Not so. Romney has been ahead of Thompson for several days not at Intrade.
Posted on 08/19/2007 8:35:07 PM PDT by restornu
Not so. Romney has been ahead of Thompson for several days not at Intrade.
I really want to play poker with that 4.8% betting on Ron Paul.
Do we have a list of their names and addresses?
I have read his replies to those issues, the repies sound more believable than your list of spin. And who is your candidate? That would help us to see where you are coming from and make some comparisons.
Tactics trump policy every time. This guy is the definition of executive excellence. Over the course of a long campaign, that is very hard to beat.
Fredheads weren't disparaging Intrade back when Fred Takes Lead on InTrade! (270 celebratory posts). Now that Fred is in third place, it is a mere gambling site.
Message is in the ear of the beholder — to your question, here are the snapshot messages I hear from the candidates you mentioned (outside of strong national defense, because I believe all the GOP candidates have that message — they just differ on the particular solution):
What is Fred’s message? Smaller federal government
Or Duncan’s? American protectionism (both jobs and borders)
Or Rudy’s? Law and order by any means necessary (I don’t actually support or even believe this message, because of Giuliani’s long history of Constitutional abuses, and the long history of law-breaking among his cronies)
Or Huckabee’s? I haven’t a clue
If I were to summarize the message I personally hear from Romney, it would be “business marketing and efficiency.” That has its pros and cons.
In my view, here are the pros: he would be good at creative marketing/selling ideas (something that W. usually lacks); he would be good at making government work more effectively.
And the cons: he would probably be more likely than even some other politicians to jump on an idea because it’s popular/marketable; and nothing in his predominantly business background has given him a worldview that would lead him to prioritize reining in the power of government. Cut the cost? Yes. Deliver services better and smarter? Yes. But not rein it back to Constitutional principles and turn existing federal powers back to the states. I just don’t see businesspeople thinking that way — the successful businesspeople I know without exception focus on customers, efficiency and growth.
In short, I can definitely see why Romney’s supporters like him. My personal issue is beating back the power of the federal government in every aspect except those enumerated in the Constitution, so he’s not my top candidate.
Romney’s life is a social conservative story. His business made him the only man who ever ran who can do more than talk about limited government. He actually knows how to do it.
Romney doesn’t have a message? And you’re backing Fred Thompson? The guy whose message boils down to, “Well, we’ll talk about it in a little while but don’t get your gander up! I’m gonna make government real small-like when I get off this here golf cart.” *rolls eyes*
Romney’s vision is very clear in my estimation, and that is to make America competitive into the next century. He has addressed the need to lower our corporate taxation rates, which are some of the highest in the world. To bring about tort reform and reverse the trend that now has American corporations spending more money fighting lawsuits than in Research & Development. To reform our immigration system to bring in the best and the brightest—not the uneducated and the illiterate. He has spoken of lowering the capital gains tax to encourage middle class America to invest and save in their future (because social security isn’t going to be around). His energy policy is one of nuclear energy and new methods of refining to reduce dependence on the Middle East, Venezuela, and Mexico. Of controlling spending and ending this nonsense budget shortfall we’ve been running.
He speaks of his three-legged stool: the economy, the military, and the family.
Frankly, I don’t see a candidate with a more clear message.
Well then you and poster #16 should get together, lol.
>Looking freshly scrubbed in his long-sleeve shirt and creased white trousers, the former Massachusetts governor drew gasps from throngs of reporters awaiting his arrival.
+++
this sounds like something pravda writes!
Hey, if you want to ignore his record, there’s nothing I can do about it. It’s all fully documented, if you care enough about the future of the country, and the value of your franchise, to go look for it.
I don’t have a candidate yet. It’s still early.
It's always good to believe whatever a politician tells you than to examine the evidence critically. ::rolleyes::
You should really check out all the issues that Romney continues to hedge on right now, in 2007.
Romney says he opposes "amnesty" but refuses to say what he considers amnesty.
Romney claims to support tax reform but opposes the flat tax and the fair tax. He said he hasn't even studied the fair tax (!!!)
Romney talks tough on foreign policy while saying we need to consult international opinion more and model our charitable efforts after Hezbollah.
Romney says he switched from pro-choice to pro-life because of embryonic stem cell research -- however, he still supports some embryonic stem cell research while opposing other embryonic stem cell research. And he until recently invested in embryonic stem cell research.
Romney said in about a week's time span that he was wrong to be pro-choice, that he used to be pro-choice, and that he was never pro-choice. All the while using the preferred term of the pro-abortion movement ("pro-choice").
Romney opposes gay marriage but continues to support gay domestic partner benefits, special hate crimes status for gays, gay employment non-discrimination.
What the heck kind of muddled message is that?!?
Romney is clearly the best of the moderate wing candidates. The conservative wing needs a candidate, however.
Hey, if you want to “make comparisons,” perhaps you should try comparing Romney 2002 with Romney 2007. It’ll open your eyes...
In the first place, I’d never heard of InTrade until 10 minutes ago, and still have never been to the site.
In the second place, I’m not a FredHead. He’s ok, I guess....but I think I’ve concluded the only candidate I could support with any passion - at least in the primaries - is Newt.
And I forgot the Second Amendment, which Romney claims to support while also supporting a ban on so-called “assault weapons”!
Gosh, your pop quizzes are so easy!
"The message of a liberal trying to convince gullible voters he's conservative," of course...
I’ll just say this. If 4.8% of Republicans really support Ron Paul, I’m going long on tin futures.
I don’t think it’s that simple. It would be a lot easier for Mitt to convince people he was sincere if he wasn’t still straddling the fence on so many issues.
Liberals can never play the role of a conservative effectively, at least to those who are actually paying attention. Too many holes in their story, and they always stumble over their lines.
Romney has a record of over 35 years as a liberal pro-abort. You just don’t squelch that overnight. And, the pressure of a presidential campaign is such that the truth always comes out...especially now, in the age of the internet.
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.