Replies

Everyone needs some time on this.

There is an inclination of people to want to fight because conflict is more interesting than agreement and cheer leading, but I hope folks don’t instantly adopt an attitude from a fight while spirits are so high from bad news.

Romney is the smartest guy in the room. We all know it. There is enormous value to that in an environment where the other party has the majority. He is probably one of the most brilliant financial minds of the past 100 years, and there is enormous value to that, too. The lack of evidence of fervor for the most right wing or ideology is trumped by the combination of his brilliance and the fact he is rightward of the Democrats.

McCain is not a traitor. People are going way overboard in their rhetoric. His inescapable problem is he cannot be rewarded for the contempt he showed for conservatism last year. If he were to be rewarded for that it would profoundly dishonor last year’s outpouring of activism and rage by conservatism. It is THAT which is a wall that cannot be passed. It was a choice he made, consciously, and with clear intention to abuse the GOP base. He can’t be rewarded for it. He’s out.

Huckabee does not play in Romney’s intellectual league. He brings nothing to the table at all beyond dislike of Bush’s efforts to defend the country and a penchant for funding “art classes” for children of illegal aliens.

Guilliani is overtly pro Choice. He is neck deep in personal scandals. The country hasn’t been thoroughly educated on them because he has not warranted the attack. He would if he were the nominee. It’s pointless to support an overtly pro Choice nominee with obvious dirt in his background.

Owen, your post is the most intelligent one on the thread. I am deeply saddened that it did not work out for Fred. But we do need to move forward and help save our Republic. Romney has flaws but perhaps far less than the others. McCain MUST not be rewarded, and you are right about Giuliani's serious weaknesses. Huckabee, well, what needs to be said??

So Mitt is probably my guy now. I appreciate some things about him and I will try to find more. Sigh.

You said that Huckabee has a penchant for funding “art classes” for children of illegal aliens.

We have that too here in L.A. We call it road signs and walls.

Excellent post OWEN!

Just remember the new SLOGAN:

“ROMNEY IS THE NEW REAGAN”

He’s got so many attributes of Reagan, it’s uncanny. For those complaining about his changing from Prochoice to Pro-Life, Reagan also did that, yet he became President.

He’s articulate, if not moreso, than Reagan.

And he doesn’t come across as someone the democrats could allege is not bright. Recall how they often would try to paint Reagan as a dunce who listened to Nancy’s astrology.

This won’t work against Romney. He’s sharp as a tack.

He also has a classy way of debating - always takes the high road with a smile, while McCain seems passive-aggressive & moody. McCain’s “poor me, I’m a victim of attack ads” playbook is so obviously emotionally manipulative.

From a very superficial standpoint, ROMNEY is a good-looking robustly vital and energetic specimen who would be a wonderful representation of our country compared to the pathetic Texas-hick style of Bush or Huckabush.

Romney is so Reaganesque in that respect and I look forward to seeing pictures of a man of his stature and intellect negotiating with that dishonest, slimy punk called Putin. What a contrast of two countries!

A lot of women vote for the most handsome, dashing, strong candidate. Romney is a standout in that regard, so he’ll get a lot of women voting for him who are not strongly prochoice. (I’m a guy and I’m pro-choice, but I’m voting for Romney).

And Romney is just the one to defeat Mocha Obama!

Can anyone here cite what they believe to be Mocha Obama’s weaknesses aside from the fact that he’s an empty suit who gives vague loft rambling platitudinous speeches that have no substance.

As a start, here is Karl Rove’s editorial in the WSJ on 1/10/08:

-—”Former President Bill Clinton hit a nerve by drawing attention to Mr. Obama’s conflicting statements on Iraq. There’s more — and more powerful — material available. Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting “present” on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.
For someone who talks about a new, positive style of politics and pledges to be true to his word, Mr. Obama too often practices the old style of politics, saying one thing and doing another. He won’t escape criticism on all this easily. But the messenger and the message need to be better before the Clintons can get all this across. Hitting Mr. Obama on his elementary school essays won’t cut it.”