Posted on 11/17/2007 6:12:35 AM PST by TAdams8591
Every four years pundits get to swing for the fences. Only the timid split differences and hairs. The pundits worth reading will declare what they see in the very cloudy crystal ball. Here's my take.
There are two very separate battles within the fight for the GOP presidential nomination.
There is the contest between Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson to be the conservative challenger to Rudy Giuliani.
And then there is the contest between that challenger and the former New York City mayor.
It is Rudy's hope that the race to be his opponent for the Republican nomination doesn't narrow until after the February 5 primaries in New York, California, Georgia and 17 other states divide up 1,058 delegates. (The full primary and caucus calendar is here.) Rudy would love to see a long, drawn-out, bitter struggle among the contenders to be the alternative to his candidacy, a struggle that drains all three of money and energy even as Rudy piles up delegates.
Romney is counting on strong showings in Iowa (January 3), Wyoming (January 5), New Hampshire (January 8 ?) and Michigan (January 15) to send the message that he and only he can match Giuliani in appeal and fund-raising prowess. Giuliani is counting on Huckabee to bleed Romney in Iowa enough so that the Mainstream Media can proclaim Romney's showing in Iowa a "disappointment" and try to throw the race to race Rudy into disarray.
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.townhall.com ...
If Mitt or Rudy are the rinos choice, I believe the conservatives will split from the liberal GOP and vote third party or not at all. The rino GOP is as ignorant as the liberal left when it comes to understanding the truth about winning elections.
So be it.
In a state whose legislature is 85% democrat with a similar composition in the electorate, Romney pushed MA as far to the right as it would go. His effort was nothing short of commendable. Given the hand he was dealt, do you honestly think you could have done better?"
We're not talking about me: I'm not running for the presidency. So homosexual marriage and socialized medicine are "as far to the right as it would go?" Wow! I'd hate to see what would've happened if he hadn't really been making an effort!
Will I support Governor Romney if he is nominated by the GOP? Probably, since he seems slightly better than Hillary. Do I want him (a Summer Soldier of Conservatism) to be the nominee? Not at all. I will say that he would be preferable to Rudy, but just barely. Oh, btw, the more he compares himself to President Reagan, the more he puts off someone like myself, who KNEW Mr. Reagan.
~”Would it not be a good thing to have a brokered convention?”~
I disagree. We’d have a split in fundraising, and the candidates would be focused on defeating each other rather than attacking Clinton. They wouldn’t be able to start a genuine campaign until after the convention - and that is not enough time to overcome the Clinton machine.
~”IMO, both Rudy and Mitt are unelectable, for very different reasons (corruption, morals and issues w/Rudy, Mormonism and flip/flopping for Mitt). It is sad that many can’t see past a man’s religion, but there it is.”~
The polls in SC, for example, refute that notion.
http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Being Mormon myself, I find that comforting. In my opinion, Romney’s impeccable family values will produce a crossover factor that will swamp any detriment his faith provides to his campaign.
~”Given the hand he was dealt, do you honestly think you could have done better?”~
Those who criticize Romney on this score will argue that he should have -tried- to do better, even though they acknowledge that this would have resulted in him doing nothing.
Such people, IMO, need to learn more about the virtues of the Demoncrats’ tactic of incrementalism. Reagan, for example, was very good at it; many conservatives, though, tend to be so inflexible that they refuse to take the slice when they can’t have the whole cake.
Hew Hewitt also fell for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been a complete disaster for the California GOP, not to mention State finances.
Hewitt has jumped the shark. This pair of RINOs will do the same thing to the GOP nationally as Arnold did to California.
It's not bigotry to hold a candidate accountable for his record, but it makes good cover for a slanderous post.
The problem with such "incrementalism" is that the compromises are always to the left of where we stand today. Those polices induce more socialist dysfunction, thus breeding more socialism.
Look at California. Pete Wilson was EXACTLY the type of governor your hypothesis advocates. We went from a conservative in Deukmejian to Wilson and what followed was tax increases, more outrageous regulation that impoverished the small business and small landowner Republican base. Wilson reconfigured the GOP withdrawing support for any conservative running for statewide office. Wilson pandered to the left in the name of "compromise" thus empowering every leftist cause imaginable. Now, the state teeters on the brink of insolvency, its schools are at rock bottom, its roads and infrastructure are crumbling despite billions in bonds that got flushed down an enviro-toilet, and the GOP is going to get the blame. Eight years later the state has NO chance of returning to its former glory.
No thanks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925590/posts?page=23#23 .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924787/posts?page=24#24
His recent interview with Glenn Beck was excellent as well. You have to hear/read Beck’s reaction to it to believe it!
I think that it should be pointed out that Hewitt has been shilling for Romney since last spring.
The purpose of the article is to rule out the real conservatives and say, Who would you rather have, Romney or Giuliani?
Well, if you put it that way, Romney is better than Giuliani. But why should you, when he still has low numbers in most polls, despite spending more than anyone else?
So, the chief purpose of the article is to persuade people to ignore Fred and the others, especially Fred.
I think I’d rather wait a little longer before I throw in the towel.
He’s leading in 3 early primary states and is #2 nationally.
The whole 1976 "McGovern wins New Hampshire, now all the Democratic-sheep will vote for him" bathos so beloved by political reporters (including Hugh) is B.S.
This election has had a year of run up! 10 debates!! People have made up their own damn minds and are not waiting with baited breath to see that New Hampshire loves a liberal Republican from Mass. (Big Surprise, THAT!).
Anyone remember the administration of President Tsongas? President Dukakis? I didn't think so.
You also have to credit his "bigot" theory, which he has several hours a day to trot out on his radio show. Wherein anyone not voting for Mitt because of his Mormonism is a "bigot". We'll Hugh can bully and call names on his radio show, but in the privacy of the ballot box I think many Americans will make different choices than Dr. Harvard Law suggests they make.
Ultimately Hugh is a neo-con, so he's supporting one of the two neo-con candidates. Loudly.
Here is Rasmussan daily. It shows a dead tie between all four of the "not Rudy" candidates. The only real trend I see recently is Rudy stepping away from the lot of them.
|
Republican Candidates
|
Democratic Candidates
|
|||||||||
|
Date |
Giuliani |
Thompson |
Romney |
McCain |
Huckabee |
Date |
Clinton |
Obama |
Edwards |
Date |
|
11/16/07 |
29% |
12% |
12% |
10% |
12% |
11/16/07 |
41% |
24% |
14% |
11/16/07 |
|
11/15/07 |
28% |
11% |
13% |
11% |
11% |
11/15/07 |
41% |
22% |
14% |
11/15/07 |
|
11/14/07 |
26% |
12% |
17% |
13% |
11% |
11/14/07 |
42% |
20% |
13% |
11/14/07 |
|
11/13/07 |
27% |
11% |
16% |
13% |
11% |
11/13/07 |
41% |
20% |
17% |
11/13/07 |
|
11/12/07 |
27% |
14% |
14% |
13% |
10% |
11/12/07 |
43% |
20% |
16% |
11/12/07 |
|
11/11/07 |
27% |
12% |
13% |
13% |
10% |
11/11/07 |
43% |
20% |
17% |
11/11/07 |
|
11/10/07 |
26% |
15% |
11% |
12% |
9% |
11/10/07 |
42% |
20% |
18% |
11/10/07 |
|
11/09/07 |
23% |
16% |
11% |
13% |
9% |
11/09/07 |
44% |
19% |
15% |
11/09/07 |
|
11/08/07 |
23% |
15% |
14% |
12% |
11% |
11/08/07 |
41% |
22% |
15% |
11/08/07 |
|
11/07/07 |
24% |
17% |
12% |
12% |
13% |
11/07/07 |
39% |
21% |
16% |
11/07/07 |
|
11/06/07 |
24% |
16% |
11% |
13% |
14% |
11/06/07 |
40% |
21% |
15% |
11/06/07 |
|
11/05/07 |
23% |
18% |
11% |
15% |
12% |
11/05/07 |
41% |
22% |
13% |
11/05/07 |
|
11/04/07 |
23% |
17% |
11% |
14% |
13% |
11/04/07 |
42% |
21% |
13% |
11/04/07 |
|
11/03/07 |
21% |
17% |
12% |
15% |
12% |
11/03/07 |
43% |
22% |
11% |
11/03/07 |
|
11/02/07 |
23% |
18% |
13% |
13% |
10% |
11/02/07 |
43% |
21% |
11% |
11/02/07 |
|
11/01/07 |
24% |
15% |
14% |
14% |
10% |
11/01/07 |
43% |
20% |
12% |
11/01/07 |
|
10/31/07 |
24% |
16% |
14% |
11% |
12% |
10/31/07 |
41% |
22% |
14% |
10/31/07 |
|
10/30/07 |
24% |
17% |
14% |
12% |
12% |
10/30/07 |
42% |
22% |
14% |
10/30/07 |
|
10/29/07 |
23% |
17% |
12% |
13% |
13% |
10/29/07 |
44% |
21% |
14% |
10/29/07 |
|
10/28/07 |
22% |
19% |
12% |
14% |
13% |
10/28/07 |
44% |
21% |
13% |
10/28/07 |
|
10/27/07 |
21% |
18% |
10% |
15% |
12% |
10/27/07 |
46% |
18% |
13% |
10/27/07 |
|
10/26/07 |
20% |
19% |
11% |
14% |
12% |
10/26/07 |
46% |
18% |
14% |
10/26/07 |
|
10/25/07 |
21% |
19% |
12% |
14% |
10% |
10/25/07 |
47% |
19% |
14% |
10/25/07 |
|
10/24/07 |
22% |
18% |
15% |
14% |
9% |
10/24/07 |
46% |
19% |
15% |
10/24/07 |
|
10/23/07 |
23% |
19% |
15% |
14% |
9% |
10/23/07 |
47% |
22% |
13% |
10/23/07 |
|
10/22/07 |
24% |
19% |
16% |
12% |
8% |
10/22/07 |
49% |
22% |
12% |
10/22/07 |
|
10/21/07 |
24% |
19% |
15% |
11% |
8% |
10/21/07 |
46% |
23% |
13% |
10/21/07 |
|
10/20/07 |
23% |
20% |
14% |
11% |
8% |
10/20/07 |
45% |
24% |
13% |
10/20/07 |
|
10/19/07 |
24% |
21% |
14% |
11% |
8% |
10/19/07 |
43% |
25% |
14% |
10/19/07 |
|
10/18/07 |
25% |
19% |
14% |
11% |
9% |
10/18/07 |
44% |
24% |
11% |
10/18/07 |
|
10/17/07 |
27% |
21% |
14% |
10% |
7% |
10/17/07 |
43% |
24% |
11% |
10/17/07 |
|
10/16/07 |
30% |
21% |
13% |
10% |
7% |
10/16/07 |
44% |
23% |
11% |
10/16/07 |
|
10/15/07 |
29% |
23% |
13% |
9% |
8% |
10/15/07 |
45% |
22% |
11% |
10/15/07 |
|
10/14/07 |
30% |
22% |
14% |
8% |
6% |
10/14/07 |
49% |
22% |
12% |
10/14/07 |
|
10/13/07 |
30% |
18% |
14% |
10% |
7% |
10/13/07 |
47% |
22% |
13% |
10/13/07 |
|
10/12/07 |
28% |
18% |
14% |
10% |
6% |
10/12/07 |
48% |
24% |
12% |
10/12/07 |
|
10/11/07 |
29% |
18% |
15% |
10% |
6% |
10/11/07 |
45% |
24% |
12% |
10/11/07 |
|
10/10/07 |
27% |
17% |
16% |
11% |
6% |
10/10/07 |
42% |
25% |
13% |
10/10/07 |
|
10/09/07 |
26% |
21% |
15% |
9% |
6% |
10/09/07 |
42% |
26% |
12% |
10/09/07 |
|
10/08/07 |
25% |
23% |
14% |
9% |
6% |
10/08/07 |
42% |
26% |
12% |
10/08/07 |
|
10/07/07 |
23% |
24% |
14% |
9% |
5% |
10/07/07 |
40% |
29% |
12% |
10/07/07 |
|
10/06/07 |
21% |
22% |
15% |
10% |
5% |
10/06/07 |
41% |
28% |
11% |
10/06/07 |
|
10/05/07 |
19% |
21% |
16% |
11% |
4% |
10/05/07 |
42% |
27% |
12% |
10/05/07 |
|
10/04/07 |
20% |
22% |
17% |
11% |
5% |
10/04/07 |
43% |
26% |
13% |
10/04/07 |
|
10/03/07 |
23% |
22% |
14% |
12% |
5% |
10/03/07 |
44% |
23% |
15% |
10/03/07 |
|
10/02/07 |
22% |
24% |
14% |
12% |
5% |
10/02/07 |
45% |
22% |
14% |
10/02/07 |
|
10/01/07 |
23% |
25% |
13% |
10% |
6% |
10/01/07 |
44% |
22% |
15% |
10/01/07 |
So it does come down to two things: (1) the viability of the candidate, which only Mitt Romney has demonstrated among the socially conservative candidates, and (2) whether social conservatives will have the courage to rally around the only viable social conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani. A divided field means that Giuliani is likely to win the nomination. This is our choice to make, and we don't have long to make it.
LOL! Yes, I heard Glenn talking about it on his radio program the next day. He joked that the interview was "almost erotic", he loved Mitt's answers that much. Beck was a Giuliani supporter initially, but has switched his support to Romney.
Please provide your evidence for this. I have provided (above, previous posting) the Rasmussan poll which shows Mitt in a dead-even 4 way tie. Most other polls show the same.
My interpretation of this is: "despite and early entry into the race, being the Governor of a liberal North Eastern state with many media figures and outlets familiar with his name and record, and despite raising and spending many millions of dollars Mitt has failed to catch on with the grass roots and is barely in double digits. Fred Thompson and Gov. Huckabee have equaled his support despite a far less compliant media and spending far less money."
Hewitt reminds me, in his approach, of the antrogenic global warming advocates. "The debate is over. Scientists have weighed in" are their key claims. When you point out that there are lots of scientists disagreeing, in journals, with key parts of Gore's theory they dissemble and launch into personal attacks.
The Romney boosters keep saying "it's a two man race". They have been saying it for a long time, hoping to make it true. But the polls just don't support that interpretation NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES IT IS CLAIMED.
When challenged, little is offered in defense of their outlandish claim.
What you say makes sense in theory. In the real world, though, we have ideological opponents. They will not allow us to push forward our agenda in large chunks, even though many of us demand that.
In other words, either progress on these issues is incremental, or it’s impossible. I’ll take the baby steps, thank you. I posit that the reason we’re losing in places like CA is because the liberals are better at the baby steps than we are.
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.