I had a simular list... except Mitt was much futher down below Huckabee...
Posted on 01/30/2008 3:17:10 PM PST by jdm
The United States of America's next president won't be its first president of Italian ancestry (as Rudy Giuliani hopes), because the Republicans won't nominate a person who does not share the Republicans' traditional pro-life, pro-personal morality values; or the first former prisoner-of-war (as John McCain still yearns), because now he's too old for the grueling job and previously he was too inclined to break with most Republicans and join with Democrats (McCain-Feingold, Kennedy-McCain, Gang of Fourteen); or the first Baptist minister (as Mike Huckabee prays), because he's not up to the job, he's not the best choice and one president born in Hope, Arkansas was one too many.
But there WILL be big change.
The next president will be the first female president, or the first half-black president (Barack's mother was white and ignoring that is...not right), or the first Mormon president.
Much of the media really would prefer Obama versus McCain, and have been broadcasting, reporting and editorializing accordingly, but the politically adept Clintons will do whatever it takes to win the Democrat nomination.
Nevertheless, in the end, enough Republicans will refuse to succumb to religious bigotry and reject a monogamous Mormon who shares their basic values for a man who divorced his first wife and married a rich, much younger divorcee whose family could support his political ambitions.
Wikipedia: "In 1979, while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor and wife Marguerite Smith. By now it was clear that McCain's naval career was stalled; he would never be promoted to admiral as his grandfather and father had been. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife Carol in Florida on April 2, 1980; he gave her a generous settlement, including houses in Virginia and Florida and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments, and they would remain on good terms. McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 in Phoenix, Arizona, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart as best man and groomsman. McCain's children were very upset with him and did not attend the wedding, but after several years they reconciled with him and Cindy."
"Living in Phoenix, McCain went to work for his new father-in-law Jim Hensley's large Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship as Vice President of Public Relations, where he gained political support among the local business community, meeting powerful figures such as banker Charles Keating, Jr. ..., all the while looking for an electoral opportunity."
No surprise that the divorced McCain paid tribute to the twice-divorced Giuliani during the Republicans' Florida debate!
It will be Hill v. Mitt, and then Mitt, even though the Clintons will place the Mormon card.
Make no mistake: Team Clinton will not be stopped by a young son of a black man and a white woman who started running for President a year after becoming a rookie Senator and speaks of hope and change without particulars.
Barack Obama's wife Michelle, young and naive herself, admitted that her husband is too inexperienced and naive to be President.
Michelle (in a fundraising appeal to supporters): "We knew getting into this race that Barack would be competing with Senator Clinton and President Clinton at the same time. What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record."
Weren't the Obamas paying attention during the Clinton Administration?
The United States surely needs a competent and realistic president, like Mitt.
The media has generated excitement, but it has not and will not succeed in blocking a Mitt v. Hill final.
In February 2007, in an article titled "In 2008, Hill versus Mitt Should Be It," I wrote:
"The top two questions are (1) who will be the Democrat nominee and (2) who will be the Republican nominee.
The answers (as of now): (1) Hillary and (2) Mitt Romney."
"After the Democrats successfully nominated Franklin Delano Roosevelt for president four times, the United States Constitution was amended to impose a two-term limit.
"The Clintons figured out the best way around that was to team up and each serve two terms. As they declared in 2000, they are a two-for-one package."
"The 2008 Democrat presidential nomination is Hillary's to lose and she's not likely to do so.
"Barack Hussein Obama is the current media darling, but the rookie Senator from Illinois is no Abraham Lincoln and not presidential timber."
"Of the top-tier Republican presidential aspirants--Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney--Mitt Romney is the best viable alternative."
"Senator McCain has been pro-life, but he had his chance in 2000 and he has not matched the political skills of Mitt Romney in enacting a viable universal health-care program in Massachusetts."
"Who better to oppose Hill: Mitt Romney, 59, a Brigham Young valedictorian who earned his B.A. summa cum laude and then graduated from a joint JD/MBA program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, was named a Baker Scholar and graduated cum laude from the law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class, or John McCain, 70, who graduated fifth from the bottom of his United States Naval Academy class and isn't getting younger?"
In May 2007, in "Still Hill v. Mitt, Others Slow to Quit," I noted:
"This year's first Democrat presidential debate helped Hillary Clinton secure her stranglehold on the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination. Her Far Left "primary" competitors--a rookie United States Senator who would do better running for rock star (Barack Obama) and a one-term Senator whose home state went Republican when he was his party's vice presidential candidate in 2004--allow her to position herself for the general election by seeming mature and moderate."
"This year's first Republican presidential debate allowed Mitt Romney to be presidential while his chief rivals--John McCain and Rudy Giuliani--were trying too hard, respectively, to be young and energetic enough for the job and to be content whether Roe v. Wade is overruled or reaffirmed."
"Rudy said during the second debate that 'Rudy McRomney' would be a good candidate."
"But Mitt is the only one of the three without a big flaw."
"What is especially noteworthy is that viewers called the debate for Mitt, while knowledgeable observers tended to put too much emphasize on Rudy's moment (courtesy of Congressman Ron Paul) and too little of Mitt's thoughtful responses and consistent (and reassuring) presidential demeanor."
The Republicans' Florida debate demonstrated that the strong winner, Mitt Romney, has developed Mittmentum and is on course to election in November, despite the Clintons and some religious bigotry.
I had a simular list... except Mitt was much futher down below Huckabee...
If I were to choose, I'd weigh whether barely graduating from an academey versus building a successful business as qualities imperative in a president.
Both favor our success in Iraq. Either will face the Dem's charges of quagmire and bear said millstone in every debate with Hillary (I left Obama out 'cause he's grist for 2016).
Sadly, when our country neglects liberty here at home we are engaged in instutiting democracy overseas to such an extent that this election will hinge on foreign policy at the expense of domestic tranquility.
Without a war, what can McCain offer? I love war as much as anyone, don't get me wrong. But who might we turn to in time of peace? Suppose the Jihadi wakes up one morning (with a nuke hanging over his head) and decides to embrace the infidel. What or who, then? Warboy or Businessboy?
As a countryboy, I care about this place. My ideal candidate would be all of these, but given the limits, I may have no choice but to support my country's constitution- with some reservation toward goldstandardboy.
Euro milage may vary.
What about his second wife? McCain cheated on her with his current wife. The media will be able to make Hillary look like a paragon of family values next to McCain.
Well, I was a hunter supporter and he endorsed Huckabee, and I would NEVER vote for him, so maybe you are right.
>Mormons who will vote for Romney simply because he’s a Mormon are as much bigots as people that will not vote for a Mormon no matter what.
You confuse bigotry with discrimination or preference. Bigotry is intolerance. It’s a negative. Discrimination can cut either way (pro or con).
You are not a racist bigot if you prefer someone’s because of his race. You discriminate. And you MAY be prejudiced (if your preference is unfounded). But you aren’t a bigot. You ARE a racist bigot if you will not deal with someone of a certain race. You are intolerant of that race.
If more Catholics lean towards a Catholic, they are not religious bigots. They discriminate. They may be prejudiced. They are not bigots.
If that same Catholic refuses to vote for a Baptist because of his religion, he is, by definition, a religious bigot.
That’s the fact. Just because a person doesn’t like a word which describes him does not change the meaning of the word.
I’m not so sure on Obama’s inability to win. I really think that he could be the next RFK of the Demos.
>McCain did what a good number of men do...dump their long time wives’ for a younger woman...
Sick. Zero character.
Clinton did what a good number of men do. Cheat on their wives to get some action from a young lady.
???
Don’t think so. And even if it’s true, it’s rational to refuse to support someone due to their lack of character.
His past mistakes make no difference to me. None. That isn't how I choose my candidate, and I don't have the expectation for a perfect, flawless candidate.
It's just interesting how both the ENEMEDIA and many conservatives blasted Rudy every chance they got, yet I didn't read until YESTERDAY about McCain's indiscretion. Mitt and Huckabee's religion has been criticized and dissected, and yet Obama's church is the one that should be a major concern to American voters! The double standard doesn't surprise me in the least, I just think it should be exposed.
The ENEMEDIA wants McCain as the Republican nominee, and enough apathetic voters have been willing to assist them.
Are you thinking that Fred would endorse McCain because they were friends? Or because Fred did initially sign the McCain/Feingold legislation? It is my understanding that once Fred was in the race he answered that concern. He said the legislation was to his liking so he supported it. But it was a mistake because things were added to the legislation that he did not agree with. I do believe that although Fred and McCain were friends, that Romney’s stands on most issues is in line with Fred’s. The amnesty issue being the main one. I could be wrong, but still believe with those who are left, that Fred would endorse Romney if he endorses anyone. Looks like he will not endorse and will just support the nominee in the end.
Thats not my point. My point is that we do live in a representative republic. I am tired of the party eating itself alive. I dislike all of the choices, but that is the fault of the party—and thus ourselves.
Once the choice is made by the voters, following the rules we’ve set for ourselves, we need to close ranks and come together. And, quite frankly, the sooner the better.
The next thing we need to do is start growing our own successors. The current crop is weak, thin, and uninspired.
We need to stop looking for another Reagan. The Dems no longer look for FDR, and haven’t since 1960. Its been twenty years since Bush 1. Lets get into the 21st century before its too late.
Many more republicans do base part of their choice on presence or absence of scandal. For Democrats scandal is a resume enhancement. For many Republicans it is indication of character flaws and untrustworthiness.
It doesn’t matter how popular Obama is or how many people vote for him in the primaries. The Clintons will be the nominee.
I’m thinking that Thompson won’t endorse anyone. The reason he got into the race is that he didn’t think these guys would be good presidents...so why would he endorse one of them now?
I could be totally off — obviously I don’t know Fred Thompson and can’t predict what he may or may not do. But I think if he thought Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc., would be good presidents, he would have endorsed them already. The fact that he hasn’t so far is very telling, IMO.
You’re right. The media hasn’t touted McCain’s indiscretion this time ‘round yet. But it has been discussed when he ran before, though never to the extent Rudy’s personal mistakes were.
John McCain has been married twice, and to his current and second wife since 1980.
It would appear independents and Liberal Democrats are picking the Republican nominee, unforutnately and unwittingly with the help of some conservatives and Republicans.
Heh ... now that is pretty funny.
You’re right. Somewhere I read that Cindy was his third wife, but she’s his second. He started dating her before asking his first wife for a divorce, so that innoculates Hillary against charges about her personal life, and will likely turn off a lot of the moderate women’s vote, once it’s widely known.
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.