Posted on 07/08/2006 3:53:39 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Does anyone one think that being a Mormon will be a significant liability for Romney the way that being Catholic was a liability for Kennedy (my Grandfather thought that Kennedy was going to take orders from the Pope).
I think both "big fish" in this race are swimming upstream only to get snatched out of the water by a conservative grizzly bear and eaten regardless of faith.
history repeats itself. think big ed muskie in '72, evrybody except the voters supported him.
Is this Bush/McCain crap true?
If the MSM likes or recommends the GOP candidate ---- then ignore her/him.
Indeed. If it's any of those three, my vote goes third party.
Indeed. If it's any of those three, my vote goes third party.
translation: i wan't hillary to be my president.
JMHO
True. His co-sponsorships of McCain-Feingold and current Senate immigration bill, just to name two.
But Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee in '08? What are his conservative credentials? Surely not his monstrous Taxachusetts health care plan!
From the top...
SENATOR McCain will have difficulty winning the election if he indeed is the nominee because he is a SENATOR.
The last Senator (or former Senator) who won an election against a non-Senator was Truman, who obviously had the power of the incumbency behind him, in the infamous "Dewey Wins" election.
Before that, you need to look at Warren G Harding in 1920 for a sucessful run for POTUS by a Senator or former Senator.
The reason McCain matches up well against Hillary is that... drumroll please... SHE'S A SENATOR!!!!
The raw data from the last 100 years:
* * *
Harding - Senate to POTUS, 1920
Truman - Senate to VP, POTUS via death, last POTUS to win vs non-senator Dewey in 1952.
Kennedy - Senate to POTUS, 1960 (ran against Senator Nixon)
Johnson - Senate to VP, POTUS via death, (beat Senator Goldwater in re-election)
Nixon - Senate to VP to unemployment to POTUS, 1968 (lost to Sen Kennedy, beat Senators HHH and McGovern in elections)
I agree, I don't like voting for Washington insiders who have already done enough damage to the country. I will hold my nose and probably vote for Rudy.
This is 1964 all over again. The conventional wisdom was that the GOP nomination was Rockefellers to lose. But nobody was listening to the base, and Goldwater got the nom.
I'm hoping we have a TRUE conservative on our ticket, not John McCain. I will vote third party is McCain gets the nom.
"However, most self-proclaimed conservatives have major reservations about McCain."
Ditto that for Romney. Just another RINO. And he will peak way too soon. Once people learn about his wishy-washy views on abortion and his support for gays, over the boy scouts, he's toast.
I'd rather have a DemonRat who is at least honest enough to run under that name.
"Truman defeated Dewey in 1948, not 1952. But your point is well-taken, though hardly original."
Thanks for the correction... I knew that of course, but was one of those editing deals.
I posted that info to an Ann Arbor, MI Craigslist, and got roundly condemned for saying that Hillary wouldn't win unless she was opposite another Senator. The rant from the guy who was a PhD in biology was enlightening, let me tell you. Finally, someone who'd taken an poly sci class sided with me.
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.