Flip Romney, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Huck Huckabee.... Republican Party shame. Any one of these wins the nomination and the party will begin long dark days until conservatives again control the party. U.S. Army Retired |
Posted on 12/31/2007 6:48:34 AM PST by Reaganesque
COLUMBUS JUNCTION, Iowa -- Down more than 10 points in the polls here only weeks ago, Mitt Romney appears to be surging back days before Iowans head to their caucuses.
Two polls released over the weekend showed Romney ahead of rival Mike Huckabee by several points, while another survey out Sunday has Romney in a statistical tie with the former Arkansas governor.
That's a far cry from early November, when a surging Huckabee took the front-runner mantle from Romney and never looked back. While Iowa's caucuses -- the first test of the presidential contest - are difficult to poll given only a small percentage of the state actually turns out for the caucus meetings, the polls may indicate a change in attitudes in Iowa.
A spokesman for Romney said polling really is all over the map.
"We're still running like the underdog," traveling press secretary Eric Fehrnstrom said, "although the sense is the people of Iowa are responding to Mitt Romney's message that he is the candidate who can bring real change to Washington and fix what's broken."
A new McClatchy, MSNBC and Mason-Dixon poll out Sunday has Romney leading Huckabee 27 percent to 23 percent, while an American Research poll from Saturday shows Romney leading Huckabee by 9 points, 32 percent to 23 percent. Meanwhile, a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby International survey of likely caucus-goers finds Romney and Huckabee in a statistical tie.
Huckabee's emergence as a front-runner was followed by intense media scrutiny while Romney had already faced that earlier this year, a point that could have lead to Huckabee's quick rise and plateau in the polls.
Huckabee on Sunday went on NBC's "Meet the Press" to counter criticism that he doesn't have enough foreign policy experience after a series of gaffes on the campaign trail. He ticked off a demographic-filled list about Pakistan when quizzed about a misstep, but spent several moments slamming back at Romney for his critical advertisements.
Huckabee said Romney was running a "desperate and dishonest campaign."
"If you aren't being honest in obtaining the job, can we trust you to be honest when you get the job," Huckabee said.
Romney's national spokesman, Kevin Madden, responded to Huckabee's attack noting that the rival candidate "never refutes the facts of his troubling record."
"It's a record that is tough to defend, so his testiness and irritability when being questioned about it is obvious," Madden said.
"But Mike Huckabee's lashing out with personal attacks against Governor Romney that have no merit or substance is quite unfortunate. Campaigns should be about the issues."
I am saying in your big, long post, with your big colorful flyer, you are focusing on irrelevant minutiae. He was also endorsed by numerous pro-life and pro-family groups as well. The more important thing is what he actually DID to further pro-family causes (see letter above) which in no way advanced the homosexual agenda --- if that is what you were trying to imply.
Mitt has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Mitt testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson oppose the FMA.
Institute For Marriage and Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician." (Maggie Gallagher, "In Defense Of The Family," National Review Online, 6/25/2004)
Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary." ("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senators, 6/02/2006)
Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here." "This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad."
You are getting hung up on irrelevant things from 8 and 14 years ago while ignoring the real experience and insight Romney gained by fighting the liberals in Massachusetts and promoting conservative values the whole way. He was not the same person before and after his governship. It's clear he learned a lot about judicial abuses and the liberal agenda. If anything, he is now the most prepared to battle the dems in Washington having survived the battles in the bluest state.
Great point!
Also, did you notice that more it looks like Mitt Romney will win a victory in Iowa and New Hampshire, the more spastoidical the RDS crowd (Romney Deranged Syndrome) becomes.
I don’t know how much of a surge it really is - you have perhaps the best polling outfit, Mason Dixon, saying Mitt is ahead 4%, which is good for Mitt, then you have another that has him still tied with Huckabee. The 9% ahead shouldn’t be trusted because it’s ARG, where I suspect those with name recognition are greatly over-represented (for example, it has Giuliani surging despite no presence other than a mailer or two).
Mitt Romney is going to win..... and then Huckababy can go lick his self inflicted wounds.
That isn't apparent to me, because I expect that Huckabee's drop is due to all the dirt on him coming out, not necessarilly folks taking a more favorable view of Mitt than they ever had.
Be that as it may..
I personally will NEVER vote for a liberal republican. I would rather sit home and watch the democrats win. Everyone on the ticket is liberal except for Fred and Duncan.
I’ll find another party that has conservative values.
Just a man without a party to support.
The REPUBLICAN PARTY is dead meat if it nominates anything other than a true conservative. Fred and Duncan are the only ones that meet the standard.
There are thousands that feel as I do. If we can’t vote conservative then screw it... let the republican party die and be buried.
Mitt is pro-life, for smaller government, anti-illegal immigrants, pro-business-growth,
has top level education,for strong defense, can spend his own money running
against Hillary, looks good on TV, and is quick witted on the stump.
Best of all he is the only one with ONE WIFE for 40 Years!
He LIVES AND PRACTICES A MORAL LIFE.
Mitt is good enough for me. I am not looking for any “pure” candidates.
President Reagan was the most conservative president in 60 years and government spending tripled during his 8 years and over million abortions took place during his reign.
I don’t think Romney will do any worse.
The last true conservative we nominated was Barry Goldwater.
I think he won only 5 or 6 states.
Flip-Flop = change one way and then change back.
If you change only once it is a flip, not a flip-flop.
That is how I interpret flip-flop and I did very well
in grammar.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how any “Conservative” could ever vote for either Huckabee or Romney.
yep.!
I was a Tancredo supporter. Fred is the best choice now. I like Hunter as well.
The rest of the candidates will get savaged by the media when running against Hillary.
Rudy: will get slammed for his personal relations and his huge differences with the party’s platform.
Romney: will get slammed as a flip flopper (he does a nice speech ... he was a stinker in the debates though ... Hillary will abuse him in a debate).
Huckabee: will get slammed on his record in Arkansas ... and his flip flopping on certain issues ... and his flippant attitude on many issues (i.e. yeah whatever, I’ll figure it out attitude).
McCain: media will turn on him ... he’ll get hit on his differences with the base ... will be called a war monger ... and media will revive the Keeting Five stories.
Hunter: no chance of winning.
Paul: no chance of winning.
Who do you think the centrist voters will go for if
the nominees are Hillary and Romney? That is the biggest
voting block and the most important. President Reagan received
the most centrist votes since 1960, which is why he won in
landslides. he even got some democrats to vote for him.
OTOH Barry Goldwater, who was much more conservative than Reagan
lost in a landslide.
You missed the entire point of the Log Cabin Republican Endorsement.
Oh no, I assure you, I see where you are coming from....and the point is not lost at all.
Would you all care to make a prediction as to the percentage of caucus votes that Romney will get come the close of the caucus process on Thursday night?
I'm sure he has a statewide organization in place and workers at the ready to get caucus goers out to the locations. The long range weather forecast for caucus night shows it to be below freezing but no snow/sleet so weather shouldn't be a factor impacting turnout.
Good luck to your candidate......
So we may eventually have 2 choices: National Health care with the Dems or maybe look at the plan that Romney put in place in MA, where “everyone” pays for health insurance not just the taxpayers!
| Flip Romney, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Huck Huckabee.... Republican Party shame. Any one of these wins the nomination and the party will begin long dark days until conservatives again control the party. U.S. Army Retired |
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.