, and contrary to their arguments during the Bush years, military experience will be an indispensible requirement. |
|
Nice to see a well-reasoned post that doesn't rely on hysteria and personal attacks. I know there are more of us out here that have thought of responding before...but don't bother for the most part because of the infantile sniping.
Proof that the Daily Kos HAS influenced America...
The important thing to me is that a year from now we're swearing in a Republican. No one is going to get exactly what they want...what's important is drafting someone who can beat Obama or Hillary.
On the issues it's a no-brainer--we've got the advantage. But enough Americans vote with their hearts that we have to capture those as well.
NOT FIRST--we should never try to out-Democrat the Democrat; we'll get trounced. But we do need our candidate who can win people over emotionally. |
|
That was funny--get er done.
Alright back to the serious stuff. |
|
Big G- Hunter is out of the debates now, he did not get enough Iowa votes.
Actually, I don't think the President has that much control over the economy, although he gets the blame during downturns.
Globalization is also a fact, it is a historic trend no President can control. But I trust McCain more than the others to keep our military strong in light of Chinese military buildup. |
|
It may not be a logical argument, but as the examples of George W Bush and Dan Quayle show, if a GOP candidate has any vulnerability on Vietnam, it will become a major issue. It doesn't matter whether it's fair or not, or relevant to the job.
You can be sure the Dems would play this card early and often if the GOP nominated anyone but Huck (like Obama and Edwards, too young for Nam and too old for Iraq, so they all get passes), or of course McCain.
The chickenhawk argument wouldn't get very far with Rudy. Everyone knows he spent those years taking on the Five Families. It would get a lot farther with Thompson, and farther still with Romney. He's wide open on this one, and if there's any chance he or Fred will be the nominee, they need to be beaten up incessantly on the issue during the primaries. |
|
The obvious follow-up questions would be:
3a. Would President Clinton have been justified in attacking Pakistan in 1998, on the eve of their nuclear test?
3b. What other almost-nuclear-nations would you attack prior to their test detonations?
3c. What precedents, positive and negative, would that set for future Presidents?
3d. What Constitutional authority would you use to justify such a strike?
3e. Suppose the CIA and State Dept. live up to their previously established incompetence and provide incomplete data to the military, resulting in one Iranian test facility destroyed and others surviving, through ignorance of their existence. How will you explain the resultant mushroom cloud over Israel and/or Europe and/or American forces in the region?
Of course, if they answer no:
3a. What strategy will you use to contain or overthrow the nuclear armed Iran?
3b. What assistance would you provide to Israel, if they told us they would conduct a strike and asked for such help?
3c. What additional forces would you deploy to Iraq to protect and assist the American already in theater?
3d. What missile defense budget increase would you push through Congress, and who would you allow it to be sold it to, after the US was sufficiently defended? |
|
Citizen - The problem is not only Mitt, its all of our elites, the talk up the patriotism game, but don't serve themselves or inculcate a sense of duty in their children. Remember when Mitt compared military service to his sons' working on his campaign? That was not a disconnect in Mitt's mind - but showed how removed he is from the lives of the folks he wants to vote for him.
So not populism, but an elite who refuse to get their hands dirty or put themselves at risk. This is one factor I consider in evaluating candidates.
As your post shows, Mitt has not cred with fighting Jihad.
No parents who don't have kids in the military failures, we have a volunteer force. But if Mitt is President he will send young men and women into harms way, with absolutely no risk to his own family.
Bush 41 served as in WWII, and 43 flew dangerous air force planes. |
|
I guess McCain and Hunter are your men.
Thats fine.
Of those two, only Hunter is qualified to be President, the one who wants to protect our borders.
Can the old combat veteran get our economy going?
Can he deal with the fact that China owns us?
|
|
I know these are serious times and all, and yes it's true that Barak Obama is a fine wordsmith.
But for some reason (which I can't account for) that put me in mind of another fellow who was a fine wordsmith. Michael McClure who I believe was famous in the late 60's and early 70's. From his poem Dolphin Skull:
SO THE OWL HOOTS: Turquoise. Musk. White linen.
Deer in the yard – a stag with antlers.
(and later there's this):
COVERS
OF OLD MAGAZINES
are glossy, erotic, my
sexuality
grows underneath them
like a rock rolled up on a beach
by the edge of huge waves.
I’M
LISTENING
to you in my mind.
A MUSEUM OF DIRTY PICTURES
Sorry, I couldn't find the whole thing, you'll have to find it yourself.
|
|
"Mitt, how come you want to increase the size of the military, but no one in your family has ever served."
Not sure how this reflects on Mitt or anybody. My decision to join was just that. Mine. It did not reflect on the qualities of my parents because it was not their decision.
"As Commander in Chief, how could you send a boy from Podunk West Va to his death in war while none of yours is put at risk? How is that going to play on the evening news?"
I hope that it doesn't play at all on the evening news because that would mean that too many Americans are steeped in irrational class-based populism that any real conservative should be embarrassed to give voice to. Should Mitt force one of his sons to join or something?
"What is your personal history of fighting Jihad?"
As governor? Well, he's the commander in chief of the Massachuessetts National Guard, the Highway Patrol, and the state Bureau of Investigation. He is probably required to coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security. Does any of that count? Does it compare favorably or unfavorably to YOUR personaly history of fighting Jihad?
"Compare with war hero McCain, who has a son currently serving."
How does McCain's son's decision to join our volunteer military reflect on McCain? Are parents who don't have kids in the military somehow failures? |
|
|
|
John Hinderaker from Powerline is on local talk radio here in Minneapolis predicting a McCain win in NH.
With Mitt still reeling from Iowa, an old combat vet like McCain should be able to deliver the knock out blow. We will see soon enough. |
|
So if one of Mitt's nephews had served in the Coast Guard or something, you'd suddenly consider him (Romney) to be just that much more qualified to be President?
Not sure how that works. |
|
From NRO's Stephen Sprueill:
'At an "Ask Mitt Anything" event in New Hampshire this morning, Mitt Romney argued that the two people who took the biggest hits in Iowa were Hillary Clinton and John McCain, because they are the candidates who represent the status quo. The "candidates who represent change" — here he named Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and himself — won the day.'
So this is Mitt's big appeal to conservatives: that he and Huck are agents for change, the GOP equivalent of the New Frontier? Out with the old, in with the new. Vive la Revolucion! And this is Mitt's idea of conservatism?
Even more piquant is the idea of trying to paint the erratic McCain as the unimaginative party loyalist who always favors the status quo. In what Bizarro world does Mitt think he's running? No informed voter, even if he truly is looking for a GOP Obama, is going to accept the idea of Mitt and Huck being the mavericks while McCain is the party establishment.
BTW, note the similarity of Mitt's trial balloon to HH's question 10. Apparently the new Mitt/Hugh strategy is to act as if Obama is a dead cert and to spin Mitt as the anti-Barack (since everyone already knows that McCain is the best anti-Hillary).
Oh, and nice try, Mitt, claiming that McCain was the big Iowa loser. Sheesh. At least admit you had a disappointing day, and don't pretend that McCain's strong tie for third wasn't a big result for him. He barely campaigned there, and when he said anything at all, it was to rip ethanol subsidies. Yet he still tied for third. That's a big win, and the markets and CW are reflecting that.
Mitt's not going to get any credit for being a realist or a good manager or just being honest by pretending that a profit is a loss, or vice versa. |
|
Joe,yes, will Mitt commit to staying in the race until he has squandered all his sons' inheritance?
Mitt's big adventure will go down as the most inept and expensive campaign ever. |
|
"His fundraising is in deep trouble and it is doubtful it will be resurrected much even with his expected win in New Hampshire."
Absolute lie. December was his best fund-raising month since June.
Besides, lot of good Mitt's endless piggy-bank did him in Iowa. I'm thinking if you outspend your competition by 20 to 1 and still get drilled, something is very wrong with the product.
He's also dropped a mint in New Hampshire, you know, his backyard. How's that working? Not so well again.
Question for Hugh - do you REALLY think Mitt Romney can win in South Carolina?
My prediction: Wyoming is the only state Mitt will win. I absolutely cannot wait for Hugh to make Mitt's victory in Wyoming into the biggest story of 2008. It will be classic. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
Here's what's going down in NH. I am a town chair for the Rudy campaign. Rudy has disappointed many here with his strange strategy.
With Huckabee's takout of Romney in Iowa, and McCain's potential to derail Romney here, many Rudy supporters are going to flip to Romney, knowing Rudy has ZERO chance.
(Romney is by far the #2 pick for the majority of Rudy backers.)
They will not allow this to be a national battle between McCain-Huckabee. Rudy supporters are the most pragmatic of the GOP bunch (electability?)and believe Romney, Rudy and Thompson are the only serious candidates whom they can trust on taxes and national security.
|
|
|
How much of Tagg's inherentence will you commit to stay in the race? |
|
|
|
He pretty much nailed his predictions on Thursday.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmQyOTZjZGM5 MzdiMDVhY2RhYzVkYTliYzk3NDY5YzQ=
You may so that's no great feat, predicting the caucus results on the day of. But look at all the other supposed insider predictions, including many linked to a WaPost from Democrat and GOP strategists - and he didn't even bother with TH/HH. Most of them were pretty far wrong, and the majority of the experts at AmSpec thought Romney would win.
I will definitely be paying attention to whatever Geraghty predicts on Monday or early Tuesday for NH. |
|
I can answer half of these questions for Ron Paul with, "I'll read the Constitution, and see what it requires". Intervene militarily in Iran? Only if Congress declares War. Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq a good idea? No. It was a bad idea knowing what we knew then, and Ron Paul voted against it, and spoke out against it in prescient terms on the house floor. In terms of fundraising, he's the #1 GOP fundraiser for the last quarter, raising Hillary-like numbers ($20M), all from small donors: no PACs, unions, bundlers. The average donation is $120, and there are hundreds of thousands, very few maxxed out. He also stretches a buck like nobody else (he treats campaign contributions like tax dollars), so he would need a lot less than Hillary or Obama.
Will he support the eventual nominee?
Well, it would be interesting to hear if the others would support him if he's the nominee.
He has said he won't, if the nominee won't change the disastrous policy course we're on. |
|
3. If you are elected president and your senior advisers agree that Iran is on the brink of testing a nuclear weapon, would you use the military to stop that test?
Point of order your honor; Mitt has already answered this one, he would consult his lawyers.
You know, like General Patton always did.
|
|
Huck pointed out on FoxNews on Thursday night that he and his campaign had done a much better job of spending their money effectively than some of the far more profligate but less successful campaigns, whose approach toward everything seemed to be the Democrat-inspired, "Throw more money at it!"
So my question 10, replacing Hugh's inane beauty contest question, is:
"In the Iowa caucuses, the GOP candidates spent between $47 per vote earned (for Governor Huckabee) to $323 per vote (for Governor Romney). If elected, would you [candidate] adopt the billionaire approach of spending the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars like they grow on trees, or would you be a more responsible and efficient custodian of the nation's finances?" |
|
|
For months Hugh has been telling me that McCain's campaign is dead in the water and that the race is between the only real contenders, Giuliani and Romney. Now McCain's the front-runner in New Hampshire and Huckabee trounced Romney in Iowa? I don't think I can ever trust Hugh again. Maybe I'll have to look to Gerghaty the Indespensible from NOR - oh wait, he told Hugh that Thompson would end up the nominee. And these guys are supposed to be in the know? Funny. |
|
1. Guiliani, McCain, and Romney......."What were the 3 of you doing at the "7th Herzliya Conference" in Israel back in 1-23-07, when you know that Israeli citizens don't vote in our elections???"
2. Thompson...."Why did you think it was important to visit with Baroness Margaret Thatcher of Britain, prior to announcing your candidatcy??"
3. Huckabee....."Having placed a Mexican Consulate in Little Rock for the sole purpose of helping big business aquire illegal labor, would indicate to what degree do you intend to unemployee U.S. citizens??"
4. To ALL of You..........."How do you idiots keep from laughing when you tell people that you are a conservative??" |
|
Thus proclaimeth Hugh the Mitt-pusher:
"Governor Huckabee translated his Iowa win into a very underwhelming $350,000 in contributions --an indication that he too has an anemic ability to open donors' wallets and thus a likelihood of dependence on matching funds."
What Hugh predictably omits is the time it took to raise the $350k. At this point, approximately 36 hours after the caucus, Huck is up to $477k, a rate of approximately $2.2 million a week. In the 44 weeks left before the election, this translates to $96.8 million, assuming nothing changes. Of course, should he continue to win, the rate will increase, which will increase his total, and should he win the nomination, he'll have the funds of the Republican Party squarely behind him.
I expect better rhetoric from a lawyer. But to put a positive spin on it, Hugh is becoming an expert at setting up straw man arguments and knocking them down.
Oh, and say what you want about them, but Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee put their goals out on their websites and show the progress towards them. I don't see anything like that on Mitt's page. Perhaps he could take some advice on web design. |
|
randy, you are 100% correct. We don't need Hugh and Rush anymore, they are no longer the voices of conservatism, we can now see and speak for ourselves.
Rush lashed out at Huck time and again, but the Iowa voters gave him the win. No one is listening to Hugh either. Rush and Hugh sound cranky and out of touch, young people go to youtube, myspace and the commentary boards, not these out of touch elites.
Mitt's flip flops on youtube seal his fate as a flip flopper. He could have covered this up a few years ago, but no longer.
Look a the conservative elites reaction to the Huck boom, they lurch between panic and depression. Great fun though, they know they are becoming irrelevant. |
|
|
|
bigkam, Mitt is running in NH as the agent of 'change'. Since he changes his positions all the time, I think this is the perfect theme for his campaign.
What happened to 'Mr. Conservative'? |
|
|
Q: Which one of you is Mitt Romney? |
|
The Huckabee charm probably trumps question content. People are using the Blink factor to assess authenticity and just plain likability as well as eloquence, hence Huckabee over Romney and Obama over Hillary.
The interesting aspect of the current drive to new media is how fast everything changes. Last cycle the discussion was MSM’s irrelevance as gate keepers. As Iowa obviously indicates the pundit class is heading in the same direction. Technology is going deeper and undercutting all gate keeping whether MSM or blogosphere punditry. Youtube has had an impact by allowing the basic Huckabee likability to connect directly with the voters rather than the more traditional filtered analysis of the chattering class. The same is true of Obama. Brokered access to candidates favoring the old power class of candidacy with emphasis on raising money and endorsements is dying. New technology is smashing the brokered model. Hugh Hewett, Rush Limbaugh,… have become as irrelevant as MSM. |
|
You've now labeled yourself the candidate of "change", and have been quoted as saying that John McCain cannot be that agent. What has happened to make you flip-flop from a statement made in 2002, where you called the senator a man who “has always stood for reform and change. And he’s always fought the good battle, no matter what the odds.” ?
If something like this is asked tonight or tomorrow, it would seriously make my day. |
|
|
cordpt That's right, and we can ask Mitt about his great varmint hunting adventures, and why he claimed an NRA endorsement he never got. |
|
I don't think accepting matching funds is an absolute killer for a candidate. Look at what both Huckabee and mcCain have done with very little money. The sad part is that how well does the American electorate really know where any of these guys stand on a myriad of issues?
Politics as an intellectual excericise is getting far too rare.
Finally, there are a lot of pros and cons with law of the sea, and a yes or no answer does not begin to show the electorate enough. A candidate would need to show me that he understood the complexities and WHY he chose yes or no. |
|
Pet peeve - a debate is a formal discussion where people support or oppose a clearly stated proposition.
We have not yet seen any debates.
What we get instead are symposiums - which are often badly run. (Show of hands from those who agree with me?)
I would love to see, for example, Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton debate the following:
RESOLVED: Hillary Clinton should be the next President of the United States.
(Hillary would be pro, and Fred con, of course - although reversing that could be entertaining...) |
|
|
... about questioning the gun-control issue? It's something that I, as a conservative, care about. A lot, to be honest. And much more than about the looks of the candidate's wives. As odd as this may seems to Hugh... |
|
|
mmagic - you are not running, Mitt is. Fair question. |
|
|
Mitt, did you see your father march with Martin Luther King? |
|
The reality is that reported Iowa vote/percentages are a straw count. They are not delegates. Delegates are derived from "Routine Party Business" after the press ran out to report the polls and at conventions.
In the end, generally, the delegates align with the straw poll... but they don't have to. If Huck continues strong expect the 42 to be his. If Huck takes a downward spiral for future political failures or moral discretions, those 42 can move without fanfare to Guliani, McCane, Romney or any other candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice try with question 10! But Mitt's looks did not seem to save him in Iowa. Of course McCain does put more states in play than Mitt does, but what does objective reality have to do with anything when Hugh is on the stump. |
|
You are beyond parody, Hugh. I don't think even Iowahawk could successful lampoon this one.
You ask seven or eight meaningful quesions - though you declare abortion out of bounds - gee, I wonder why. Then you thrown in a couple of non-issues aimed at poisoning McCain.
Get this Hugh: Everyone already knows that Mitt is a) richer, and b) cuter (per you, anyway) than McCain. Understood. Whatever benefit that will do Mitt and harm it will do McCain is factored into the current poll results. You're not exposing any secrets that McCain voters don't already know.
How you can ask the most puff-piece question about the candidates' appearnces:
"10. Barack Obama has enormous momentum, plus a mountain of money and Oprah. He is 46, looks 36, and has a beautiful wife and two wonderful little girls and a way with words. All of you are older than Senator Obama, with the youngest of you, Governor Huckabee, seven years older, and Senator McCain, 25 years older. How are you going to beat Senator Obama if he is the nominee...?"
Yet then with a straight face suggest:
"Feel free to e-mail me others which I will append below if they pass my 3-part test for seriousness, relative rarity in previous debates, and likelihood of informing a Republican voter about his or her choice."
is beyond me. Of course asking the candidates about their looks and their wives' looks was relatively rare in previous debates! It's moronic. But it certainly isn't serious.
Just give up trying to win Mitt the nomination based on his height, his hair, and his money. Those factors already account for 99% of his current support. If he's going to win any new converts, he'll have to actually tackle some of those boring old issues. Like, say, abortion?
PS - First Lady Jeri Thompson. I think that trumps your Ken doll, or even Michelle Obama. |
|
The key success factors will now start to shift in favor of money because of the front loading. That is especially true if the early states are won by different candidates.
McCain could not raise money when he was a front runner. Why would he be able to raise it now. Further, he has more K street money than any other candidate (more than Rudy and Hillary). He has been using his senate office to shake down those he could.
Further, his polls in the early states are a function of Rudy being defeated in those states and leaving. He and Rudy split the liberal vote in future states.
Huckabee has not shown a bounce yet and his fund raising is very weak. He will have far fewer Evangelicals in future states and be much more vulnerable to attack ads. He is not a conservative.
Romney is gathering delegates from each state. He is in a position to stay in for the long haul and test while Rudy and McCain split the liberal vote. Romney will emerge as the conservative candidate but it will take some time. Huckabee has to be exposed as the real liberal that he is. |
|
1) I have a son serving. Therefore I should be President!
|
|
How will they change the way we trade with China?
Our current trade deal with China is so pro China and anti America. For example China is allowed to copy our products with total disregard to patents and sell these pirated products in the USA. Apples I-Phone is a perfect example, Apple spent the money to develop this phone only to have the Chinese selling pirated copies at a fraction of the cost. This is just BAD for America! |
|
basically pro choice, does not mean that all of us are uninterested in the abortion question. I know it hurts Mitt and Rudy, your main men, so of course you are against hearing about it. I don't ant the whole debate about it, but it is one of the main reasons I becamse a Republican, and why I may not vote for the nominee if it is Rudy. I would ask Rudy - unequivocally - do you believe a strict constructionist jusge, of the type you would appoint, should, by your legal judgement, overturn R v W.
And by the way, this business about judges being the only thing a Pres influences. Either you are naive about the issue, naive about the powers of the executive branch in myriad policy areas, or deliberately deceptive. I don't thik you are naive. |
|
Mitt, how come you want to increase the size of the military, but no one in your family has ever served.
As Commander in Chief, how could you send a boy from Podunk West Va to his death in war while none of yours is put at risk? How is that going to play on the evening news?
What is your personal history of fighting Jihad?
Compare with war hero McCain, who has a son currently serving. |
|
|
Is there a gap between the typical American conservative, who traditionally votes Republican and sometimes even helps out at the phone banks, and the conservative leadership? In other words, has the present generation of Republican "influencers" failed the party, and failed the country, in some ways? |
|
|
|