Posted on 11/22/2008 11:56:31 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
They’re asking whether various candidates should run, not who the nominee should be, but it’s a fair proxy for enthusiasm. 67 percent say yes to the ‘Cuda, 62 to Romney, 61 to Huck. No one else cracks 50. Among conservative Republicans, it’s Palin 73, Huck 65, Mitt 64; among moderates and liberals, Mitt 59, Palin 48, Huck 46. Based on those numbers, it’s actually Romney who’s best positioned to unite the party.
The more I think about it, the more skeptical I am that all three will run. Even I’m not pessimistic enough to believe the recession will last until 2012, which means The One will inevitably be credited with having succeeded in his chief task by the time his term ends. Huckabee will run anyway because he’s hot to remake the party in his image, but Romney doesn’t strike me as eager for another expensive primary war just to be a sacrificial lamb in the general. My hunch is he’ll run only if Obama looks vulnerable and, even then, only if there are enough social cons running to split the base among them so that his strength with moderates is magnified. (It worked for McCain this year, didn’t it?) If he doesn’t run, I assume Pawlenty will throw in and try to capture those moderates with his “Sam’s Club” rhetoric. He won’t win, but he desperately needs a higher profile if he’s going to make a serious run in the future. (It worked for Huckabee this year, didn’t it?)
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I thought God decided what a sin was?
If Nonetheless, if I am not mistaken....a mormon can go on their mission from the age of 19 to 27.....
Seems you have 8 years to do it.
So it appears like Mr. Romney could have fulfilled both his church mission and his country's "mission" if he wanted to do so....
Correct me if I am wrong........
Until you brought up that attack on Ms.McCain I had not
even thought that Romney was behind that, too, but
now I am not sure. Perhaps Team Romney is behind most
of the attacks on the GOP, as ROmney fancies himself
as a janus-faced savior/backstabber.
And for you to say one has to ‘go back to 70’s’
for bad behavior in pathologic Mitt Romney is frankly
so far from reality that you should get some help.
You are clearly the dumbest person I think I have ever known. Seriously you are a sick individual. I said no such thing you stupid twit. I said the media had to go back to the 70’s to find this information...your the worst person in the world. Go back to DU you creep.
How many presidents have been Rhodes scholars? Bill Clinton is the only one that I know of. So much for that argument.
I agree with the historian Jacques Barzun that "the greatest danger to a democratic state is probably the contamination of its politics by Intellect." France is a good example of what happens when intellectuals take over most of the functions of government. No thank you.
Romney COULD have followed the MASS Constitution.
Romney COULD have nominated conservative judges.
Romney COULD have not released murderers they told him not to.
Romney COULD have not installed fascist HillaryCARE=RomneyCARE.
Romney COULD have not pretended to be a conservative.
Romney COULD not lied about MLK, NRA, etc. etc.
Romney COULD have told his Legions to 'lay off' Gov.Palin and her children.
Romney COULD ordered his minions to obey the law.
would you have supported him?
Where are all these moderates coming from.
I guess with Mitt 08 campaign layoffs you guys have more time...
but Jindal (or Sanford for that matter) are not just intellectuals. They are conservative intellectuals with executive and legislative experience.
You have to have what it takes if you want to reform medicaid, for example. You won’t be able to balance the federal budget merely by vetoing pork or raising taxes on oil companies.
IMO....a higher education doesn't mean you have smarts. Doesn't mean you are wise.
Doesn't mean you can communicate.
Doesn't mean you are truthful.
I've known plenty of people with advanced degree's including MD's, DO's, and PHD's that were dangerous idiots.
So...the long and the short of it is this....your theory doesn't mean squat to me.
Seems the Mittwitts will be our cross to bear at least for a while longer. I am just prayerful Mitt is smarter than they are.
You don't need to be an Intellectual to be a conservative. In fact most Intellectuals are left-wingers. Nor do you need to be an Intellectual to think or have common sense. Most Intellectuals have little common sense. If Jindal has governing experience and common sense, it wouldn't be because he was a Rhodes scholar.
What kink of scholar was Ronald Reagan? He was not a scholar. He was a politician who governed with conservative principles. And he stayed in the fight for many years until he became president.
If Jindal wants to be president, let him throw his hat into the ring. And hopefully he will forget all the nonsense he learned as a Rhodes scholar.
There, fixed it for accuracy, a free service I often find I have to provide to Mitt supporters...
a higher education is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Yes. The alternatives were atrocious.
Reagan didn’t just govern with conservative principles. He developed a coherent conservative worldview. He didn’t just spout talking points.
ROFLOL!! We disagree..........and I could give you hundreds of examples. But I see your stuck in that worn wagon track......
No biggie.....we disagree. So be it!
ok Reagan vs Romney.
Now you are being unfair....lol.
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.