Posted on 01/22/2008 6:45:45 PM PST by Reaganesque
Louisiana was thought to be a battle between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
Romney has the support of two congressmen and announced teams in every district. It is winner take all by congressional district and majority receives at-large delegates.
It's the only Southern caucus, so conservative conservatives will probablt(sic) turn out.
This is Romney's to lose...
Another gold medal... albeit in the state equivalent of Olympic curling, but still...
(Excerpt) Read more at marcambinder.theatlantic.com ...
The big thing is foreign policy. I just wrote a long FReepmail about the topic, and I should have saved some of what I wrote. I understand Dr. Paul's perspective, but I disagree. I don't believe that we'll have peace with the Muslim world until we break the jihadists just as we had to break imperial Japan in the 40's. This issue is huge to me.
There are a couple of other things. I'll try to repeat the top three.
First, the presidency is an executive office, and executive experience can be telling in whether someone is effective. I think Ed Koch once said that you don't have to agree 100%. If you agree 80%, you should be able to support him. However, that measure ignores effectiveness. What if I agree with one candidate 80% but believe that he will be only 25% effective? He will give me only 20% of what I want. (25% of 80% is 20%.) What if I agree with another candidate 70% but see him as 50% effective. He will give me 35% of what I want. We can argue about effectiveness and how much I really agree with a candidate, but I believe that Mitt Romney will be exceptionally effective.
A second issue is that House members don't have the same experience representing a diverse geographic area in the same way that senators and governors do. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for a House district to be all that diverse. They never intended for parties to arise, so they would have seen the members of a House district as having fairly similar outlooks on the issues. A House member would have been seen as someone who could represent those fairly uniform desires. A senator represents an entire state which often has many areas with different interests. Likewise, a governor must administer the laws of a state again with many different areas where there would be different needs and desires. If all other things are equal, I'd prefer a governor or senator over a House member. I originally supported Duncan Hunter because I didn't see all other things as equal, but even then, I admitted that his lack of experience representing more than just a district was a weakness.
A third issue is age. Ron Paul is nearly 72. He's a healthy 72, but he's 72. I'm not saying that he can't win the votes of young people. From what I saw tonight, he had the most support in the college age bracket. Young people don't mind voting for an old guy, but that's because they see themselves as immortal and therefore might not realize that 72 could be pretty old. Middle-aged and older voters will have more problems with a 72-year-old candidate because we see aging as a bigger issue.
On the day that the previous picture was taken back in the summer of 2000, I was at a birthday party fundraiser for Dr. Paul. I had felt alienated at many Republican gatherings because the party was full of talk about "compassionate conservatism." As I stood in that room listening to Dr. Paul speak, I felt for the first time in a long time that I belonged in the GOP. He was my favorite politician until September 11, 2001.
I like Dr. Paul's approach on many things. I've even agreed that we've been wrong to become involved in some foreign affairs. However, I can't get over the disagreement about the most current conflict. Without that disagreement, maybe I'd be supporting him today.
Bill
Correct, the public vote is still almost a week away.
There are most Pentecostals and similar faiths with which I am not personally too familiar, and I don't know where they come down on the issues. But being in NE Louisiana, I can tell you that there are lots of conservatives here and that is not fertile ground for Huckabee. We don't necessarily vote for folks because Arkansas is a neighbor either. I'm just sayin'.
~”However, that measure ignores effectiveness. What if I agree with one candidate 80% but believe that he will be only 25% effective? He will give me only 20% of what I want. (25% of 80% is 20%.) What if I agree with another candidate 70% but see him as 50% effective. He will give me 35% of what I want.”~
On the pessimistic side, the less effective candidate will only give you 5% of what you don’t want, while the more effective will give you 15% of what you don’t want.
Preach it, Sister!
With all the bickering that's been going on of late, that's Good News
Very thoughtful response, Bill.
I pray that Mitt will overcome the media bias that is pushing McCain. Even Michael Medved is endorsing McCain. What is he thinking? I believe that the traditional grassroots that does the ground work for Republican candidates will fail to deliver the support necessary to win the White House. If McCain does not put forth the conservative talk to mend the misgivings people have for his liberal actions in the Senate, there will be little heart for him. He will have cut off the legs he needs to run the ground war necessary to defeat the Democrats. The conservatives are the legs of the Republican Party. They do the grunt work on a voluntary basis. Their labor is free labor. McCain will have to get his "legs" from the independents. And they have done nothing for the Republican Party. Nothing.
I still don't know what that means.
If it means that Rush will not vote for Romney, then it's true.
If it means that Rush endorsed Mitt today, that's just wrong.
I’m no huge fan of Mitt (record, not religion—as a Catholic, I can empathize with any Mormon who has been on the receiving end of religious bigotry—record gives me pause OTOH—although I do find substantial flaws in Mormon theology), but you couldn’t have said it better.. Feeling more hopeless by the second (wish Fred waited till Super Tuesday so that Rats and Independents can’t dilute our vote in largely closed party primaries the way they have til now), but feel Mitt Romney is the only hope for the GOP to avoid the words “President Hillary Rodham Clinton” for the next 4-8 years.
"Rush broke for Mitt," means that he gave his endorsement to Mitt Romney. Rush seemed very upset that McCain took South Carolina. There were things in the media that suggested that Rush was becoming irrelevant with South Carolina going for McCain. We must understand that South Carolina has a huge military vote that identifies with the military past of McCain. Many are retired military. McCain may have talked about VA benefits to them to sweeten the deal.
Romney: 22,649 delegates
Paul: 6,087 delegates
Coming in second didn't amount to much.
I respect your viewpoint completely. I won’t enumerate all of my reasoning on foreign policy, just as you didn’t, but it’s his fiscal and social policies I find most attractive.
Thanks for the reply.
Unless a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote(which I find unlikely) the delegates today will represent the results. I think Paul will have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 delegates from LA.
He doesn't always allow the best leaders to be elected or appointed or anointed.
He sometimes judges a country or a people by allowing an evil leader to reign over countries or people.
Clinton in the nineties is one example.
(I don't see that as God's choice, I see it as getting the leader "we" needed maybe?)
God out of school, Roe v Wade, homosexuality legitimized.
Then...
Sex is not sex, lies, sex, rapes, sex, intimidation, stolen FBI files, corruption etc etc.
Remember the history of the Israelites in the Old Testament, how when they were drawing close to God He allowed good kings to be ordained, and when they pulled away from God the kings were more and more evil.
Remember the Golden Calf? The people were impatient, and invented their own "god" and religion.
A similar thing has been done more than once in the last millennium.
If Hillary gets elected, maybe that is God's judgment on our country.
She would be an evil "king."
If one of the charismatic "slick" guys running for President gets in, then maybe that's the precursor of the Antichrist.
Just some thoughts when I saw "His Choice"
Oh when did that happen?
Please link me to the FR thread about his endorsement of Romney.
But in this dangerous world, the Mick Jagger philosophy will put our nation in great peril....
Rush: “It’s easier for me to support a Romney than a McCain, for example. Because I believe his conversion is genuine. And he’s not lying about his past positions. He’s not trying to tell people they’re wrong when they assess his past positions. He explains why he changed his mind.”
And,
The “nomination of John McCain or Mike Huckabee would “destroy the Republican Party . . . change it forever, be the end of it.”
I think the words “broke for Mitt” tells you what it says.
You had me going there for a while.
I thought he had endorsed Romney.
“Broke for”
I'll have to remember that one.
He's not trying to tell people they're wrong when they assess his past positions.
Then why do Romney supporters tell those that assess his past positions that they are wrong?
When Romney’s past positions on conservative issues are examined, one thing they do: they change for the better. It is like a sinner who has changed his ways. Because of it, all is forgiven. One must not focus on the sin. Focus on the redemption.
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.