The race for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination has taken an unprecedented number of twists and turns over the past three years, but with less than two weeks to go before Iowa, I am beginning to think that two candidates in the field have a much clearer path to the nod than any of their competitors. I have reached my conclusion based on the following observations:
1) As fellow Rudy-supporter Patrick Ruffini proved today, we’re nearing the point where even Rudy-friendly pundits are beginning to ask just what went wrong with the Mayor’s campaign. Money quote:
I hate to say this, but I don’t think Rudy wants it badly enough. He has a bit of a Fred Thompson problem about him. He hasn’t said anything particularly distinctive or memorable the entire campaign. His lows haven’t been very low, and his highs haven’t been very high. There is no one big thing his campaign is about – first, there were twelve, then there was a laundry list of his accomplishments as a Mayor; then, there were a series of issue spots that failed to move the needle in New Hampshire. You would think the guy who sparred with the media and his opponents on an ongoing basis in New York, who fundamentally got that leadership after 9/11 was all about projecting confidence and strength, would understand that Presidential contests are about narrative and confidence and conflict – not (primarily) about issues.
The whole February 5th gambit has been a metaphor for all this. As Marc Ambinder writes today, there were (and are) valid reasons to buy into the Rudy strategy. Who knows – perhaps perpetually postponing the Day of Judgment will leave Rudy as the last guy standing in this knock-down drag-out primary season.
But take a step back, and there are some fundamental problems with how Rudy is positioning his campaign with this strategy.
First, it gives off the impression that he doesn’t want to win. That he’s looking for a TKO rather than a decisive knockout punch. That he won’t go mano-y-mano with any of the opponents who matter. And that he doesn’t care about retail politics (in fact, the IA and SC blowback alone has probably contaminated him in NH). Perceived electability is not just poll numbers in the general, but how someone conducts themselves in the primary. Do they fight, or do they try and win on a technicality? That’s a proxy for how they will perform against the Clinton machine, and voters pick up on those kinds of signals.
Second, it ignores the fluidity of the race. Rudy was never the frontrunner in any traditional sense. A fifteen point lead in the primary is not like a fifteen point lead in a general election. It can evaporate overnight. John Kerry went from 15 to 40 percent in the polls after winning Iowa. It was clear from the beginning that the situation was simply too fluid for Rudy to simply run out the clock.
Third (and I’ll concede this can be temporary until Florida & Feb. 5 is upon us) but Rudy has missed out on the publicity surrounding the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. The coverage of Romney vs. Huck in Iowa has created centrifugal motion around those two, with voters nationally aligning on both sides of the Iowa proxy war. The McCain surge in New Hampshire is not confined to one state, but creates a rallying effect around him nationally. Missing in all this is Rudy. Just as voters tuned in to the race in November and December, he was totally AWOL in the early state-centric coverage.
It may be that we need to revise our theory of the early states. Momentum isn’t just about winning the early states, but also about competing in them. By building a proof-of-concept first in Iowa or New Hampshire, you demonstrate strength before the concentrated national press corps, and if it’s for real, word will spread nationally long before Iowa.
Rudy’s problem has never been his social positions or his skeletons, all of which could have been triangulated or explained away by a more disciplined candidate. Rudy’s problem is that he’s never put the focus and energy and discipline into his presidential bid that he put into his mayoral runs (and his eight years of governance) in New York. From the beginning, Rudy’s candidacy seemed to be based on a certain sensibility that the hero of 9/11 would be foolish not to at least give the presidential race a shot. But Rudy’s “I’ll give it a try” campaign always seemed to have as its reason-for-being that same shoulder-shrugging mentality. Apparently Rudy never learned Yoda’s cardinal rule of politics: do or do not; there is no try. As such, it’s looking increasingly likely that Rudy’s role in Florida and the Super Tuesday states will simply be to lose to whichever of the McCain/Romney duo makes it that far (more on this in a minute).
2) Fred Thompson is an all-around, consistent conservative with a commendable voting record in the Senate and a presidential wit to match. But he’s too old, too tired, and too listless for this campaign. According to the Real Clear Politics early-state averages, Thompson is fourth in Iowa, sixth in New Hampshire, and is barely in third place in South Carolina, about to be passed up by a surging John McCain. Thompson’s not coming back.
3) It once appeared that Mike Huckabee might be on a Carteresque path to the nomination, but that no longer appears to be the case given Huck’s deflating numbers in Iowa and increasingly paltry numbers in New Hampshire. Huck has been unable to gain any traction in the Granite State due to his especially abrasive form of social conservatism and religious exclusionism. And Huckabee grossly miscalculated when he assumed that conservatives would follow him, and not Rush Limbaugh and President Bush, when he began taking on the conservative establishment in his recent statements. Huckabee’s problem is that he failed to realize that most of America is quite unlike Arkansas, which boasts a strange mix of economic populism, social ultra-conservatism, and vocal religiosity. Huckabee wrongly assumed that his Arkansas formula could be applied to the national electorate. It can’t, and that’s why Huck won’t be the nominee. But the one state where it could work is Iowa, and that could spell trouble for one of the remaining viable contenders…
4) Mitt Romney appears to be one of the finalists for the GOP nod. His path to the nomination is simple: beat Huck in Iowa, which will allow him to maintain the top spot in New Hampshire, go on to dispatch McCain there and win Michigan and South Carolina, where Romney is currently polling in the top two in each state. Mitt would then go into Florida with momentum and possibly, and maybe even probably, beat Giuliani in his firewall state. Super Tuesday would become a coronation. The problem for Romney is that victory is contingent on winning at least one of Iowa and New Hampshire, and both are now escaping his grasp. Huckabee still leads in Iowa in the RCP average. And in New Hampshire, an ancient candidate is rising from the dead as we speak…
5) John McCain, once as good as dead, has surged nationally and in the early states. He’s now in third place in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, and he’s about to pass Thompson in the RCP average in South Carolina, which would make him third there too. Plus, McCain is moving in an upward trajectory in all of those states. If this trajectory continues over the next couple of weeks, McCain could finish a strong third or even second in Iowa. That would make McCain’s comeback the story coming out of caucus night, as everyone expects Mitt and Huck to do well in Iowa, but nobody expects McCain. Such a showing would almost certainly guarantee the senator a win in the Granite State, and in Michigan, where some polls suggest he is currently leading the field. By the time South Carolina rolls around, McCain’s momentum, plus the fact that his campaign locked up the establishment in the state early on, would allow the Arizonan to easily dispatch a deflated, embarrassed Huckabee/Romney duo, as well as the hapless Thompson, all of whom would split the anti-McCain vote three ways. Then it’s on to Florida, where McCain, like Romney in the last scenario, is the man with the momentum and Rudy remains the candidate who failed to take heed of Yoda’s advice. Super Tuesday, again, is a coronation, but this time, McCain is crowned heir apparent.
As such, it is beginning to look like Iowa and New Hampshire will once again determine everything, as they often do. That doesn’t mean that Rudy, Huck, or Fred couldn’t still win this thing, but it’s becoming harder and harder to find paths to the nod for any of them and easier and easier to envision a McCain or Romney nomination. And McCain and Romney, both of whom began running the race for 2008 as soon as the ink was dry on the 2004 election, appear to have proven again that establishment candidates, and not upstarts or insurgents, are the ones who win GOP presidential nominations.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
This all assumes two things:
1. It assumes that early state voters won’t change their minds again. Exit polling in past races shows they don’t really make up their minds until the last week, and that will be even more so this year.
2. It assumes that later state voters will follow earlier state voters. See McCain in 2000 or Reagan in 1976 for counterexamples. The big states be eager to exercise their newfound power this year.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Dave,
It should be worth noting that last January the strategy of the Romney campaign revolved around a McCain and Romney shoot out to the the end. They were surprised to see McCain fizzle and Rudy stay solid. Looks like their plan proved to me more correct than thought a few months ago.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Metro,
Just because most early state voters didn’t make up their minds until the last week, don’t interpret that as saying they changed their minds in the last week. Sure, they could change their minds, but it would take something big to shock the race in a way that nothing has thus far.
I don’t see anything demonstrated in the electorate of the big states indicating an eagerness to engage in politics more than any other year. They will follow the media frenzy to determine who their two choices are, as always.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
The McCain surge is just as artificial and superficial as the Huckabee surge and will wilt when McCain’s record is examined. John McCain has zero conservative accomplishments, zero. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, he championned campaign finance reform, allowed the minority Democrats to gain the upper hand on judicial selections and tried to ram amnesty through the Senate. Whenever John McCain had a chance to cave to Democrats, his did so. If he wins, the Republican party is a joke and it will give the Lindsay Grahams of the world more cover to ignore the base. If I had to choose between someone who flipped to my side on the issues and someone I already know won’t enact or support my issues, I’ll take the flipper.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
DaveG,
Nice piece by the way. Given that you’ve set up Romney and McCain as parallel finalists who can follow similar tracks in winning the nomination, what are your thoughts on McCain’s significant monetary handicap compared to Romney?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:20 pm
DaveG, I want to say quickly that I have been wondering where you were. It’s good to see you are still posting here. There have been a few concerns about how this site seems to be too central on Romney, and I agree. It will be nice to have those like you keep this site a bit more balanced. I am referring to the front page. Thank you for your contributions, and keep it up! Now, I can get back to read what you say here.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:20 pm
asparagus — Don’t say that John McCain caves to Democrats. He supported the surge, dammit. That invalidates all of the other countless times that he’s caved to Democrats!
December 21st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
As I see it, Romney has 2 obstacles, one is Huckabee, the other is McCain. If Romney beats Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire, it’s over. If he fails to beat one of them in those states, that one becomes his competition for the rest of the states.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
McCain certainly does not cave to Democrats. You know a true hero if he risks his career on our mission in Iraq. Romnney would never endanger himself like that.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
He did support the surge. I’ll give him that. But I won’t ignore the other issues that may have a greater-long term significance to the party and the nation. Is McCain going to be strong on making the Bush tax cuts permanent? Or will his view of morality determine that the rich are too rich? When you get right down to it, there’s not a great deal of difference between McCain and Huckabee, other than McCain is strong on defense. They’re both pro-illegals, pro-open borders and are shaky on taxes and other fiscal matters. The Republican party seems to have battered wife syndrome if John McCain is the best candidate we have.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
MetroRepublican,
I asked this late in a previous thread, so you probably missed it. Could you please remind me how many states Reagan won in the 1976 Presidential race. If it’s easier, you could just give us the number of Electoral Votes he won.
Must have been pretty impressive, with you using him frequently as an example, and all.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Metro (#1) Care to insject something about human factor with your point #2? You know, I have been trying to get you to take that into consideration. I will give you a head start here. So, care to waltz?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
This race is too chaotic to call, though.
I have a pathway for Rudy to win the nomination, but I don’t feel like sharing it. It’ll speak for itself when it happens. Just keep thinking that Rudy’s dead.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Who’s McCain’s veep choice? Pawlenty? McCain beats Obama. Yaah baby
December 21st, 2007 at 11:27 pm
He did support the surge. I’ll give him that. But I won’t ignore the other issues that may have a greater-long term significance to the party and the nation. Is McCain going to be strong on making the Bush tax cuts permanent? Or will his view of morality determine that the rich are too rich? When you get right down to it, there’s not a great deal of difference between McCain and Huckabee, other than McCain is strong on defense. They’re both pro-illegals, pro-open borders and are shaky on taxes and other fiscal matters. The Republican party seems to have battered wife syndrome if John McCain is the best candidate we have.
Don’t forget his support for cap-and-trade…
December 21st, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Murph: I suspect that there will be plenty of donors who will instantaneously appear on Team McCain’s doorstep the minute he starts looking like a winner, but who knows for sure. Might be useful to look at previous examples of comeback candidates. E.g., was Kerry out of money before the IA caucus?
SGS: Work and Christmas/Festivus shopping have kept me too busy to post in recent days. Hopefully we can all keep the site hopping during the holidays!
December 21st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Other issues: will John McCain repeal Sarbanes-Oxley? As a CPA, I laugh out loud at the lunacy of these “controls” that this legislation was supposed to fix. Which candidate is more likely to support greater regulation of the mortgage industry? Just ask which one favors more regulation and which is more likely to lower regulations. I believe Mitt would repeal Sarbanes and would be opposed to burdensome regulations. We have to remember that we are going to have a Democrat-controlled Congress for some time and we can’t have a President who hops in bed regularly with Ted Kennedy (no, that wasn’t a Larry Craig joke).
December 21st, 2007 at 11:31 pm
asparagus (#4) You may not realize it, but McCain actually has among the highest scores from many conservative watchdogs. He may not be strong in all areas, but he definitely is conservative. He was against Bush Tax Cut because he believes first in being fiscal responsible — he believes that we need to rein in the budget deficit before we can cut taxes. He is among our best pork trimmers. Yes, he is wrong with his immigration and campaign finance bills, which he has yet to admit. He has one of the best pro-life records. His federalism may not be as strong as Fred, but he’s close. Other than those two hot-button areas, he’s pretty conservative.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
TLG (#15) Oh right, I forgot how anxious he is to lead the charge for green movement. This, and his stances on immigration and campaign finances are what cause me to be hesitate about supporting him.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
asparagus #17,
Actually, McCain helped PASS Sarbanes-Oxley. It’s his kind of legislation.
Romney has long criticized that bill as hurting small businesses, and has called for getting rid of it.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:36 pm
DaveG,
Nice analysis. I do have one question, though. If McCain is to win (or even just do well) in Iowa, he needs a core constituency that he can count on to caucus. Who/what is it? Romney’s core support has been remarkably steady in Iowa, despite all the surges around him. We all know who Huckabee’s constituency is. So, who is going to get out of their warm houses, leave the Orange Bowl (I believe) and head out on a very cold night in Iowa to vote for someone who has thumbed his nose at them. I will say that he is remarkably strong in his position on biofuels. Perhaps his core is all those anti-corngrowers here?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Only in your dreams is the race going to come down to two people that social conservatives don’t trust.
The Country Club wing of the party is only so large. Romney or McCain can be the champion of the fiscally conservative, socially liberal types – but not both. It’s a question of math, and the numbers just aren’t there.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:39 pm
TLG (#15) Oh right, I forgot how anxious he is to lead the charge for green movement. This, and his stances on immigration and campaign finances are what cause me to be hesitate about supporting him.
My friends…
Let me give you a little straight talk…
Global warming is real and the evidence is in. We are causing it.
Think of what it’ll be like if we’re right and do nothing. Catastrophe. But if we’re wrong and do something, we leave a greener environment for our kids!
(Also a wrecked economy, but let’s not go into those Inconvenient Truths.)
December 21st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
#3, murphy, You say they have been no upsets so far? Wow. Were you in a coma for the last month?
#11, Irish Right, The point is, Reagan lost the first 6 states to Ford but reversed the momentum and won more votes than Ford did. It came down to the wire. Ford won over delegates offering them rides on Air Force One. So you’d happily accept that Rudy will have more votes by the convention? Great!
#12, SGS, human factor… huh?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:42 pm
TLG,
You are correct that global warming is happening, now. Back around the time you were born, global cooling was the worry du jour.
You are also correct about the consequences of inaction if it isn’t a big problem vs. the consequences of inaction if it is.
All that being said, nothing is going to be agreed to until the developing countries agree to curtail their emissions. I hate (not really) to quote Mitt, but I will. It’s Global warming, not America Warming.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
DaveG, hope your shopping went well. Still, good to hear from you again. And what Murphy pointed out in (#5) will be an excellent piece to analyze. He has accepted the federal election matching fund, a very insignificat amount (2 or 3 millions, I think). Because he has accepted it, he’s pretty restricted on receiving the donated money. Now, it is not enough that you win an early state contest, you also need to be able to carry on the monemtum. You need teams in states to ensure it. But McCain had to let go many of his state teams because he could not afford them. I do not know if they are on stand-by. With the compressed primary schedule, he won’t have the time to build his teams, letting alone to obtain funds (if he could still do it with his matching fund). So, what are his chance under this reality? How can he get around those shortcomings?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Sarbanes is just the latest in a long line of overreactions by Congress to calm the markets down. It shows that whevever there is a problem, John McCain is one of the first in line to ensure that the Federal government has the solution. Rush had him pegged right 8 years ago. Sadly, Bush appears to have made a deal with McCain to support him in ‘08 if he towed the line on immigration and the surge. While we are bashing McCain tonight, lets also not forget how quick he was to rush to John Kerry’s defense when Kerry was getting swift-boated. Here comes the greatest political gift in history to George W. Bush and McCain throws cold water on it.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
#14
My money would be on Sen. Lieberman at this point. I bet anything Sen. McCain gives conservatives the finger the moment he has the nomination and starts running a unity campaign.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
No, I doubt the final two will include McCain, but if it does, the non-McCain wins.
Too liberal on too many issues.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
#13 I think it will come down to Rudy, Mitt and Fred.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Dave, nice piece. I have been saying for months that Rudy would be irrelevant in January, and that seems to be true now.
As for McCain and Huck… I think that the reservations that Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, and countless voices in the conservative movement will hurt Huck and McCain. Each of these has taken issue with both McCain and Huck and, should either rise to become a real threat for the nomination, Rudy or Mitt (more like Mitt) would rise to become the anti Huck/McCain. Huck and Mccain are just too out of touch with their party on some issues that I dont think fences can be mended.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Fred? How does he find his way back into the race?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:50 pm
mnm: The Country Club wing of the party is only so large.
Here’s the laundry list of country clubs where Huckabee is a member:
Chenal Valley Country Club
Little Rock Club
Pleasant Valley Country Club
Country Club of Little Rock
Maumelle Bass Club
Old Fishing Club.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:50 pm
The only viable candidates left in the race are McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee.
Romney is toast once somebody runs the abortion flip-flop ad.
(And the fact that wonkish political types on the internet already know Romney is a flip-flopper doesn’t mean jack. What political bloggers know and what the average Republican voters knows is apples and oranges. )
December 21st, 2007 at 11:50 pm
husky: Rudy is irrelevant.
Intrade update:
Rudy 30.2
Mitt 25.9
JMac 18.0
Huck 14.4
December 21st, 2007 at 11:50 pm
#24, Metro,
Yup, and the long and the short is he won a resounding Moral Victory with Ford going on to the election. Ford won the most states as well, after which we watched Carter crater our economy and prestige around the world.I’ll gladly give Rudy any moral victory he wants, as long as My Man walks away as our candidate.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Husky,
The more establishment Republicans that come out against Huckabee, the stronger he gets.
Huckabee is the anti-establishment candidate, like Teddy Roosevelt.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
#35 Two words: irrational exhuberance
December 21st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
TLG (#23) It is actually health for scientists to debate with each other. We are not seeing that with Global Warming crowd. They will do everything they can do to destroy the skeptics who actually are scientists, not bureaucrats like the rest of the GW crowd. You may want to check this the Senate’s report on scientists who debunked the man-caused Global Warming. Then there is the Petition Project with over 19,000 signatures of scientists who does not agree with the GW “Consensus”. The other example is that there actually are over 300 climatic models, but they have accepted only like 10 of them. They when go backward in the time, do not match the actual weathers we have had. I could go on, but there are plenty of evidences that the GW crowd tries to scare us using junk science (reading, they tweaked data to accomplish what they want us to see). I am sorry, but GW is starting to be more clear more and more every day to be what it is, a hoax, like we had with Ice Age during 1970s.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
#37, So he’s like a “New Republican”? Where have I heard a term like that before?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
And enough talk already about Mccain likely stealing NH. I dont think his poor performance in IA will catupult him past Romney. Remember please that Romney’s lead in the RCP is still 8.3%, and has LED EVERY POLL IN NH SINCE MAY (except 3 ARG polls that I tend not to trust a ton). I doubt he is nearly tied with McCain at all.
Remember too that the poll internals show Romneys “definitely will vote for…” support is strongest, followed by Mccain. Recent polls have also suggested that he leads as a 1st choice among Independants polled too. Early voting is now almost 2 weeks old. Romney is the most organized and best funded by A MILE IN NH RIGHT NOW. And I suspect with MA being next door, no team will come close to having the ground troops on election day as Mitt. So McCainiacs, dont wet your pants yet. I still think Romney has about a 75% shot at winning NH, regardless of IA outcome.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Irish, you don’t see you are missing the point?
December 21st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
mnm,
Just a point for you RomNots. Whenever one of us RomBots talk about the possibility that Mitt isn’t as well known as the other top tier guys, y’all call us idiots. OK, for purposes of this discussion, I’ll agree that he has 90+% name recognition. I’ll turn it on you. Do you really believe that the story about Mitt’s conversion on the abortion issue isn’t known already?
If so, you’re mistaken.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Murphy,
The tight-pockets-loose-morals types don’t hang out at the Maumelle Bass Club.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Metro, since I’m the one making the point, it’s unlikely that I’m missing it.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Metro, your intrade numbers are trending down and ballots havent even been cast yet. What will happen on intrade on Jan 4th. What about after NH. Or MI. When Mitt has a few wins and intrade is tanking for Rudy, what will your excuse be then? Probably something about delegate counts and Feb 5th Im sure. Momentum is everything right now. Hillary vs Obama; Huck vs Romney; thats the news that is news today. Rudy will be an afterthought in a month when he is winless (as I predicted and you strongly disagreed with) and as Florida approaches. I told you before that the media wont forgive him for doing so, so poorly in IA and NH. They might give him a pass for a while, but eventually his poor performances in early states that he chickened out on (just like Ames); where he bailed when faced with the thought he might lose. I suspect Florida might not be different as he might well abondon that a few weeks prior and head to CA rather than lose (as he currently is).
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 am
husky, Rudy losing the earliest states is already factored into his Intrade price. You don’t get that?
Irish, apparently it went right over your head.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 am
mnm,
So the new line will be that Huckabee’s Country Clubs are more acceptable than everyone else’s country clubs?
I was hoping you’d just drop the silly country club class warfare schtick all together. Guess not.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 am
And BTW Huck lovers, taking on conservative media, and a (mostly) popular President (among GOP) isnt strategy for a winning formula. Taking shots from Condi, the President, Rush, and every conservative media outlet will only hurt you. This isnt the genenal election yet, and the Huck-a-bust is already beginning to happen. Where do you go if you lose IA?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 am
Metro: husky, Rudy losing the earliest states is already factored into his Intrade price. You don’t get that?
Are you predicting that Rudy’s price won’t drop once he loses the earliest states?
Absurd.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Right Metro, so are you saying IA results wont hurt Rudy on Intrade since everyone knows he will do terribly there? Keep drinking your koolaid and betting on Intrade to decide this. His intrade numbers have slid about 10% this week alone, havent they. Im sure IA and NH results will only make it slide further, regardless if you choose to believe that or not.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 am
Irish Right (great name by the way),
No I don’t think the average Republican voter knows about Romney’s abortion history. I think the assumption that the average Republican voter DOES know is made by political bloggers based on what they read from other political bloggers. But those bloggers know way more about this stuff than the Republican average voter. The TV ads will make a huge difference.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 am
murphy/husky, Intrade is not a POLL. It factors in everything that is currently known, including Rudy losing Iowa.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 am
Metro, you’re a smart guy. You know that it takes time for “expert” info to trickle out to the non-”experts”. The fact that McCain was at like 4.0 a few weeks ago doesn’t strike you? Or that at one point Rudy was much higher than 30?
C’mon dude. You’re smarter than that. I was a Rudy-leaner for a long time, but he is dead as fried chicken. It’s just going to take the market a little longer to figure it out than the people who have been paying attention.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Murphy, Unbelievable that Metro would believe the crap that he spews. He told Romney fans all year to “look at this national poll” or “this state poll”. Now his scandals have caused his support to drop dramatically and we are told to disregard polls and refer to intrade. Polls between now and Christmas will likely bring Rudy under 25% by Christmas. He is going down because of a failed strategy just as I said he would
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Michael, Intrade has proven more accurate than the experts.
Of course McCain’s stronger and Rudy’s weaker than they were a few weeks ago. But Rudy is not dead. When a candidate hits 5 on Intrade, like McCain or Fred did, they’re pretty much dead. (But even then, not necessarily….)
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
husky, Rudy’s already down to 21. What do you mean 25 by Xmas?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
Oh, you mean polls will bring Rudy’s Intrade below 25… I get it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
Irrational? In recent days I’ve made a whole lot of rational points. Rudy’s price after Iowa will change precisely according to how much he performs above or below EXPECTATIONS. You Rombots have never, ever understood that, even though it is rule #1 of primaries.
I didn’t say Intrade isn’t an accurate predictor in a multi-candidate field. I said it’s a lot less accurate than the 98% accuracy it holds 90 days out in a 2-candidate race. But you sure love to misquote me, don’t you?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 am
Rudy promised me “strict constructionist judges” and a fruitcake for Christmas.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 am
By the way, my apologies for forgetting a few other conservative Huck haters besides nearly all conservative new media. My apologies to Krauthammer, the belt way boys, Bill Kristol, club for growth, and on and on. Any other new media I failed to mention, please forgive me.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 am
Metro,
You’re clinging to Intrade as the only good indicator left for Rudy. It’s making you irrational.
Intrade doesn’t take everything into account. Even though Rudy’s expected to lose Iowa, I guarantee you his price will drop once he does. And you yourself often claim that Intrade isn’t an accurate predictor in a multi-candidate field. What do you call what we have now?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 am
Exactly Rudy, I suspect that this Christmas morning, Intrade will have Romney 1, McCain/Huck/Rudy nearly tied for 2nd at around 20%.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 am
husky, you can just say “Washington/NY elite”. Its quicker that way. Huckabee/Edwards 2008.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 am
not Rudy, I mean Metro
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 am
husky, how could Rudy be at 20% if he is dead/irrelevant?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 am
husky LOL at the thought of Rudy at home blogging as “MetroRepublican” and all he has left is Intrade predictions….and millions of fruitcakes scheduled for delivery.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 am
My #58 was a response to #61, but the order’s getting jumbled.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 am
Is Rush and Sean Washington/NY elite? They arent the MSM. I mean conservative new media. So Huck lovers would have us believe conservative new media, Condi, and Bush have it all wrong. And the GOP that isnt a bible thumping, single issue voting, evangelical doesnt get it either. Huck and his people are right, 1033 pardons/commutations are okay, and the rest of us have it all wrong.
As for the stupid “Romney once supported abortion and ads that reflect that will sink him” comment, thats the dumbest thing ive heard. Why hasnt another campaign played that card? The voters know and dont care anymore.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 am
You are correct that global warming is happening, now. Back around the time you were born, global cooling was the worry du jour.
You are also correct about the consequences of inaction if it isn’t a big problem vs. the consequences of inaction if it is.
All that being said, nothing is going to be agreed to until the developing countries agree to curtail their emissions. I hate (not really) to quote Mitt, but I will. It’s Global warming, not America Warming. – Irish Right
Ahh! I was mocking McCain! Didn’t you get the last paragraph of what I said? ~_~
It was #23. Didn’t you notice that I said “MY FRIENDS…LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE STRAIGHT TALK”???
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 am
The day Huck runs the “Romney flip flopped on abortion” is the day Romney will play his “Huck flip flopped on Cuba, and Huck once gave tuition and scholarships to illegals, and now says he will deport them all in 120 days”… And of course “Huck raised taxes across the board in Arkansas, and now signs a no new taxes pledge”. Hucks flip flopped too. McCain, Rudy, they all have.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 am
Will someone refute my claim on Romney winning NH in post 40. McCain supporters wet their pants when one poll, one day had the race within McCains grasp. And its an ARG poll no less. RCP has it at 8.3%, more real to where I suspect it is.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 am
Murphy,
You don’t get it. It has nothing to do with class warfare.
Rich people who are conservative and pro-life (e.g., Tom Monaghan) will vote for Huckabee.
Rich people who are liberal and pro-choice (e.g., Jane Fonda) will not.
You can have the Jane Fonda votes.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 am
Yay, let us all rally around a plastic candidate like Romney because the Ann Coulters of the world have told us what to think. If anybody would honestly assess Huckabee’s record, most of the people within the conservative movement would be content. Instead, the chattering class have all gone into a panic and are going to try to ramrod the republican John Kerry down the throats of the republican primary voter. Flip flop Mitt, he’s a candidate we can all be proud of. I think I’ll say I don’t want any part of the Reagan Bush era then I’ll mention Reagan’s name every chance I get. I’ll be pro life, then pro choice, then pro life because that’s what primary voters want to hear. I’ll deny clemency to an Iraqi war veteran because that would make me look weak to primary voters. I’ll run for president the day I am sworn in as governor and only serve one term because there’s no chance in hell I’m getting reelected. I’ll spend millions of my own money to barely stay in double digits in the polls. Let’s nominate Romney so states like Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, and Missouri can swing the other way in ‘08. Hillary will have a field day with Mitt as her smear machine drags him through the mud. But don’t worry because somehow, when Hillary is glowingly declared the winner by the media, it will be GREAT NEWS FOR MITT. Lets got and nominate our straw man candidate.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
As for Rudy metro, I argued with you for months about his failed campaign strategy. You always remind others of his national strength and national numbers. Those are gone and IA isnt for 2 weeks. As I suspect, his support will fall a little more before IA, and again a tiny bit after IA. And again a tiny dip in his overall numbers following 3rd or 4th place in NH. And again after MI where Mitt should win, followed by McCain, then Huck, then Rudy.
You think the MSM will put Rudys poor finishes in their proper perspective and that Americans will be a bunch of sheep and pay no attention to who wins the 1st 5-6 states. You are really stupid if you think the MSM will do that, or that Americans will believe that.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 am
Husky,
What’s your basis for thinking that the average Republican voter knows about Romney’s history on abortion? There is no basis. You are relying upon your interactions with other political types and/or bloggers, who know way more about this stuff than is healthy, and way more than the average voter does. The fact that people who are blogging on this site know about Romney’s abortion history doesn’t mean jack.
But obviously you are not going to take my word for it – time will tell.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 am
How could McCain be the viable conservative choice? He is another one issue candidate, just like Huckabee, but instead of religion it’s being hawkish and for a strong military (which i love about him). McCain is not fiscally conservative, he despises the Christian right, and his support of anti-conservative legislation is reprehensible (like McCain-Feingold bill).
Mr. McCain was ONE of TWO Republican senators to vote against the $1.35 trillion tax cut measure in 2001. Opponents of the bill argued the bill benefited mainly the wealthy and would be costly for the federal deficit. Mr. McCain voted against President Bush’s tax cut proposals in 2003 as well for similar reasons.
Mr. McCain was also one of two Republican senators who voted against a measure to permanently repeal the estate tax, also known as the death tax, in 2001. Mr. McCain opposed a permanent repeal for fiscal reasons but later supported an alternative measure that would have narrowed the estate tax to apply only to the extremely wealthy. I like McCain, but not as a President…he made a great senator, and gives balance to the GOP, but a liberal, non-fiscal conservative is not what i want. It changes week to week, but as of now (in order) I would vote for Romney, Thompson, then Hunter…and after that maybe Rudy.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 am
Lee Davis: If anybody would honestly assess Huckabee’s record, most of the people within the conservative movement would be content.
Uh, Lee…Huckabee’s record is the problem. People aren’t content with him raising taxes 47%. People aren’t content with spending rising at triple the rate of inflation.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 am
Lee Davis, Dont just believe what Ann Coulter says (although she is very hot), buy what Rush, Sean, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, club for Growth, most everyone at Fox, the NRO, the weekly standard, Drudge, Laura Ingram, and hundreds of us on this site are trying to tell you, HUCK IS A DISASTER. I and they would disagree with your assessment of Mitt, but you can have your opinion. And they have their opinion that they share with tens of millions of people, and they are saying in unison “anyone but Huck” and “Huck sucks”. They only people withholding criticism of him are the dems, who want badly for him to win so they can wipe the floor with him.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 am
your right MNM, the average voter might not know. Only voters who have seen a debate in the last year, or ever read the news, or blogs, or seen Fox, MSNBC, or CNN, or read Time or Newsweek, or saw 60 minutes, or heard Rush, Sean, Levin, Laura Ingram, Hugh Hewitt, Medved, Savage, or any other conservative. Also those who might have heard Rudy, Fred Thompson, Huck, McCain, or Alan keyes speak….
Those are probably the only people who know that Romney changed his mind on abortion. Huck needs to run an ad to tell the other 1.5% of GOP voters who might not have heard.
Good idea….
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 am
Murphy,
Are you the expert on Arkansas politics? Can you name one Democratic legislator in Arkansas who would have voted with Huckabee if he had proposed additional spending cuts?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 am
husky, I’m “stupid” for thinking FoxNews, among others, will continue to present Rudy’s strategy to FL and Feb5 voters as a strategy that is counting on them? I’m “stupid” for thinking you can’t come back after losing 5-6 contests, when I’ve pointed out how Reagan did exactly that in 1976?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
mmm,
Did you not see the video? Huckabee was fine with raising any taxes the legislature could come up with. Not once, did he suggest, if you want to cut spending, I’m fine with that. Huckabee entertain the idea of cutting spending, because that would hurt poor people.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 am
As I much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with Metro.
You can definitely come back from losing 5-6 races.
Anybody who thinks otherwise is too young to remember the 1992 Democratic primaries. Those were wide open for months.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 am
While it is theoretically possible, it is unfathomable to me that the GOP would nominate a charlatan like Romney. He was artfully exposed on MTP as having changed or wavered on every major issue of the day. But he is lucky, as they say, in his competition. Huckabee has more ways to implode than win: on his record, on his mouth, or on his lack of money. And McCain and Thompson are one-trick ponies, McCain has to win (or finish close second) in NH and Thompson would probably have to outright win SC.
President Bush seemed to warn us about Romney when he said to ask what a candidate believes and what are his governing principles. No one knows for sure what Romney actually believes, only what he says. And that is subject to change. His governing principle is less protean: say, do, buy anything to get elected.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Asparagus,
You are missing the point.
Huckabee had to balance the budget.
He could have done so by raising taxes or cutting spending. Apparently you think he could have cut spending.
If you are so well-versed in Arkansas politics, name one Democratic legislator who would have voted with Huckabee had he proposed additional spending cuts.
Murphy-who I put this question to earlier because he seems to be the expert on 1990’s Arkansas politics-apparently cannot come up with a single name.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 am
mnm,
Huckabee never made an honest attempt at cutting spending. It went from $6 billion to $16 billion. He just splayed himself out on the floor of the legislature and offered his rubber stamp up for any tax hikes they could think of.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 am
Different times than 1976 Metro. Abba isnt cool, Bee Gee’s are out, and the primary is more condensed. Unlike any other year, there is state after state after state that votes this time. And to add to that, blogs, internet, new media, and cable TV will run the results at nausium. Everyone in America will have heard the results and seen the charts, graphs, exit polls, speeches, and on and on. The spotlight on the race this time wont give Rudy the pass that others got in 1976. There was no internet then, no cable, only newspapers, and 3 networks. The coverage for “bad news” (as Rudy’s poor showing will in fact be) is much more known to the general public. Everyone cant help but get some news in their life anymore with the heightened exposure.
But if dreams of 1976 are what helps you this holiday season, Ill play along so you can have a Merry Christmas. I was 2 months old as 1976 began, so its not all bad.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 am
Murphy,
You are all rhetoric but don’t know any facts.
You come across as being Mr. Arkansas Budget Expert, but cannot name a single Democratic legislator who would have voted with Huckabee if he had proposed tax cuts or spending cuts.
Some advice: if you don’t know the facts, put a cork in the silly rhetoric.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 am
MNM-please respond to 79. Please….
84 Axel G- if you arent that sure what Romney really believes, maybe you ought to just look at his record. It clearly shows how he felt about taxes, marriage, abortion, and on and on. If you want to support Huck, just dont look at his record. His doesnt correspond with what he says today. Romneys does. Sure you can be clever and waste your time on youtube finding something he might have said when he was younger. I used to believe in Mccain and his politics in 2000. Like Romney, I wised up on my positions, and am I principled conservative today. Havent you ever changed your mind? Do you still peg your pants and watch 90210?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Metro, can I get a response on post 87?
I guess nobody wants to challenge my thoughts that McCain winning NH is still a very longshot at best. The polls and facts illustrate that.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 am
husky, I didn’t respond because there was no real theme/argument to it. You just came up with a bunch of random things that are different in 2008 vs 1976. There was no fundamental reason why what happened then cannot happen now.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 am
Or, the example I’ve given a million times about McCain in 2000. Bush had the momentum, but on Super Tuesday McCain won 4 states, 3 of them by ~25-point margins. Not a typo. How do you win 25-point margins if the other guy had the momentum, Rombots? Because some things trump momentum, even though you live in a single-dimensional world of momentum.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 am
Metro, again we play the argument that has existed since summer. We suggest that results from contests do matter and will have an effect on other state races, and national polls. You suggest Rudy’s plan to win is somehow momentum proof. We will see. I dont trust Intrade as much as i trust elecion results. Here is how I see it happening. You heard it hear 1st….
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 am
I can’t believe anybody gives McCain credit for supporting the surge. Big freaking deal. He was the guy telling everybody the war in Iraq was going to be easy. Then when it wasn’t, those comments made himself and other republicans look bad. The efforts in Iraq were extremely successful, to the point where the enemy had to resort to different tactics. Of course we had to adjust our tactics to meet theirs, but McCain used the surge as a wedge issue to make himself look good and make other Republicans who supported the war in Iraq look bad. This is one of the issues that makes me the most angry at McCain. The other is McAmnesty.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 am
IA:
Huck 32%
Romney 30%
Thompson 15%
McCain 12%
Rudy 10%
——————————————————————-
NH
Romney 34%
McCain 25%
Rudy 13%
Paul 12%
Huck 7%
___________________________________________________________________
MI
Romney 30%
McCain 25%
Huck 19%
Rudy 15%
___________________________________________________________________
SC
Romney 29%
Huck 28%
McCain 23% and will drop out
Thompson 13% and drops out too
Rudy 12%
___________________________________________________________________
NV
Romney 32%
Huck 25%
McCain 19%
Rudy 18%
Thompson 10%
__________________________________________________________________
Rudy will be in single digits nationally on or around Jan 20th, and will be at about 13% in FL behind Mitt and Huck. Mitt is then in the driver seat to win it all. Huck next, but a little ways back, followed way back by Rudy. I suspect Rudy might still win NY and NJ, and maybe a few CA districts, but no other states or delegates. His poor showings in early states will do him and his poll numbers in. Thats my prediction
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 am
Everyone post your predictions and see who wins!
My odds:
Mitt 55%
Rudy 25%
Huck 10%
McCain 9%
Fred 1%
My predictions:
Iowa
Romney 37%
Huckabee 32%
Thompson 12 %
McCain 12%
Rudy 5%
NH
Romney 35%
McCain 31%
Rudy 15%
Huckabee 12%
Fred 5%
SC
Romney 30%
McCain 21%
Huckabee 21%
Rudy 13%
Fred 12%
Fred & Huck drop out.
Florida
Romney 40%
Rudy 35%
Mccain 20%
Mccain drops out
Mitt v Rudy Tsuimai Tuesday
Mitt wins 55 v 45% overall and takes the nomination!
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 am
mnm: You are all rhetoric but don’t know any facts. You come across as being Mr. Arkansas Budget Expert, but cannot name a single Democratic legislator who would have voted with Huckabee if he had proposed tax cuts or spending cuts.
FACT: Huckabee raised taxes by 47%.
FACT: Huckabee requested that the legislature to send him new tax hikes.
FACT: Huckabee raised spending by triple the rate of inflation, from $6 billion to $16 billion.
FACT: Huckabee was one of the worst rated Governors (including Dems) by fiscal watchdog groups.
I have not seen a shred of evidence showing that Huckabee really tried to cut spending. I’ve never heard him scold the Arkansas legislature on tax hikes and spending binges. I know of no time when he even attempted to veto a bill out of concerns for fiscal sanity.
All I see are Huckabee supporters pointing fingers at a legislature who apparently had Huckabee under mind control to not use his veto pen. All we have here are people complaining that I don’t know his record, and then completely dodging that same record.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 am
These poll numbers are similar to todays polls, and give added credit to organization (which Romney has more than his rivals). Its plain to see that Rudy will do worse each week as the year goes on and he continues to lose here and their. MI should have been his true firewall. Instead he chose FL where I dont think he can withstand losing week after week for nearly a month. With the coverage this race is getting each and every day, dominating the news cycles, I think many of his supporters will jump ship (prior to FL) if these results are true.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 am
Murphy, save your facts please. You dont get it. Huck supporters dont care about facts. They care that Huckabee is a true Christian and not a flip flopping member of a cult. They care that Huck was once a Baptist Preacher, and that their preacher told them to say their prayers, read the bible, and vote for Huck. If they do that, and push back against Mormonism (and most conservative pundits and groups), Huck will win this and promote the cause of Christianity.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 am
husky, why do you feel so compelled to repeat over and over and over how poorly Rudy will do? If you really felt he was irrelevant, you wouldn’t be so fixated on him. Your fear of Rudy is coming through loudly and clearly.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 am
Hasn’t Huckabee signed the no new taxes pledge?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 am
I feel compelled to point it out, not because I fear Rudy or even dislike him. Its just too illustrate to you how wrong you were. Your stupid comments on mormonism and your Romney bashing have become tiresome, and a Rudy defeat to Romney is quite possibly the best Christmas present I could ask for. I only wish I could see you, UA, TLG, Sampo, and other antagonizers pout when your man is done, losing to a plastic, used car saleman who most of America will rally around and support. I bet when that happens you could fry that egg on your face, on your head.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 am
Ah, I see. True colors.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Did Huck raise taxes in Arkansas? yes
was it often? yes
Was it on almost everything? yes
post 101-”Hasn’t Huckabee signed the no new taxes pledge?” — yes
And they say only Mitt flip flops…..
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 am
Yes he has Axel.
When faced with multiple candidates who pledge not to raise taxes, and one of them has a record of raising taxes A LOT, I don’t pick the tax hiker.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 am
A lot of hubris for a guy whose candidate has a good chance of being dead after 2 candidates and 4 delegates on Jan 8.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 am
After 2 contests, I meant.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 am
“Ah, I see. True colors”
Yep, thats my true colors. Im not terribly forgiving to those who suggest my support of Romney is only to “legitimize my illegitimate religion”. I carry the Romney banner of support, but you couldnt just carry the Rudy banner of support and let the chips fall where they may. Not even being religious, you grabbed your sword and started the crusades against Romney and mormonism anyway. Im like Hugh Hewitt. I support Romney, would support Rudy, and even like Rudy on many issues. I dont agree with him on everything but I respect him anyway. Respect. Its something you have shown little of throughout this primary process. So a Rudy loss would be completely alright with me.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 am
Likewise, you seem to show a lot of confidence in a man who is not in 1st or 2nd in any of the 1st 7 states. And a person who is about 4th in todays Rasmussen tracking poll.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 am
husky,
You are more than your mormonism just as I am more than my catholicism. I can therefore have a rational conversation with someone who absolutely considers catholicism heresy. That seems part of being a rational being.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 am
Romney is fighting a war on 2 fronts. Challenging Huck in IA where he has a fighting chance of catching him. Especially given the beating Huck is taking for every GOP conservative voice out their begging that he be stopped. And of course in NH where Rudy decided to not take your advice on shock and awe and just bailed, leaving McCain now to eat Romneys dust. RCP has shown Romney ahead for nearly 7 months now, and I dont expect the results to be much different in 2 weeks. Mccain still has a tough climb to overcome, especially given he isnt like much more than Huck by many conservative voices. Liberals gave the eleciton to Mccain in 2000, switching to vote in the GOP race because Gore was running away with the Dem race. This year, the Dems are neck and neck and liberals who admire Mccain will vote for obama or Hillary.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 am
husky, actually Rudy is in 1st/2nd in NV and FL. Ignorance or lying? I can never tell with you folks.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 am
My mormonism guides my life, but I have never voted for or supported a mormon candidate until Romney. I dont dislike people of other faiths. I have supported evangelicals who today are trying to throw mormons off the bus and run over them. I hate that ones faith has dominated the issues, because my values, like Romneys, are shared by most conservatives. My doctrine is different and unique but who cares, I support Leiberman on the war and when he ran against Lamont. And I couldnt disagree more with his non Christian Jewish faith. But again, his faith didnt matter to me, but his values did.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 am
Rudy bailed in NH? I suppose that’s why he just opened a campaign office in Nashua. Ignorance or dishonesty?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 am
your right, I misspoke. Write this one down and mark it on the calendar. I wasnt lying or trying to mislead, I thought FL was 8th, and I didnt realize Rudy was doing so well in NV (since the most recent poll had him 3rd).
“I can never tell with you folks.”
Its stupid ass comments like that “you folks” like we are blacks 100 years ago. We arent 2nd class citizens and arent all alike. Dont lump us together. I dont think we ought to have a debate over who is understood to be more trustworthy and honest in society, athiests or mormons.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 am
husky: Romney is fighting a war on 2 fronts. Challenging Huck in IA where he has a fighting chance of catching him. Especially given the beating Huck is taking for every GOP conservative voice out their begging that he be stopped.
This brings up an important point. Much of the conservative movement is united in their opposition to Mike Huckabee.
Which candidates are voicing these concerns? Romney, and to a lesser degree, Thompson.
Which two candidates are playing cute? Rudy and McCain.
Any thoughts on who will become more endearing to the conservative movement over the next few weeks?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 am
By bailed, i was referring to his pulling his ad buys. Dont tell me Im being ignorant or lying, talk to politico and hundreds of others who made the same conclusion based on ads, staff, campaign scheduling, etc. They came to that conclusion.
Again, dont paint with a broad brush with “you folks” like we coordinate to mislead and dupe the public into supporting Romney.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 am
Interesting comment “like we are blacks 100 years ago.” You don’t have to go back 100 years though.
My catholicism used to guide my life until I figured out that I did not need the pope to talk to God. The vatican could be converted into a museum and it would not matter to me. Eventually all mankind will get to where I am and the world will be a better place.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 am
“Any thoughts on who will become more endearing to the conservative movement over the next few weeks?”
Polls would suggest it wont be Rudy. He wont likely win to FL or later, and will be an afterthought by then anyway I think.
Not Mccain either. He hasnt got the scrunity from the conservative Huckabee foes mostly because he stood no chance at winning until a few weeks ago. I think we are seeing that many are voicing their complaints over him too. Look, Ann Coulter, Fox, new media, and talk radio are a powerful voice in the conservative movement and when they come on record against a candidate for their liberal views (mcCain and Huck both), they will get the point made. They dont want to have to come out, eat crow, and support this guy or that guy in a month, so i think they will exert pressure to ensure they arent nominated. All the more reason why Rudy should try to get his name out there more. He isnt, Romney is, and Romney will be the anti Huck/McCain candidate.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 am
“Much of the conservative movement is united in their opposition to Mike Huckabee.”
I don’t see evidence of this. What pundits say and think is often disconnected from average Americans.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 am
Axel, I believe the tenants of my faith, you dont. Who cares really. What does this have to do with the race as it is right now?
and save your “do you believe that mormons…” or “what about when mormons say…” Ive heard em all, they make no difference to me on what church I will attend, what my values are, or who I will support for President.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 am
““Much of the conservative movement is united in their opposition to Mike Huckabee.â€
I don’t see evidence of this. What pundits say and think is often disconnected from average Americans.”
By pundits, I mean Hannity, Rush, Laura Ingram, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, NRO, Weekly Standard, Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Club for Growth, Condi Rice, and Pres Bush. Sure you might believe that they dont represent GOP voters but their audience and influence suggests otherwise. I think their unamimous opposition to Huck policies, rhetoric, and record WILL MATTER in the end. They DO carry a fair amount of weight and clout even if you choose to disagree.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 am
What about the facts of Mitt’s charade of him and his dad marching with MLK for civil rights. They may have supported him, but noone can find any evidence either ever marched with him.
Another stretching of the truth to win votes and causing more doubts about Mitt’s sincerity on issues.
Also, NYT investigating Rudy’s police protection claims and pretty much confirming that Rudy’s account of how was paid for is TRUE,and there was NO secret attempt to hide expences.( always believed this story was a hit piece to take Rudy down just before the voting)
Let’s see how these facts play in next week or so before you Rombots corinate Mitt and bury Rudy.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 am
Bush and Rice addressed one thing Huckabee said. Krauthammer, Kristol and Levin are all jews who are afraid of an evangelical. I am not on the Huckabee bandwagon, but if he is the one to take down Romney, then so be it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 am
Tell me why these average Americans you describe tune in with such faithfulness to Rush, Sean, Laura Ingram, Levin, and Hewitt everyday. Why do so many average Americans who you suggest dont care about what conservative voices think still watch Fox, and read the Weekly Standard and NRO. And why do they support the Club for Growth if they care so little about their opinion.
Perhaps because “average Americans do care about the opinions of others” and the opinions of others suggest distrust of Huck. He cant survive a narrow lead from a more organized and better funded challenger while taking on opposition from a concensus conservative body.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 am
The Politico started that Rudy-expenses story so they should be the ones making an effort to reverse the damage. They deserve to take a hit for such poor reporting.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:57 am
I read NRO and Krauthammer, watch fox, etc, but I don’t follow their lead. I look for information and perhaps they explain something I didn’t see myself. But the idea that any pundit can say a certain person is bad and I would follow them without my own investigation is absurd.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:57 am
TennJoe, do more homework you fool and read previous postings. The “MLK marched with Romneys dad” story has already been debunked. Others saw the two of them together. MLK was in MI at a rally attended by Romneys dad. A photo will soon surface.
As for your other crap, look Romney isnt taking a tenth of the scrunity by those I mentioned as Huck is. Rush likes him, so does Sean, Levin, Hewitt, Ingram. Krauthammer has been positive about Romney, and the NRO endorsed him. So your conclusions to each is without merit and just stupid.
As for the Rudy piece, the funding of it wasnt really the story. 1 month from an election voters were reminded of an affair with a coworker, attempts to conceal it, cheuffuring his women around, and on and on. Too many see Clinton in that story.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 am
So Jews are out to get evangelical Huck so they are supporting the mormon Romney? huh? Thats just a stupid, dumb, moronic comment. Their critism of him has nothing to do with his faith. These same people supported evangelical Bush in previous years. It has to do with a checkered and weak record.
Dont be such and idiot.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 am
No one seems to be hanging out in the last thread… Did anyone see this on Hannity and Colmes?
Mitt Romney in 1978: My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit
Woops! What is that all about?
See for yourself. Fast forward to 2:20
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qg0dw5p0ze8
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 am
I don’t think the MLK story has been debunked. Two old ladies who happen to be Romney fans mysteriously appear out of nowhere and remember something that has no historical record is a bit hard to believe.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 am
husky,
Must you call people you disagree with fools, etc.? I am certainly willing to play along, but you might not like what I call mormons.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 am
Axel, voters arent sheep who believe what they are told. They can do their homework for themselves, and will find that Rush, Sean, Levin, NRO, Kristol, and on and on speak the truth. The taxes, clemancys, pardons, immigration, its all there in his record.
E Dogg– Good job bro. You got me there. Pointing out a comment made by Romney in 1978 about marching with MLK when really only his dad marched. WOW!!! Thats definitely going to sink his candidacy.
Look you fool, George Romney and MLK marched together. The stupid part of your argument against Romney is that research and the MSM will only be doing mitt a favor with this. 1st, I think we might well see a picture of them together since its been proven they marched together. And 2nd, it reminds voters that Romney, his Dad, and most mormons ARENT RACISTS as some would have them believe. The discussion of the Romney’s support of civil rights will help him more than “I saw”-”well I didnt see, but I still knew it happened” will hurt him. This will be a net gain for Romney when other see that George Romney REALLY DID MARCH WITH MLK. Others wont care if mitt saw it or not you idiot.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 am
Husky ,
Who you calling a fool.
Your the dam fool for falling for all Romneys ” conversion on issues crap”.
It’s your stinkin attitude and people like you that makes people sour on Romney.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 am
I suspect everyone says something foolish or even stupid on ocassion. I don’t think it defines their being. Its also poisonous to dialogue.
The fact that George Romney favored civil rights by no means absolves all lds of their bigotry.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 am
People who says stupid things can be stupid, just as those who say foolish things are fools. Those who support mormonism, methodists, catholics, jews, quakers, omish, jehovia witnesses, well thats another matter entirely. Im not a bigot and people can believe however they want. I find no fault with ones faith, just with comments that arent true.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:14 am
I called you a fool Tennjoe. You call me a Rombot and I call you a fool. You might choose not to believe Romneys “conversions” but I and others do. His record is very clear on what he feels about taxes, death penalty, gay marriage, abortion, stem cells, etc. His record is very clear.
Rudys record doesnt match his current rhetoric though.
not on guns, partial birth abortion, line item veto, taxes (in some cases), immigration, tax payer funding of abortions, Justices like Ginsburg.
In each example, Rudy’s record doesnt line up with today rhetoric. Who is the flip flopper here.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 am
If you think the LDS church is racist, dont join. Dont worry, 400,000 others will this year, even if you dont. George Romney, and Mitt’s support of civil rights and MLK may not absolve the LDS church of your percieved racism, but it clearly absolves the Romneys of racism. Again, in this example and his example as Governor, his record speaks the loudest about his racism. He and his family supported civil rights, end of story.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 am
And thank you, TennJoe, the MSM and others for giving this story legs. How else could Romneys implied racism have been disproven without a story like this coming to light. It will be played out as fact that infact Romney Sr did march with MLK and did support civil rights as Mitt suggested. Voters will get the point, but thanks for making it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 am
Yes, I am sure LDS wants the media to focus on its role in civil rights.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 am
Nice,
If Romney wasn’t running for the GOP nod for president and he knew he would be running for reelection as MASS Gov.,what would his record look like?
Are we “fools” and “idiots” for having doubts about his sincerity?
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:31 am
It’s a figure of speech you dufuss (130).
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 am
What a smart guy Mitt Romney is:
“You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, ‘I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there”
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 am
It won’t last but I’m enjoying the FiCons discomfiture. All these years the SoCons have been told to suck it up and just pull the lever for candidates who gave lip service at best to their ideals. The prospect of the FiCons having to suck it up once is rather priceless (even if I rather doubt they would). Turnabout is fair play and all that…
This is quite a change from a few months ago when the FiCons were glib about Guily and the SoCons were coming unhinged. I’ll enjoy my Huckenfreude for the next few days, even if I know that big money will not be denied.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 am
4 states out of 15, Metro. He did not win Super Tuesday – he lost. My brief google search of old news had the media talking about a solid victory for Bush, and the doom of the McCain campaign. McCain did not win a single primary after that. Sure, I really don’t expect Mitt to win NY or NJ, I doubt he’ll sweep anything. But NY and NJ aren’t everything. Throw in CT and that 3 states out of 21, even worse than McCain’s showing. Beyond that, Rudy can’t count on anything. And, metro, he’ll be expected to win those 3.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 am
On #144. This is the problem really. Both Ficons and socons feel slighted by George W. Bush. I actually have no idea why socons feel slighted by George W. Bush. Is it because of Meirs and immigration?
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 am
Rudy’s “had no real highs”? Are you kidding me???
Don’t you remember the debate in May where he slammed Ron Paul over 9/11??????
That was simply the most powerful moment in any of the GOP debates. Rudy became an instant hero over defending America’s honor against the guy trashing America – Ron Paul.
This is one former Ron Paul person who managed to escape the Paul Cult, whose now backing Rudy!
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Husky, you say you see “no evidence” that fiscal cons are uniting to defeat Huckabee?
Are you nuts???
Your candidate has managed to push together former Rudy Giuliani people with Mitt Romney people: unthinkable merely 3 weeks ago when we were at each other’s throats.
I’m diehard Rudy. About as hardcore as they come. But I’m prepared to switch to Mitt in a heartbeat to ward off Huckabee.
Simply put Mike Huckabee is the worst Republican candidate to come down the pike in decades. His nomination would destroy the Republican Party. You’d see a massive exodus of Fiscal Conservatives and libertarian Republicans switching over to the Libertarian Party.
Go ahead and push your man Huckabee. You’ll only cause “America’s Third Party” to become America’s Second Party.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 am
And while we’re on the subject of the Libertarians…
A little breaking news… Dr. John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s very First Presidential candidate from 1972 heartily endorsed Wayne Root for President yesterday in a release. He said that Root’s fiscally conservative/socially tolerant views combined with his Pro-Defense position – unusual for an LPer, will be the best bet for America’s Third Party going into ‘08.
You can read the endorsement at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
#147. In that same debate, Ron Paul chewed up Huckabee and spit him out as he debunked the huckster’s naive Iraq policy “we have to stay in Iraq because we broke it”. That sentence alone should disqualify Huckabee from the Presidency.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
I am looking to see which candidate will be the first to try to capture the fire of the Ron Paul supporters. There is real passion there, something lacking in most of the other campaigns.
Eric,
So you are saying you are ready to jump from one cult to a worse one.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 am
New Rasmussen:
Iowa Caucus
Mike Huckabee – 28%
Mitt Romney – 27%
John McCain – 14%
Rudy Giuliani – 8%
Fred Thompson – 8%
Ron Paul – 6%
Tom Tancredo – 2% (You have to think some of this moves to Romney)
Duncan Hunter – 1%
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 am
New Hampshire GOP Primary
Mitt Romney – 31%
John McCain – 27%
Rudy Giuliani – 13%
Mike Huckabee – 11%
Ron Paul – 7%
Fred Thompson – 3%
Tom Tancredo – 1% (Again, you would think some of this goes to Romney)
Duncan Hunter – 0%
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
Interesting story on Rasmussen on how Romney can beat Hillary in the General Election, as his numbers have been getting stronger versus her every month.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_romney
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 am
The last three polls from the Iowa Caucus showed Huckabee up 8%,6%,8% why is everyone counting Huckabee out of Iowa. If Romney is the nominee he will lose in the generl badly. Christian values voters will stay home if Romney is the nomination. I promise.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 am
Hillary is looking more and more like a general election loser. Rasmussen has her negatives up to 54%! That is crazy, but I guess her negative attacks on Obama have backfired (except ironically in Iowa). I think electability will be part of Edwards and Obama’s closing arguments in Iowa.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 am
#148- Eric, reread my 900 posts and you will see. Im a mitt guy. I did suggest that Rudy people and Mitt people and nearly every GOP establishment voice, including the administration, has taken aim at Huck and his record.
Reread the posts….
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
Axel, what’s with your paranoid fear of supposed cults?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Angry Gary, dont paint america with a broad brush. Most of the GOP and many americans will support a very qualified mormon over Hillary any day. Dont think that your bigotry (as shown in previous threads) is similar to middle america.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
While I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on his isolationism, I am pleased to see he sparked such a strong movement. That is democracy is action.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Did Mitt finally get that NRA endorsment that he said he recieved back in 2002. I spoke to a leader of the NRA and they said they have never supported Mitt and would never support Mitt.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Nice polls in IA and NH>
IA race is tightening as I expected. Huck is taking a beating by everyone from Rush to talk radio to Condi. At this point, he might not even win IA.
NH is certainly getting tighter and I give McCain credit. But todays poll is still probably the 45th poll in a row showing Romney leading (except 2 ARG polls showing it tied). Mitt still has the advantage in NH. Early voting and a better overall groundgame with a slim but steady lead today, still probably give him the win there too.
If Mitt wins IA and NH, it might well be game over for the rest of the candidates.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 am
Was it his closest advisor’s faith that made Tanc endorse Romney?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
Its fair to say that if anyone wins both IA and NH, on either side, its game over.
Huckabee and Obama are taking risks not responding to the attacks. There is a probably an equal chance that they win and lose, but I am hoping they both win to show negativity backfires. It would be good for our politics going forward.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
I have only seen one Iowa poll that showed the race close. Every othe poll has Huckabee winning by 6-8%. Husky, I can’t believe you are saying “Huckabee might not even win Iowa”. One moth ago he was not expected to. Romney has outspent Huckabee in Iowa like 50:1, if Romney does not win Iowa with the money he put up, its very sad. Dick Morris was one O’Riley talking up the Huckabee Christmas, saying it is by far the best out of all the ads. The worst, he said was the one he did not see, Mitt Romney. Romney is to busy laying attack ads because he is so nervous. Morris ripped Romney to shreds for not making a Christmas ad and also said his negitive ads at Christmas time will back fire.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
#163 That is an interesting development. It also explains why Pat Buchanan has been talking up Romney. What is also interesting on the religion front is that Bay Buchanan was a catholic and catholics leave the church as adults at an alarming rate, due mostly to obvious doctrinal inconsistencies (I will not get into). But mormonism surely suffers from even more inconsistencies. So Bay went from the frying pan into the fire – “figurately” speaking of course.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Angry Gary,
Just a couple of small items that you might consider, re: your #165.
1) Huck’s lead of 6 – 8 % is within the MOE. Now, I’m not saying that I wouldn’t rather have my guy up 6 – 8%, but the game is far from over, especially with the pounding the Huckster is getting.
2) Dick Morris is in the bag for Huckabee. You are apparently the only one who doesn’t realize that. He is not objective, so quoting his opinion isn’t exactly the kind of proof you need.
3) Really? Mitt Romney spent a whole crapton of money on ads in Iowa? Well, that does it then, he’s toast. Umm, no.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:30 am
look what i just found! Newt Gingrich agrees with McCain on torture…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMLA33_G-hM&NR=1
stunning to put it mildly.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 am
King said George Romney didn’t march
” He didn’t just use imprecise language, as his campaign is now spinning it. His language — in at least three different nationally televised instances, including this past Sunday’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert — was precise enough: he had direct, personal first-hand knowledge that his father had marched with Dr. King.
The precision, in fact, is the problem: the sincerity with which he offered the memory, the emotion that led his eyes to well up. This was not a man simply passing along something he had once come across in a David Broder book.
And yesterday, after being called on the issue, he offered more specifics. He told reporters in Iowa that he recalled his father changing his mind, and deciding to march even though it was Sunday.
It wasn’t the first time Romney has abused a parental memory. Running for Senate in Massachusetts, in 1994, and trying to establish pro-choice credibility that he had done nothing to earn, Romney told stories about his mother, Lenore Romney, running on a strong pro-choice platform in her own unsuccessful bid for public office in 1970. Those tales were debunked by Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara. “
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
Would some front page poster please save us from the dregs of this thread by starting a new one. It really doesn’t matter what the topic is about. I can’t stomach another Angry Gary/Axel bigoted rant. I hope Kavon comes back soon so that he can see his POLITICAL site has been hi-jacked by anti-mormon bigots.
#163 – Or maybe he felt that Romney was the strongest candidate in the race. Not everyone is a mindless robot as you assume.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 am
#169 – I find it convenient that you neglected to post this part of the story:
“Issuing the proclamation, and sending his personal representatives, was probably more than 49 other governors would have been willing to do at that time,” says Clayborne Carson, director of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University. “It took considerable courage.”
Romney would go much further, participating in a small demonstration in Grosse Pointe later that week; refusing to endorse Barry Goldwater in 1964, largely because of Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act; and, in 1965, marching in Detroit to protest the police actions in Selma, Alabama.
At least don’t take the quote out of context.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Kind of sad we are still talking about MLK and Romney. Others have come out and said that they were seen together. Its only a matter of time till we see a picture of the two of them. So whats the real issue than.
Anti Romney crowd is really gasping at straws here. I guess if you support Huck it makes a lot of sense because you really cant compared records. That would make your guy look stupid now wouldnt it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
#172. Huh? Apparently you miss the point completely. No none disputes the fact tha George Romney was sa strong supporter of civil rights movement. The point is there is newspaper proof that George Romeny did’nt march with King on that sunday. And I bolded the Mitt recollection that he changed his mind. The story here is not of George, but a pattern of Gore-like exaggeration of truth by Mitt Romney.
My first comment on this issue yesterday said: He could have simply said his father was a well-known civil rights advocate.
There is nothing out-of-context, you did’nt get the point.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
My #173 was directed at Jared’s #171.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Jared, Colin Jones is a hack, and would neglect items to serve his own agenda. Most americans will appriciate the Romneys support of civil rights and it will do his campaign more good than the negative Colin Jones and others are fishing for. A picture will surface eventually and make the others look stupid.
As for Angry Gary and Axel, we have to endure it for only about 5 more weeks. By then Romney should have won enough contests that they will either back pedal and support him, or go back to reading anti mormon books or something.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
#173 – I now see your point. I guess I am just sooooooooooooooooo tired of this non-story that has been made a story by Romney haters, and the posts from bigots a la Axel and Angry Gary lulled me into a sense of having to defend my guy.
My point is, the FACT is that George Romney stood up for civil rights when it was not popular to do so. People who continue to make this an issue are, “grasping at straws”.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Colin, you dont know that they still didnt see each other. Witnesses have come forward saying that they saw MLK and Romney together. Photos might still surface. Will the general public come to the conclusion from this that Romney exagerrates the truth, or that he and his father supported civil rights. Probably the latter Im guessing. To “see” is really semantics, and people will realize bigots like you are just grasping at straws.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Wonder what happened to Giuliani?
I spoke to my mother a couple of days ago when she told me she wasn’t liking Giuliani so much anymore.
What was bothering her? The accusation that he hid his security costs when visiting his girl friend.
IT TURNS OUT TO BE NOT TRUE. Confirmed by no less then the Giuliani hating NY Times.
What happened to Giuliani is that lies are almost impossible to disprove.
That he supports gay marriage. That NYC was a sanctuary city.
More extreme. That he is a crook. That he is a transvestite.
What has happened to Giuliani is that he has the most despicable enemies from all sides of the political spectrum.
Did anyone see the cover of The American Conservative?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
They want to talk about some non story about MLK and about mormonism.
What they arent talking about is about a Huck lead that was once 19%, then low teens, then 11, then 6%, now 1% according to a previously posted thread (although I havent seen that poll). The argument against is that Romney outspent Huck by 50-1. Who cares. He outraised him by 10-1, and have 500 times more money. Bush raised more than Kerry, and spent more too. Did anyone cry foul then?
As for NH, people give McCain all this hype that he might actually win. Does anyone ever mention that Romney has led every NH poll (except 3 ARG polls) since May. Or do they mention that Romney’s “definitly will vote for” support is the strongest. Or that he is polling the best among independants. or that early voting has been going on for 2 weeks. Or that his groundgame is by far the best. Or that he will have probably thousands of supporters from MA working for him to GOTV.— No, those things arent discussed. They just wet their pants at the thought Romneys lead is single digits.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
What would Romney supporters say about a very heroic soldier/father who saved his comrades and received a Silver Star, His politician son then claims his father was a Congressional Medal of Honor Winner.
Actually marching with MLK is a specific point of pride for those who marched. An attempt to bask in the honor untruthfully, is less then honorable.
What Romney supporters don’t want to acknowledge is that he would get a by if this was a rare event. It’s not. With Romney, like Clinton, truth is fluid and in the interpretation.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Did anyone see the cover of The American Conservative?
That is to be expected from Buchanan type “conservatives”.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWU1NzgwNGI5ODZhY2E0ZDgzZjBkYzM1NzQ1YjEwN2U=
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“To see” is not mere semantics when you’re talking about a concrete, tangible action that you know others will take literally! Were Romney trying to do anything other than mislead and con his listeners with such a claim, he could have said he “envisioned” his father marching with MLK.
And the fact that there were contemporary accounts of MLK excusing George Romney for not attending and pointing out that Romney had gone further to improve race relations than the governors of 49 other states clearly demonstrates that Romney marching with King would have garnered serious news coverage at the time.
But I’m sure the Romney camp — hell-bent on maintaining their fanatical cult of personality for their fraud candidate — will be Photo Shopping images of a non-event over the holidays…
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
181
People should take a look at Giuliani just for his enemies.
Every crazy extreme political stream- from every side- hates him.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
#178. The damage has already been done, but FWIW, Chris Matthews said Mea Culpa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfTK_JXo67E
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Again, more threads about a non story, and not about the actual post. More about plastic, phony, and fraud, and not about a surging Romney in IA, or a man thats lead in NH for 7 months.
Does anyone really care about your agenda.
Voters will decide. They already are, and Huck is fading. Rudy has faded. It will soon be over….
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
TLG (#70) I now see you did say in #23 out of jeer. Oh well, I think I have improved over the past year with understanding when you were joking. Remember how I used to jump on every joke of yours, and had everyone telling me it was joke! Anyway, I suppose I won’t be an TLG joke expert anytime soon
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Husky (#75) I did counterargue with MetroRepublican about Intrades. He said it was the most accuration indicator of where the race is going. He did it under the short time period — for instance, he would often said, 98% of Intrades from night before the senator election were correct. I asked him a few times about how accurate is Intrade figures a month before, 2 months before and so on. He has not answered me. You may want to do that, telling him Intrade is only as good as a day before, and until he can show it has a good rate months before, it is as worthless as all other polls. Furthermore, not only did he use the national polls argument on why his man Rudy is the best candidate for this race, he now claims that the polls are worthless because most of the voters do not decide until a few days beforehand. That was exactly the same argument we RomBots have been using the whole year!
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Mnm (#76) The base is that Romney has admitted he is wrong on his abortion stance in every single debate this year! There are a lot of YouTube films we could use, showing him apologizing and admitting how he is wrong.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Axel (#102) “Read my lips! No More Taxes!” Remember this memoir of our President Bush the first? So far, Huckabee has “hucked up” on every statement he made, claiming it was taking out of context, that he was misunderstood, that he did not write this specific line, and so on. You can bet your bank that Huckabee will huck up when it comes to taxes, especially when we ends up having two tax system — the FairTax, along with our favorite income tax!
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
With this field, McCain has the advantage in any two man race.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
More important than the widely held view that McCain is the best Republican chance to beat Hillary, is his long held opinion that torture is wrong and should be stopped. This position alone will resonate with voters on both sides of the fiscal or moral spectrum. Romney and Huckabee seem to be great guys, can’t say that for Rudy, but they are still waiting for the public to decide for them. McCain is saying it over and over and over, no flips or flops.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:08 am
John McCain continues to be himself – the only candidate capable of leading America in Time of war on Islamist Terror. That’s issue #One – everything else is side-dish political empty calories.
John McCain has stayed on point and on message for his entire career – and that angers single-issue, pre-packaged citizens.
McCain will be there for America, because he has been there.
http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2007/12/mccain-plants-himself-in-townhall.html