Posted on 03/02/2007 9:19:12 PM PST by Valin
Almost everything now being written about the 2008 race should be prefaced with "It's still early but..." With that in mind, Mitt Romney, who's had a tough couple of weeks fending off flip-flopping charges, apparently just dazzled the CPAC crowd, according to some conservative folks in attendance.
Over at the Corner, Kate O'Beirne said Romney's attacks on McCain-Feingold and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill were "big crowd pleasers." (Hmmm, what do those two bills have in common?) Also, she notes, "In stringing together some of the events he faced upon taking office -- the Massachusetts court ordering gay marriage, the scientific community's support for creating embryos for research, and the blackballing of Catholic Charities over gay adoption -- he offered a potentially plausible sequence that prompted second thoughts on social issues."
At RedState.com, Erick Erickson sums it up: "Giuliani had leadership. Romney had conservatism." He adds, "Mitt Romney was pitch perfect and willing to talk social issues -- something totally missing from Giuliani's speech. And people noticed. I have to say that it was a tremendous speech. I actually could not listen to all of Rudy's, but Mitt's was great." Oh, and there's a trend emerging at CPAC. As Erickson notes, "He spoke negatively about McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy."
RedState has Romney's full speech here.
For a less partisan perspective, Jonathan Martin of ThePolitico.com writes, "Mitt's team got what they wanted: a tougher, more focused, more forward-leaning speech that was just that, a speech. Gone were the rambling anecdotes and asides (no Olympics and no Challenger) and left was a more concise message." And, yes, Martin makes sure to tell his readers that Romney "took two direct shots at John McCain (news, bio, voting record)" over campaign finance reform and immigration.
Two conclusions to draw from this. First, Romney did what he had to do to. And second, McCain took it on the chin.
Mitt did well. Uncomfortable at first, he fed off the audience after getting focused. Nicely done. Certainly gained a few ticks.
My bottom: Romney, Hunter & Newt. Let's have the debate with these three & forget the others.
Is the Supreme Court going to reverse their decision?
The New York Times noted the different reactions of the CPAC crowd to Mitt Romney's address in contrast to Rudy Giuliani.
"Mr. Giuliani arrived to a rousing reception, as people stood up and held cameras and cell-phones to capture a photograph of the moment. But the room grew increasingly silent and restless as Mr. Giuliani’s speech stretched to 40 minutes. By contrast, Mr. Romney arrived to a much more subdued reception but left to a rousing roar of applause."See my tagline and FR profile for more about Mitt Romney's record and positions.
Please no McLame or Rudy.
Mayor Linguine is a hack politician who became a millionaire as soon as he left office. Hmmmm....
He also said he would overturn McCain-Feingold. He has no authority as President to overturn any law especially one that the SCOTUS has already ruled. Talk about pandering -- he leads the pack. Any conservative that swallows his line, enjoys being pandered to and doesn't understand Government 101 IMHO.
I could live with Romney. You are apparently an avid supporter. Any idea who would possibly be on his "short list" for VEEP?
Would he fight for its repeal though? That's an important issue to consider.
Ronald Reagan is not going to walk through the door and rescue the party. There isn't a perfect candidate in terms of positions or electibility so it looks like the party will have to settle on the best of the bunch and decide who can keep the dems out of power. There is no excuse for allowing Hillary in the WH. Gripe about Romney's RINO positions if you will but if you have the ability to stop Clinton III then to not do so is wrong.
If he's the guy come November 08 then we could do worse...
I will only vote for him if he promises that I can be a God on planet Kolob.
At this point I'm not ready to drink anyones kool-aid, that being said, I like the guy, I could see myself voting for & supporing him. My only question is, is he tough enough mean enough to take on the clinton smear machine?
If he's smart he goes Southern and someone good on values or foreign policy experience.
Good point. And actually, I may not be particularly well liked for this, but a line item veto is an awful idea. Should we really give presidents the ability to punish political opponents by removing all their projects? Just because we're against pork doesn't mean the president, rather than Congress, should have the right to pick and choose what pork to keep and what pork to cut. I'd hate to imagine the Clintons with the line item veto...
Hold on a minute. Fred Thompson just announced he's considering a run at the Presidency!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794264/posts
I'm not a fan of it either. I first proposed twenty years ago to give the Vice-President and the Speaker the power to divide bills into pieces for a separate vote. Call it a "cedo" meaning, "I cut," as in dividing it with a sword.
As far as I can tell, setting up the cedo would not require more than a rule change.
Southern would be good. I'd also like to see young, articulate, and rock-ribbed conservative. Someone to groom for the future. I'm thinking Rick Santorum here.
Santorum is too close to his last defeat. He's not electable but he would be a good guy to have with the campaign and he should get a senior cabinet position if they were to win.
Reports on Hunter's speech were good too. They were posted a few hours ago.
Anyone ** AT ** the even see both?
A journalist wrote this?... "First, Romney did what he had to do to."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.