Posted on 01/23/2011 2:36:34 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, said Mr. Kimball’s win was evidence that the Tea Party and similar groups were pushing the state’s Republican Party to the right. Mr. Hemingway’s group helped a large number of conservatives, including many with Tea Party support, win election to the state legislature in the fall.
“I don’t think it’s fair to say that New Hampshire is a moderate state, and I think this proves it,” Mr. Hemingway said. “There are new people voting, and they have a conservative outlook.”
Others said that the vote was not a sure sign of a changing Republican electorate. Republican primary voters here chose John McCain in 2008, and Barack Obama won the state decisively in the general election, with help from its many independents……
In backing Ms. Bergeron for Republican leader, Mr. Sununu seemed to be sending the message that Mr. Kimball, a self-described “warrior” who has said he would not tolerate deviation from the party platform, would threaten party unity at a crucial time. In a strongly worded speech to state committee members before the vote, Mr. Sununu said that he was worried about divisions within the party and warned that its leaders must not alienate more moderate members, independents — who make up about 40 percent of the state’s voters — or even Democrats.
“We don’t want to be seen as a party that’s a sliver of a party,” he said. “We want to be seen as a party that welcomes all views.”
…Sununu also urged the roughly 425 members in attendance not to alienate any Republican presidential candidates leading into the 2012 primary, saying it was imperative for New Hampshire to provide a “comfortable environment” for all…..“The worst thing for the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation primary is for people…..
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Coming in a distant second was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, with 11 percent. Paul took 8 percent in the 2008 GOP primary.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is spending the early part of next week in the Granite State, came in third with 8 percent.
In fourth place was ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has yet to visit the first-in-the-nation-primary state, with 7 percent.
This is by no means a scientific sample, but it was a good early canvass of the sentiments of the state's most active Republican voters.
The "straw poll" was open only to the 426 registered members of the Republican committee, and 65 percent of those commitee members participated. [End Excerpt]
“The “straw poll” was open only to the 426 registered members of the Republican committee, and 65 percent of those commitee members participated. [End Excerpt]”
In other words, Romney supporters.
But Romney’s limited and unscientific poll win is a headliner at ABC and on Drudge.
These guys were already organized before any Gasparino guy went on air demanding a tea party in Chicago.
The RLC guys mentioned here are/were freepers who were part of the porcupine movement, better known as the FreeStateProject ... and the Republican Liberty Caucus, both movements have been around quite a number of years.
For lots of fun check out the http://freekeene.com/ blog...
>> But Romney’s limited and unscientific poll win is a headliner at ABC and on Drudge.
To any length to keep Palin out. They’re target is the Primaries. It’s not about the General, but the Primaries.
From a practical political point of view, ie getting your team elected, "moving to the right" seems to be the right decision.
But what does "moving to the right" mean? Moving to a more common sense position, that the government ought to be limited to it's core competencies? Is that "moving to the right"? Is demanding common sense fiscal policies from government, ie stop spending us into bankruptcy; "moving to the right"?
As a newspaper of the Left, Mr. New York Times, what exactly are the policies of the Left?
It's been a long time since I've seen a self-contradictory statement so artfully crafted.
If Romney's the answer, the question must be really, really stupid aimed at a bunch of really, really stupid simpletons.
Proven-Failure-as-Governor Mitt Romney should be NOWHERE near the US Government.
"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]
Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.
Romney figured all Americans could make money the same two ways he did; 1) inherit it, and 2)invest in businesses other people start, largely with other people’s money.
John Connolly ran in 1980, not 1968.
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.