The Candidates
He’s coming along!
First this 2 weeks ago:
O’REILLY: What about Romney? What do you think of him? He’s pretty slick.
MILLER: Yeah. You know what? I like Mitt Romney, but I do kind of like what McCain said, that he doesn’t, you know at least McCain I’m not voting for John because I think he’s a little old. But McCain sticks by his guns. Romney has sort of slid it around a little. When you look that good and you slide it around a little, there’s a snake oil salesman vibe about him that might be a little weird for me.
O’REILLY: All right.
MILLER: I’m a Rudy guy.
And now this:
O’REILLY: …Now, Mitt Romney according to a Rasmussen poll is up to 16 percent. Your guy, Rudy, is at 25. It looks like Romney’s getting some traction. What do you think about that?
MILLER: Well, I’m wondering at the TIME photo you’re showing. I don’t remember, but that must be them sort of aping the notes on an old TIME cover with his dad, George.
Listen, I am a Rudy guy. I’ve often said that. I’m going to introduce the mayor at an L.A. fundraiser later tonight. I think that Rudy, as far as terrorism goes, is just entering his peak killing years. And that’s why I’m for him.
But I must say that Romney is a pretty smooth customer. I think he’s done great in the debates so far. And I think his plan, and it’s a pretty smart one, is to lever the whole heist with Iowa and New Hampshire. Old school stuff. Spend some money there. Do some local ads. Put your bass widgeons on the ground. Shake some hands.
Then later in the summer you go out to Ames for that straw poll. Bus people in, or hay cart them in, or whatever they have to do. Show some muscle and then beat these guys in the second quarter earnings.
O’REILLY: But you’ve got a very how important in this world is Romney’s appearance? Which, I mean, you can’t get more presidential looking than Mitt Romney.
I mean, look, if you were to make up a guy, this would be the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He’s got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there. And I think that means a lot in America.
MILLER: Well, I do, too. But when you back it up with the fact that he’s competent, too. He ran a pretty tight Olympics. And you know, this is the guy who invented Staples. And I think he understands a step-by-step business plan. And I think the Staples thing is going to come out as adversaries best keep their head up, because it will be death by a thousand cuts with Romney. It will be a very…
O’REILLY: Staples, the Staples department store? Is that what you’re saying?
MILLER: Staples office stores.
O’REILLY: Yes, the office stores.
MILLER: Romney was there at the beginning of that.
O’REILLY: OK.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I saw it. He’s explaining the Romney boomlet, not jumping ship.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
No one’s claiming otherwise, David B.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Jason,
You should put up the last line by Miller that he says right after the transcript that you posted is cut off:
Miller: “He [Romney]’s a pretty savvy guy. Not only does he look good, he’s good at what he does.”
When 82% of Americans want competence more than anything else in their President, this makes Romney look good.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
That is the best Pro-Rudy quote in a long time!! Shoot! If you hadn’t posted on this already, I would have put up that quote alone on the frontpage
!!
May 31st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Jason, I hope you had your Depends on
May 31st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
KAvon,
I knew you were busy.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
KT,
You know my problem with Depends.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
hehehe… yes I do recall.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I think Fred looks and sounds more presidential than Romney…
May 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
sorry to change gears here Jason, but i have to say something about Fred Thompson. My gut feeling about this man is that he is all fluff, and going nowhere. I think he will grab from Romney and some others, and maybe some Rudy, but i honestly think that he is most beneficial to Rudy… and he really will go nowhere.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Kavon, that line is hilarious…”peak killing years”…
KT, current cross sections of polls don’t support your #10 theory about FDT’s support. Most Rudy guys recognize this. Are you expecting who FDT grabs from to change, or do you not accept current polling as accurate?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I dont know which polling data you are talking about.
DETAILS DETAILS
May 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
KT,
Just remember to use the clutch.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
KT: You are simply wrong on Fred taking from Romney. There are a couple dozen polls out there disproving your claim.
Fred may be able to take some of Romneys most recent, most soft support, esp in IA and NH. And with time on the campaign trail, Fred may convince some Romney voters to switch over.
But Fred’s support comes mostly from Rudy, undecideds, and McCain.
Check the RCP graph for starters.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
KT: If you want detail, check every single brand poll and compare Romney pre-Fred to post-Fred. They’re all listed on the RCP page.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
geex chill out David, I’m on your team. I was giving my opinon.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
KT, Sorry. I’m sad your theory isn’t true. But there are overwhelming data points against it.
Since I trade political futures on Intrade, I have to be very objective about the state of the race.
As it stands now, I have made a profit on every major candidate in the race.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
And some may be surprised, but I made money SHORTING Rudy when I determined Fred would run.
That’s a short term position. Later in the year, I think Rudy will probably pull ahead of Fred, but it’s hard to say.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
cool..for you. ($$). I wish I WAS correct. but i did read something the other day that the more socons that get in the race 9Fred, Newt, etc.), it divides those voters (socons) and that gives rudy his solid middle of the road lead.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
THATS what I meant.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
KT: Yes, that’s entirely possible. I hope so. Then again, in a race that’s nearly a 4-way tie, just about any of the 4 can emerge and win primaries with 25-30% of the vote, winner take all delegates.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
jason #13: I’m an automatic, spontaneous kinda guy
May 31st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
KT,
The problem with articles of that nature, is the media, and Romney’s detractors have a remarkable inability to remain objective about his candidacy. They think “hah! Romney’s a loon, so the more loons that get into the race, the less support he wins”. But, they can’t quite grasp that, whatever their irrational reasons for disliking Romney, they don’t happen to influence objective macro-truth. And that truth is, Romney doesn’t project “loon” to the vast majority of voters. He’s exceedingly polite, soft-spoken, well-spoken, competent, experiencedand is discussing issues of very broad significance (health care, education, energy independence, etc).
You’re certainly free to argue that this is all a charade. That Romney really is a loon, or alternately that he’s really a liberal (I’ve seen the same poster argue both in the same thread numerous times), though you really ought to be prepared to defend the position against the heaps of evidence against it, but you can’t argue that these factors aren’t present. I mean, you can, if you’re interested in losing to Romney, by underestimating him time and again, but I really wouldn’t reccommend it. Frankly, I think this is what will ultimately lead to Romney’s triumph, as his detractors find themselves continually stumped by his successes, and are therefore unabl;e to cope with them and their ramifications (ala Reagan 80′).
Data has shown that not only does Thompson draw primarily from soft support (and I agree with David that in Iowa and NH, Romney is as likely to have soft support as Giuliani or McCain), which is neccessarily concentrated most heavily in candidates with high name recognition, but also that Romney’s supporters are ideologically fairly similar to Rudy or McCain supporters.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
May I ask the obvious question here?
Why on earth would anyone care about Dennis Miller’s opinion of the candidates, to any greater extent than the opinion of any other random voter?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
This is a pretty interesting article about how the GOP will win in ‘08. It doesn’t mention the names of candidates who can pull this strategy off.
It would however be very interesting for us to discuss if the strategy Pinkerton lays out is feasible, if it is the only option, and who among the current GOP field could pull it off.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppink5235874may31,0,2572004.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
May 31st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Tano, I think it’s rather obvious a guy who is on TV a lot and has a large following has more influence than a random voter.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
If we don’t get a thread up about it I will post my opinion on the article, but I think a strategy similar to Pinkerton’s theory (openly abandon Bush) is our only hope to win. At this point Bush alienates the base as much as liberals and moderates, so what is the point in sticking with him?
It will energize the base and open the door for some moderates and indepedents. I certainly think this is more interesting than discussing the Bible and Sam Brownback’s interpretation of evolution.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“The problem with articles of that nature, is the media, and Romney’s detractors have a remarkable inability to remain objective about his candidacy.”
I’ve noticed very few people who are aware of Romney are objective about him.
There’s a lot of people who know him well and love him. There’s also a lot of people who know him well and loath him. Very few people know Romney well and are left cold and unemotional about him, like I am. It makes analyzing him difficult for many posters.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
#25 - Ooooh! I love that he wrote that the opponents of the immigration bill was lead by my senator: Jim Inhofe. I hope that really happens.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Re #28: Don’t you think that is a big problem regarding Romney? Few can be objective about him? Especially in the context of finding someone who can break through the red-blue divide?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
econ grad stud,
I think those who loathe him have a difficult time being objective about his candidacy because they have trouble keeping their story straight. One moment DaveG, as an example, will lament that Romney’s an insane social conservative intent on imposing his “morality” on the nation (see the Regent University graduation thread), and the next you’ll hear that he’s really a closet liberal. They just can’t quite pin down what it is they don’t like about him, but are positive he mnust be some breed of devil. One moment they’ll assuree us that he can’t appeal to the middle because he’s too conservative, and the next they’ll insist we ought to vote against him because he’s a lying flip-flopper, who’s “not one of us”. It reminds me of my 1 year old brother, who’ll grab a handful of varying assortments of food, and shove it in the general direction of his mouth, hoping to get something, anything, in there.
Their opposition is based on sheer emotionalism, which is wondefully ironic given that many of these same people are eager to vamoose Republicans who don’t kow-tow to the “logic” of evolution. But, despite all this, I must say I think it’s a brilliant strategy. Perhaps, the only sane strategy they can employ. Unfortunately for them, his supporters are pretty vigilant, and always at hand to espose their arguments, as the intellectual bankrupticies they are.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Matt, with all due respect, I dont know what the heck you are talking about. I was commenting on a private joke jason and I had once. But, hey, good practice for class I guess.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Matt, there’s nothing inconsistent with thinking Romney may be a closet liberal who appears to want to legislate social conservatism in order to appease the GOP. Or maybe he’s the other way around. Or maybe he’s really a nothing who says whatever people want to hear, and you never know what he believes. It’s that fact about him that makes these hypotheses all consistent.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
You can’t say that something is “maybe” the case and then call it a “fact” that justifies a bunch of mutually exclusive hypotheses.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:28 pm
You Go David!… on a FAR more important note, I just read that good ol’ J.C. (guess who that is) ok, the former peanut head president, has said that there should be “dialogue” in Venezuela in light of the protests. I guess he is dissappointed that people are finally starting to rise up against that commie, U.S.-hating dictator and Jimmy just cant deal with it……
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS MAN WAS REALLY OUR PRESIDENT!!!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
David B.
“there’s nothing inconsistent with thinking Romney may be a closet liberal who appears to want to legislate social conservatism in order to appease the GOP.” You have no credibility when you rant about Romney. To suggest he is a liberal is pure slander. He is perhaps the most principled of all the candidates in either party. His record is clear and consistent - he flipped on abortion - but he never flopped. Rudy’s big flop is his attempt to redefine the Republican party as the pro-choice party - it won’t happen. Romney is still getting introduced to the voters - more than 50% still don’t know enough about him to make a decision. For all of his name recognition, Rudy should be untouchable - instead he is losing ground - Romney is gaining ground.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
David B,
Or maybe he’s a leprechaun.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“You can’t say that something is “maybe” the case and then call it a “fact” that justifies a bunch of mutually exclusive hypotheses.”
Amen! Wonderfully done, Henry!
May 31st, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Why on earth would anyone say they support someone in the primaries because they are coming into their ‘prime killing years’?
We have enough problems with being steryotype as gun-toting, war-happy, blood-sucking right wingers, and Miller lists his top reason for supporting Rudy as his willingess to kill?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Why on earth would anyone say they support someone in the primaries because they are coming into their ‘prime killing years’?
Given Rudy’s radical pro-choice history, its an unfortunate line.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Rudy done killing??? When was he ever in the position to ever kill anyone, let alone the terrorists? Yes, he has harsh words for them (and all bad guys, be they criminals or just those he dislikes).
Also, the picture of terrorists coming against us in waves which we can mow down with machine guns does not fit the reality. The reality is, they will probe and test the new president, and if the president shows he is aggressive, they can just go into hiding and wait for his terms to be over. They hide in plain visibile, meaning they act civilians like every one else. We would not catch them. We catch them only when they are actively planning something (communication chatters, money flowing, etc).
June 1st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Yeah Henry, maybe Miller is secretly funded by Planned Parenthood and what he really means is ‘prime killing years’ - for the unborn.