Well, it is possible. McCain and Rudy have had some lovefests during the debates and now an alleged Thompson supporter is donating only to Rudy. Hmmm.
Posted on 11/06/2007 2:08:50 PM PST by Spiff
Wait a minute.
You overlook Mitt’s commitment to conservative ideals.
For instance he has been a solid 2nd amendment backer and a member of the NRA his entire conservative political life...
We should hope all the candidates are so dedicated to our cause as Mitt has been these many months...
Right.
Guess you bought a pet rock too back in the day...
He gives you a sober, qualified, careful analysis that takes account of the problems all around and you fault it for lack of passion.
If he’d have given a gazillion decibel passionate paen to Romney you’d fault him for not being sober and analytical enough.
His endorsement is what it is. A cautious assessment of who can best stop Julieannie. If he thought Hunter or Huckabee could stop Julie, I imagine he would line up closer with their positions in many ways. Thompson might well have been his choice but on close analysis he thinks Thompson can’t stop Julie, in part because Thompson doesn’t seem to really be passionate enough—sort of like the thing you fault Weyrich for.
None of the others stand enough of a chance of stopping Julie, so he did the intelligent thing and asked himself if there’s anything about Romney that’s a deal-breaker and whether Romney is sincere or merely pandering. He satisfied himself as to the former. Others can believe the opposite about Romney if they wish, but Weyrich did his analysis and testing and reached a conclusion, not out of passion and emotions but sober assessment.
In contrast, most of those who are disagreeing with him here do so with hyperbole and passion. Perhaps passion is the key to it all. But Weyrich thinks the time for passion comes later; the time for sober assessment comes now and if the values voters keep dissipating their energies in chaotic passion, then
I repeat for the umpteenth time
then we get Julie and if we get Julie we end up with Hillary.
If people can really make a sober case for someone else stopping Julie, fine. But there’s been precious little of that on this thread and a lot of bombast and character assassination directed at Weyrich and Romney, which does not bode well for stopping Julie and thereby stopping Hillary or Obama (who is not by any means out of the picture yet and could be a dangerous opponent even if he is an empty suit—we’ve become enough of a demogogic culture that a platitudinous emptyness like Obama could win)—expecially if the Pubbies refuse to stop the bickering.
Do you actually suppose that these top conservatives who have endorsed Mitt Romney are all unfamiliar with or have all been mislead about his real record?
Apply Occam's Razor for a moment and consider the possibility that they have not each been individually mislead about Romney's record, but that maybe you have.
Consider that these social/religious conservatives are putting their reputations on the line for a candidate who is hovering just a few points above single digits and who is 3rd or 4th place in many polls. Why would these respected conservatives do that? You would be wise if you would put some thought to it and consider their reasons.
Occam’s Razor says he is what his record says he is.
Lies.
Wow. If true, this is interesting indeed.
Do you have a link to support it?
Go to the Huffington Post article and click on the northern California co-chairs hyperlink. Look at the list of co-chairs under elected officials. Go to www.newsmeat.com and type in one of the seven female names listed. I’ll give you a hint - the initials are MM.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/fred-thompson-floundering_b_71059.html
www.newsmeat.com
Many thanks for the link.
I checked her on two separate campaign-donor sites (http://www.newsmeat.com & http://www.campaignmoney.com), and both verified exactly what you stated: she donated $4,050 to Rudy ... and not a dime to Fred.
I’m not sure why the reluctance to name her directly, but perhaps you know something that I don’t? In any case, thanks for the info :)
Well, it is possible. McCain and Rudy have had some lovefests during the debates and now an alleged Thompson supporter is donating only to Rudy. Hmmm.
Or Tancredo, for that matter...?
No reason for my reluctance I suppose. She has placed herself in the public domain. I just get skittish when naming private individuals.
There is the possibility another wealthy Republican woman with her unusual name exists in the Bay area but those odds are slim, imo.
Being a business wiz, Mitt should understand that.
Romney’s strategy—take IA, take NH, lead in MI (homestate advantage), take SC and it’s all over by Super Tuesday. May work... (I heard it from the horse’s mouth in a speech Romney gave supporters...we’ll see...)
So you are going on record that Commonwealth PAC has made no donations to the likes of the Heritage Foundation?
Spiff, link to the actual endorsement statement on the Brody File:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/263924.aspx
Today, Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, announced his support for Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign to be our country’s next President. Paul Weyrich is one of the premier leaders in the conservative movement, having founded the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
“As he travels across the country, Governor Romney has outlined a blueprint to build a stronger America rooted in our common conservative principles. With a clear conservative vision to move America forward, he will strengthen our economy, our military and our families. More importantly, he already has an exceptional record of putting conservative values to work. Because of his experience, vision and values, I am proud to support Governor Romney,” said Paul Weyrich.
With today’s announcement, Governor Romney said, “Paul Weyrich has put his stamp on the conservative movement in this country. It is an honor to have his support and counsel. Through our efforts, we can work to ensure that Washington always stands on the side of building stronger American families.”
Brodys comment:
Today, Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, announced his support for Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign to be our country’s next President. Paul Weyrich is one of the premier leaders in the conservative movement, having founded the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
“As he travels across the country, Governor Romney has outlined a blueprint to build a stronger America rooted in our common conservative principles. With a clear conservative vision to move America forward, he will strengthen our economy, our military and our families. More importantly, he already has an exceptional record of putting conservative values to work. Because of his experience, vision and values, I am proud to support Governor Romney,” said Paul Weyrich.
With today’s announcement, Governor Romney said, “Paul Weyrich has put his stamp on the conservative movement in this country. It is an honor to have his support and counsel. Through our efforts, we can work to ensure that Washington always stands on the side of building stronger American families.”
I think Rudy was the establishment choice but when it became apparent the rank and file weren’t interested a new candidate had to emerge for a couple of reasons. Few anticipated Mitt’s ability to rise from an unknown status to an early state leader. Now that Fred has not caught fire Huckabee is getting touted as another alternative. The result is Rudy coasts to victory while the conservatives bicker among the rest.
Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
The handful of rabid anti-Romney folks spend more time on Romney threads than on Thompson threads. Must be because Thompson threads are like Thompson’s campaign - MIA.
I’m becoming more and more convinced, speaking of sell-outs and conspiracy theories, that Thompson cut a deal with either McCain or Guiliani.
Re Intrade, the Iowa Futures Market, etc. — since these markets have gotten so much attention, I looked into their actual accuracy. It turns out that because of the small size of the markets, the relatively tiny amounts wagered and their suceptability to manipulation, they are pretty useless as predictors.
For example, the night before the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, investors thought Howard Dean had 45% chance of winning Iowa, Gephart had 25% chance, Kerry had 20% chance and Edwards had 8% chance.
At the same time Jan 18, 2004, Iowa Electronic Markets investors thought Dean had a 51% chance of winning the overall donk nomination, Wesley Clark had 21% chance, and Kerry had 13% chance.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E2D81639F93BA25752C0A9629C8B63
The very next day, John Kerry won the Iowa caucuses with 37.6% of the vote, Edwards was second with 31.8%, Dean was a distant third with 18%, and Gephardt was fourth with 10.6%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses
Here’s an article that explains why these markets are so unreliable:
Those Spurious Presidential Futures:
http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rms/rmoney/barryritholtz/10185976.html
Mitt’s donations were very welcome.
By my count, this makes at least a dozen well-respected individuals you've accused of illicit activity. Are you a conspiracy nut or just plain stupid?
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.