Posted on 01/17/2008 9:55:52 AM PST by Reaganesque
GOP also caucusing on Saturday
You might not know it, but there's also a Republican caucus in Nevada on Saturday.
While the Democratic candidates have been showering attention on the Silver State in order to sway voters in preparation for their Saturday event, Republican hopefuls have been largely absent, preferring to campaign in Michigan and South Carolina.
Thus the GOP caucus here hasn't garnered nearly the attention of the Democratic one.
As it stands now, there is no clear Republican front-runner nationally. Mike Huckabee won Iowa, John McCain took New Hampshire and Mitt Romney picked up Michigan. The race in South Carolina looks to be close. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is banking that he'll grab a big win in Florida and gain momentum for Super Tuesday, when 22 states will hold primaries.
The fight for the nomination "is going to be like the Bataan Death March," said Ron Kaufman, a top adviser to Mr. Romney.
Well then, perhaps even little old Nevada could provide a slight boost for the winning GOP candidate.
Republicans haven't had much national electoral success of late, and for that they have only themselves to blame. In the 14 years since the Gingrich revolution, too many Republicans have embraced the beltway culture and abandoned the very principles upon which their success with voters depended -- smaller government, low taxes, free markets and personal liberty.
Nevada Republicans on Saturday should examine their choices through precisely such a filter. Each GOP candidate can make -- and has made -- a reasonable case that he's best suited to ensure the party again embraces the ideas and concepts that made this nation a beacon of freedom and economic opportunity. But in our opinion, the viable candidate most likely to lead Republicans in such a direction is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney's economic agenda includes several pro-growth policies, including a plan to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends for any household earning less than $200,000 a year. He backs a line-item veto, favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent and understands that imposing higher taxes as a means of fixing Social Security will only make the problem worse.
He's supportive of free trade, rejects protectionism, backs tort reform, supports school choice and accountability, and while governor was even able to successfully push a handful of spending reforms through Massachusetts' overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Mr. Romney vows to exercise his veto power if Congress doesn't embrace spending restraint and understands the drag that excessive federal regulation imposes on the innovation and the economy.
Mr. Romney did push a measure to ensure universal health insurance in Massachusetts, but says as president he'd offer incentives for states to experiment with their own solutions, rather than embrace a top-down, national single-payer system. He also understands that a sensible energy policy will require developing more of America's domestic resources.
Mr. Romney has extensive experience in the private sector, which is unusual for far too many politicians. Before becoming governor of Massachusetts, he was the president and CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee. He is a former vice president and CEO of Bain & Company Inc., a Boston management consulting firm, and also a founder of Bain Capital, a private equity firm.
In a speech earlier this month to the Economic Club of Detroit, Mr. Romney articulated a concise understanding of what made this country great.
"The 20th century saw two economic systems pitted against each other," he said. "Ours, built on free enterprise and the primacy of the consumer. The Soviets', built on government command and control, and the primacy of the state.
"Ours produced the most powerful economy in the world that has given its citizens a standard of living our grandparents never dreamed possible; theirs produced a downward spiraling standard of living and eventual collapse.
"The 20th century history lesson is that America's economy is strong because we put our trust in the American people, and in the free enterprises they create."
We urge Nevada Republicans on Saturday to support Mitt Romney.
While I am leaning Romney, it’s not because I have a lot of enthusiasm for him. I don’t blame other FReerpers for expressing frustration with our poor choices this year. And if McVain chances on the nom—I’ll be deranged enough to vote for somebody else. Anybody else.
McCain has been in the Senate too long. He has had his perceptions molded into believing “principle” is being willing to compromise with “other Americans who feel differently”. He is far to ready to do so, and this also derives from being in the Senate too long where he has had pounded into his head the concept that government always has to do something. He, like anyone, doesn’t want to spend his days being pointless so he thinks pursuit of legislation is something that always needs to be taking place.
This is not Conservative. Conservatism is a desire for slow, sometimes stodgy change. Versus Liberalism which is a desire for fast, sometimes reckless change.
Well, very little change . . . very little legislation . . . is just fine for conservatives. McCain has been too long in the Senate to embrace that concept.
I actually have been disappointed to hear so very many program proposals from the candidates. That IS how one campaigns, but it would be nice to hear one or two say . . . stay the course on this or stay the course on that.
Given what we have, I decided several months ago that uber competence is going to trump everything else. Romney is best qualified to deal with the economy now approaching.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1954819/posts?page=466#466
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1954819/posts?page=338#338
I was think todaying that Mitt’s action in Mass on healthcare may have saved the country from a democrat socialized federal government solution.
Mass would have passed something far worse if he hadn’t tackled it and it would have set off a dangerous precident.
Just a thought.
thinking today (smacking self!)
“Too true. Perhaps every month we could have a national call-in to vote a candidate out of the race?”
It would be worth it to vote Proamnesty-antiBushtaxcuts-proCO2caps-CFR-RINO John McCain off the Island.
“There are a handful of Romney Derangement Syndrome types around FR. They can be safely ignored. It is useful to remember that in 2000 there was a similar number of Bush Haters who demanded Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes. They soon disappeared.”
Actually one of the resident Mitt-bashers is *still* for Alan Keyes.
And FRed will hold 4th place in South Caroline.
I guess there’s no medal for 4th, huh?
Don’t be too confident. Basically, it’s McCain v. Huckabee for first, and Romney v. Thompson for third. Thompson could very well edge Romney out. I don’t think it would matter much to either campaign, though.
The more important question is: what in the world has happened to South Carolina? Didn’t it used to be a conservative state?
If Romney wins this nomination, he will be the first in who know how long to do so without winning NH, IA, or SC. It will be an historic accomplishment, and will forever diminish the political influence of those three states. It will have been demonstrated that there’s a viable strategy -in spite- of them.
I’m sticking with my prediction.
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.