Posted on 06/25/2007 9:27:32 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Recent polls in two crucial primary states--Iowa and New Hampshire--show that Mitt Romney has leapfrogged John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to claim momentum in the race for the Republican nomination for president.
The latest Des Moines Register poll shows Romney with 30 percent support, a 12-point lead over his nearest competitor in Iowa, McCain. Even better, Romney's internal polling has him running 17 points ahead of the competition in the Hawkeye State. A Zogby poll of New Hampshire voters offers similar results: Romney leads with 35 percent while McCain and Giuliani tie for second with 19 percent.
This surge of support for Romney comes as no surprise to those of us supporting the former Governor of Massachusetts. In fact, I predicted back in October that once voters got to know Romney they would like him very much. And so they do. The question now is, why?
I believe voters are attracted to Romney because of his three-part vision for America, one that seeks to build and maintain a strong national defense, a strong economy, and strong families.
Romney believes that peace comes through strength. In a recent Foreign Affairs article he called for adding 100,000 troops to our armed forces and for sizeable investments in military equipment, capabilities, and preparedness. To support these goals, Romney has said the next president should commit at least four percent of gross domestic product to national defense.
Romney has an adroit understanding of the threat posed by radical Islam. He recognizes that Iraq is but a part of a larger battle against Islamists that includes Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and many other places. "Jihad is the greatest threat that faces humanity," Romney said in a speech earlier this year. "It cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The only mistake it seems I made was to say; please don’t flame me. That seems to be an invitation for attacks. For sharing some experiences I have had has turned into personal accusations that are very untrue. That’s unfair. I asked you questions and you can’t answer them. Instead, you attack. For that I am sorry.
No, it seems to be a pathetic cover from which to launch one. If you don't like flames, don't make inflammatory comments that have nothing to do with the thread. You're the one who poured the gasoline, as you well understood when you begged not to be flamed.
Unless Mitt Romney was running your local drug store, what you contributed has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but was merely a gratuitous swipe at Romney's co-religionists. It has no more to do with Romney than Fred Phelps' actions have to do with Mike Huckabee, a fellow Baptist. There isn't a candidate in the race that doesn't share a religion with people of poor moral character.
I, for one, am entirely sick of the lowball innuendo attacks on all the candidates' characters that are becoming so prevalent lately around here. It doesn't matter if you read a Fred thread, a Mitt thread, a Paul thread, or whoever; all are infested with this sort of slimy debate tactic that should have been left behind at puberty by reasoning adults.
It’s Romney vs Fred Thompson. Rudy and McCain are toast.
Look, you seem to be a bright person. I am at a loss to understand why such a bright person chooses to accuse and bait. It doesn’t make sense.
As to why I'm "attacking", reread the last paragraph of #102. If your post wasn't a deliberate innuendo, then it certainly counterfeited one very closely. You must have had some reason to post it on this thread.
I suggest you go back and read your posts again. They are full of accusations and bait.
It's almost always meant in good fun; I'm sorry my original comment on your spelling didn't come across that way. In retrospect it came across more harshly than I really intended. At the same time I don't take well to being pushed around or told to shut up (which is what you did), and I don't tend to back down from that sort of thing easily. All the same, I'd be happy to call a truce, especially since the whole argument was a bit pointless anyway. Sound good to you?
Why does anyone believe anything politicians say? If he thought it would get him elected, he would be in favor of anything. We were fooled into thinking Bush was a real conservative, are we going to be fooled again?
If there's something misspelled there, I can't find it. Please enlighten me.
You are my hero. I agree and really did not mean to tell you to shut up. Just to butt out. Sorry about that. Have chronic bronchitus now(my excuse)and am tired of squeaky voice. I apologize if I went over the line.
Another poster is really letting loose on me. I have never heard such descriptions; but will survive.
On post 74 I thought you might have used the word tool for fool.
Well, I hope you feel better soon. Sorry if I came on too strong, but you managed to push several hot buttons at once. When it comes down to it, we are all FReeping along the same cause. Pax?
You are my hero too, Lex. Thanks so much. I apologize for hitting so many of your hot buttons. It’s heck only being able to squeak.
Yes, we are in it for the same thing. A good President that cares about the country as we do.
Also, if I may say, No Amnesty.
I'm very interested to see what happens in the fall when Petraeus issues his report. You know I'm in Mitt's corner, but its hard to read the tea leaves on how Iraq will impact this election. I don't think that there is consensus in the party about Iraq, especially now that Bush has turned against the base with immigration.
I suspect that Petraeus will argue for continued military support, but with much fewer troops, and that all Republican candidates will be in agreement, given the public's weariness of war. If no clear leader emerges by January, I predict that Thompson will win as the "safe" choice, and will run an uninspired campaign and lose to Hillary or Gore. Hillary will take the country left for 4 years, preside over an awful recession, and Romney the businessman will ride a wave in 2012.
I, too, have never seen “Law and Order” so I’m immune, apparently, to whatever charm this guy is supposed to possess. I just don’t get it. The idea that women will vote for him once they get a load of the old geezer with his trophy wife is laughable.
I’ve seen Rick Santorum defeated in Pennsylvania by a nobody and the Republican party in PA back a guy for governor whose only qualifications were that he had a pleasant manner, decent communication skills, great name recognition, and he’d been on television a lot and was comfortable in front of a camera. Ed Rendell hardly broke a sweat to beat Lynn Swann. It wasn’t even close. Many on this forum were convinced to the bitter end that Swann would win. I almost fell off my chair laughing when he was announced as the party-backed candidate.
I knew he was finished when little details about his background started to leak such as the fact that he was so interested in government and politics that he hadn’t bothered to vote in any elections for a couple of decades. He didn’t even vote for Reagan! Democrats are pointing out already that Thompson put little effort into his Senate duties and finally quit. I think it’s a legitimate point.
Republicans are making a big mistake if they use the same tired old formula again in 2008. Selecting a Southerner with no particular qualifications or demonstrated interest in the job to run against a Hillary/Obama ticket is plain suicide. The voters in this country are angry; they’re fed up with Bush and they want a change. Another southerner with a deep-fried accent and a pickup truck ain’t it.
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.