Talking Heads--START Making Sense (Romney liked by Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Medved, Beck, Hewitt, Kondracke, etc . . .)
By jjfuller72 Comments (58) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Apologies to those not versed in 1980's alternative Rock music for the title. Essentially, this post is inspired by the recent praise and positive prognostication Romney's received from political pundits. Some almost seem like endorsements, some just predictions; but all may be helping Romney rise to near "frontrunner" status and will help to increase his still poor name recognition among the general populus. I'll put these down somewhat in order of influence on helping Romney secure the GOP nomination.
#1 Rush Limbaugh:
Jason Branham at South Carolinians for Romney reported that he heard an interesting exchange on Rush's radio show last week:
In other news, I know Rush Limbaugh has almost completely withheld commentary on the ‘08 race. But today he called George Allen the most truly conservative potential ‘08 candidate, then quickly said that Mitt Romney was a CLOSE second. I hope that’s a quick peak into Rush’s mind and an indication that Romney could receive Rush’s backing come campaign time. One thing’s for sure, after his daily McCain bashing, we know Rush isn’t going to be getting behind the senator from Arizona any time soon!
I'd say that's a dang positive sign . . . especially since, despite his solid conservative credentials, Allen has proven to be gaffe-prone ("Macaca-gate" and his poor handling of the Jewish ancestry news). Also, with his controversial history on race-relations he's someone that doesn't stand a very strong chance in a general election . . . imagine the attack ads that the Dems and 527s would be hurling at Allen ad nauseum.
#2 Bill O'Reilly:
(ranked behind Rush only because Limbaugh probably has more influence among staunch conservative Republicans than O'Reilly--who has much more of an independent/libertarian streak)
A couple of weeks ago, O'Reilly said that Mitt Romney is his early favorite. to win the 2008 presidential election over Hillary Clinton
(TRAVERSE CITY) — Fox News commentator Bill O'REILLY told a gathering here today that Massachusetts Gov. and former Michigander Mitt ROMNEY is his early favorite to win the 2008 presidential election over U.S. Sen. Hillary CLINTON (D-N.Y.) in what he sees now as the likely head-to-head race.
Speaking at the Michigan Future Forum, sponsored by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, O'Reilly said former frontrunner U.S. Sen. John McCAIN (R-Ariz.) will be hurt for his "soft" positions on the terrorist interrogation and border security issues.
The host of the "No Spin Zone" and the "O'Reilly Factor" added that another top-tier Republican candidate, Rudolph GUILIANI, the former New York City mayor, is being hurt by his inability to handle the press and his mushy positions on issues. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt GINGRICH and U.S. Sen. George ALLEN (R-Va.) round out the top five candidates on the GOP side.
But in the last two weeks, O'Reilly said he's seeing a lot of reasons to give Romney an edge.
"He's photogenic. He's articulate. He's got money. New Hampshire likes him. This guy . . . you watch him," O'Reilly said.
That's as close to an endorsement as I've seen from a pundit at this point of the game.
Further, when Bill O'Reilly interviewed Ann Coulter last week on "The Factor" the following exchange occurred:
O'REILLY: Is there anything that could make you vote Democrat? Is there any scenario that you could envision you supporting the Democrat candidate for president?COULTER: If Zell Miller were running against John McCain.
O'REILLY: You're not a big McCain fan, are you?
COULTER: No. Actually, I don't really like any of our front-runners.
O'REILLY: Really?
COULTER: I think it's going to be somebody else.
O'REILLY: I think it's going to be Mitt Romney.
COULTER: Actually, of the ones they talk about...he's my favorite. It's somebody out of the blue.
O'REILLY: I think Mitt Romney is the guy on the inside track that very few people know about.
#3 Ann Coulter:
. . . see just above. A conservative "shock jock" (even though she doesn't have her own show). Not the most tactful pundit, but does carry a lot of weight among staunch conservatives. Also, Coulter helps run an influential conservative news source and website--Human Events Online (which in the past hasn't been too friendly to Romney though one of there editors, Ivy Sellers, is a BYU alumnus-that can't hurt)
THE NEXT TIER (hard to rank these):
Mort Kondracke:
Frequent pundit (a proclaimed Moderate) on Fox News and Executive Editor of "Roll Call" has frequently had good things to say about Romney. In an opinion piece not too long ago Kondracke liked Romney's policy stances quite a bit.
Hugh Hewitt:
Conservative Radio Talk show host has long been hosting Romney on his show. He's not "on the record" as endorsing Romney . . . but he sure seems to be quite praiseworthy. It was at Hewitt's suggestion/request that Lowell and John started the Article6Blog.
Michael Medved:
Just yesterday, Michael Medved (Conservative talk Radio host) was inteviewing John Halpern about his book, "The Way to Win", and Medved had this to say about Romney:
“We’re talking with Mark Halpern, the author of “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008” and political director of ABC News. One thing about your book that I mentioned, I was struck by something that isn’t in there. You talked about the likely Hillary Rodham Clinton race for the Presidency in 2008, but nowhere in your book, and I checked the index, do you mention the name of the gentleman I believe to be the most likely next President, and I’m wondering if that’s a conscious omission. I happen to believe that…it’s obviously a long way to 2008, but I think that Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, is a likely Republican nominee and winner.”
Glenn Beck:
Prominent Talk Radio host (3rd most listened to talk show in America among Adults 25-54) and has a nightly show TV show on CNN's Headline News.
On his TV show he recently opined:
Well, today the real story is that someone with actual power and intelligence agrees with me. Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts. He issued a statement saying, quote, "State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple."
Thank you, Mitt Romney. Finally someone besides a radio talk show -- a clown basically saying what the rest of America is thinking. If you want to know the truth, don`t listen to Harvard which calls the speech quote, "a free exchange of ideas."Listen to Mitt Romney who says that Khatami is nothing more, quote, "than a wolf in sheep`s clothing," end quote. A wolf that we are allowing to walk right into the hen house. Mitt Romney will be on my radio program tomorrow morning to talk about this, and we`ll of course keep our eye on the rest of the Khatami visit and update you as things develop.
Also, it probably doesn't hurt that Beck is LDS (converted and baptized in 2000)
Laura Ingraham (and Bob Novak?):
As reported at the Article6Blog . . .
I happened to be listening Laura Ingraham's show this morning during the second hour, about 40 minutes ago. In an interview with Robert Novak, Laura brought up Dobson's comments yesterday [that he thinks many Evangelicals may not end up voting for Romney because he's Mormon]. Going from memory, here's what I recall:
Laura expressed shock at Dobson's comments. She said she had received a great deal of e-mail from conservative Christians expressing strong disagreement with Dobson, saying "we love Romney."
She mentioned Novak's column. Novak said that there were a number of "respectable," well-known, and prominent evangelical leaders who are privately telling him the same thing Dobson was saying. I do not recall if he said those evangelicals told him that they personally would have trouble supporting Romney. Nor did he say if those statement were recent, or dated back to his April 27 column. I believe he used the present tense, as in, "they are telling me." Novak said those people "would blow your head off" if you revealed what they had privately said about evangelical support for Romney. Novak said rather forcefully that he thinks this is "un-American."
Novak also opined that Romney needs to address this issue– something we have also said many times.
Laura said that "we can't have this," or words to that effect. Novak said that with George Allen faltering, Romney was shaping up to be the conservative Republican standard-bearer for 2008, and that the campaign must not be a "theological debate." Laura heartily agreed.
Others that keep saying nice things about Romney are K-Lo (Kathrine Lopez--the editor of National Review Online--including "The Corner" David Frum (Former GW Bush Speechwriter and the guy who apparently came up with the "Axis of Evil" title/strategy for Bush) here and here, and Doug Wilson, the CHAIRMAN of Townhall.com (great conservative site where he recently wrote an Op/Ed titled "Mitt Romney for President?" that is pretty darn praiseworthy of our favorite candidate!)
In a different vein, two influential MSM "non-partisan" political reporters for presidential races, David Yepsen (here and here) and David Broder, seem to be pretty high on Romney's chances.
There's no danger of vote splitting in the presidential primary because it takes a majority to win at the convention, not a plurality.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Most primaries are all or nothing affairs much like states' Electoral Votes, I believe. Thus, if a candidate wins a state by a plurality, he/she gets all of the state's delegates. Then, the candidate just needs to win by plurality in enough states that represent a majority of the party's delegates.
So, the comparison is entirely apt. If the conservative vote splits enough that McCain is allowed to win by a plurality in a whole lot of states, sure he will have wrapped up a majority of the delegates, but not a majority of the electorate because the conservatives were fractured.
Please correct me if you see something wrong in this analysis.
that it takes a majority of delegates at the convention to win the nomination (something that's not come into play for quite some time sinc ethe nominations are all wrapped up well before the conventions).
so, if we accept the proposition that it is a 3 man race between Romney, McCain, and Giuliani, and each do well wnough to stay in throughout primary season, its entirely possible all 3 could arrive at the convention lacking the number of delegates required to reach a majority and the nomination (for instance, Romney might have 40%, Guiliani 35%, and McCain 25%). In that case, Romney might have the lead, but might well not get the nomination.
as I've said elsewhere, right now I hesitantly agree that Romney is the best we've got, but I'm still gonna need some selling, and its possible someone else could step into the spotlight. Romney is quite impressive though, and with some solid assurances and a quality pick for veep (maybe Newt?), I could become quite enthusiastic about his candidacy.
Newt is to be greatly respected for his visionary abilities. He just has too much baggage to survive a general election campaign. There is no way for him to overcome how the past has been painted (partly due to his actions, partly not).
Looks like he REAAAALLLLLYYYY wants to run if he sees a shot, but I hope he can find in Mitt what he envisions and desires for the country.
When Newt declines to run and then says positive things about Mitt, Mitt catapults to the top.
If Newt runs, he and Mitt fight over the same turf giving McCain a chance (YIKES!!!!!!!).
Whether Newt can serve as a beneficial running mate... Hard to tell how that would play. Might be a great match like Cheney was for Bush.
he has too much baggage for the top spot, but could be ideal for #2 - and could shore up support for a candidate like Romney (or even McCain or Guiliani, though I think the chances he'd be picked or accept the 1st is small and the 2nd even more so) whom the base may not be sold on.
and it would be interesting for him to have been both Speaker of the House and President of the Senate.
we'll see though. as I've said, the Mitt-Newt ticket is actually my prediction, though I'm not entirely sure its my ideal.
I'd rather see a Vice President Dick Armey than Newt if we're talking about bona fide conservatives with legislative experience.
Kenneth Blackwell is still my favorite for both ideological and geographic reasons. I think he would really help nail down Ohio and increase margins in Red States by tipping the African-American vote in already GOP-friendly turf solidly towards the GOP ticket.
VPOTUS Preferences:
1. Mike Pence
2. Kenneth Blackwell
3. Dick Armey
4. Condi Rice
5. Newt Gingrich
I would like to see Newt take a place in the next Administration though. He's taken a great interest in healthcare. Perhaps if he became Health and Human Services Secretary, with the power of the federal beurocracy at his disposal, he could help revolutionize healthcare by moving it more quickly towards self-directed HSAs and other innovative solutions the way he envisions.
He might even get Hillary's vote since he's worked with her on some of these initiatives.
Just to make the Democrats' heads implode. Imagine, appointing the guy whose single-minded mission during his time in Congress was to take food out of the mouths of children and senior citizens being appointed to head HHS.
I'm not sure Newt is enough of a team player for any job in a new administration, however. I'm not sure if he would be willing to lower his profile and follow orders if given a position like this. He might end up being a (much smarter) O'Neil case.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I think that Romney and Gingrich would probably be very much on the same page in regards to Healthcare Reform. Now, if we were talking about McCain or someone less open to capitalist revolutions, then there would be much more of a problem. And I'm sure that Gingrich could make the position very high profile if he worked with Romney to really fix Medicare and revolutionize the healthcare industry.
If you really wanted to fix Medicare and do something that is going to upset the status quo, there are few better, more eloquent advocates with superior credibility than Newt Gingrich.
Rick Santorum would also be good, but I'd prefer to see him be the next Attorney General if he loses in Pennsylvania, as I expect.
Romney/Newt is my ideal.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
in the cabinet and put JC Watts or Rice as VP.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
It was fine for bush to pick a vice president who never wanted to be president, but I think we need to work on our minor leages, we need a succession plan, we need to develop leadership for 2012, and 2016, etc...
I don't want anyone in as vice president who couldn't be a contender in 2012 or 2016.
People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
Armey wouldn't be my top pick or even close, but he wouldn't hurt the chances I'd vote for a POTUS candidate I thought was worthy, nor would he help someone I didn't.
Blackwell's getting walloped in Ohio's gubenatorial race last I saw, so I'm not sure how much help he'd provide. I do like him though and wouldn't mind him getting some consideration, though I don't know how likely it is.
I really like both Pence and Condi, and would support either in either position (I like them on a ticket together, in either order), though Condi like Romney still needs to sell me on her social positions/judges to get my support for #1 without reservation (Condi wins over Romney if both - or neither - do so, however). don't know if Rice and Pence completely "fit" personally or ideologically, but
so my two "dream" tickets right now, in no particular order:
the Schlotzky's ticket ("Funny names, serious candidates!" - Mitt/Newt)
and the Reversables (Rice/Pence, Pence/Rice)
Blackwell would still be the Ohio "favored son," and in a state that already leans towards the GOP (although we may suffer an unfortunate backlack due to a corrupt governor who got elected because he has a legacy name), I think that it puts Ohio out of reach to the Democrats in 2008. But I think Romney would put Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota very much in play.
My favotie tickets right now:
1. Pence/Backwell
2. Pence/Armey
3. Pence/Rice
4. Romney/Pence
5. Romney/Blackwell
6. Romney/Armey
7. Romney/Rice
Romney/Rice is that they both face the same hurdle for my vote - whether they're strong enough on social issues. however, they are far and away the most impressive candidates to my mind, and if they managed to assure me on that front, I'd want one of the two to be our nominee (with Pence the only real potential to unseat them with said assurances)
sounds like we agree to a very high degree though! you're a bit more bullish on Blackwell and Armey, and I on Newt (for veep) and Condi (for potus), but overall very close.
1. Romney/Watts
2. Romney/Armey - "Come join the Romney Armey!"
3. Romney/Rice
Romney-Rice would be the "Roe? Isn't that a character on Star Trek?" ticket, I guess.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Ensign Ro Laren, played with gusto by the intense and beautiful Michelle Forbes, was a Bajorian female who gained Captain Picard's trust but later joined the Maquis to fight the Cardassians. My recollection is that Ro (Forbes) rejected the Star Trek folks, who wanted her as a regular for Deep Space Nine. (Ro's rejection allowed Nana Visitor to join that spinoff.)
She sided with the Maquis over the Federation and its desire to honor its treaty obligations by eradicating terrorism.
I hope my real point wasn't missed, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that that would only happen if different candidates kept winning different state primaries - either by plurality or by majority.
For the scenario you descibe to occur, Romney would have to win states A, B, and C totaling 40% of the delegates, McCain wins states D, E, and F totaling 25%, and Giuliani wins states G, H, and I totaling 35%.
However, if there are multiple conservatives against McCain, lets say, and McCain wins states A through I with a mere plurality - let's say 35% of the vote in each - with more conservative candidates splitting up the rest, McCain would then wrap up 100% of the delegates (a clear majority) even if 65% of the electorate in each state voted for someone other than McCain.
If the delegates represented the perfect breakdown of the electorate to the precise percentage point, that'd be different. But that's not how delegates are awareded, I don't believe. I think most states have an all or nothing method of attributing delegates, much like the Electoral College system in most states.
Well, I think the scenario where conservatives presidential hopefuls consistantly split the conservative vote in each and every state, thus allowing a more liberal candidate to run away with the MAJORITY of delegates with a mere PLURALITY of the electorate in each state is the real danger. That's what happened in CA50 and TN SEN special election and primary.
I hope that a single candidate is able to appeal to the three pillars of the GOP Majority - Club for Growth Republicans, Focus on the Family Republicans, and Libertarians - in order to unite around a candidate to march past the liberal Republican candidates as well as destroy the Democrat nominee in the general election.
I hope that Mitt Romney can be that candidate.
Vote splitting will keep the best conservative from emerging with significant momentum to handily take the race when facing McCain.
Gotta get good mo in the early contests to leave McCain behind.
I think that activists by now should understand that the press coverage is not to be believed, and they're the only ones who get so breathless about momentum.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
what other conservative could split the vote anyway? Allen has proven himself to be not a serious candidate. Huckabee is a socialist who wraps himself in family values. Brownback just does not have it.
When you state that conclusion, you have got to give some evidence...
People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
That the Club for Growth keeps on him: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/huckabee/. I'm not sure why anybody wants him to be the guy. Do we need another Bush 41? Or even worse, a Ford or Nixon? They wouldn't be on my list of acceptible candidates and neither is Huckabee.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I like a lot of what I have seen about Romney.
I don't think Mormonism is right at all, but that will not hinder me from supporting the best executive talent with conservative principles (if that's what he turns out to be).
I really hope Romney is of the quality that he currently appears to be. If he is not, we don't have much to get excited about in the coming race.
Does anybody really care what the O'Reily has to say any more? I'm not sure he believes a thing he says... it seems to me it is all just calculated to attract and maintain marketshare. I think he is a prime example of a guy who is where he is because of the utter lack of competition. FNC is so bad I can't watch 90% of their programs... but it is still 10x better than their competition, and 50x better than that non-competitor called MSNBC.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
he made it big. In the future, I think there will be more tallent, and fewer bigger stars... These people are living in the Michael Jackson equivelant, when everyone is watching or listening to just a few people...
In the future, talking heads will be much more down to earth, I think.
Bill really made me upset with that whole sex scandle. I don't know that it is true, but when I watch him, I can see it being true. He thinks he is all that, and I might think I was all that too, if I was in his possition. But I agree with you. It's not that he is all that, it's just that everyone in the MSM is crazy, and so he points out there craziness, and thinks he is a genious. Well, we all knew they were idiots all along Bill...
People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
My All Start Executive Branch Line-up*
(in order of presidential succession except those ommitted cuz I can't think of who I'd want running those Departments)
President............Mitt Romney
Vice President.......Kenneth Blackwell
State................John Bolton
Treasury.............Phil Graham
Defense..............Condi Rice
Attorney General.....Rick Santorum
Interior.............Robert Nelson
Agriculture..........Dick Armey
Commerce.............Rob Portman
Health & Human Svs...Newt Gingrich
Transportation.......Bill White
Education............Caroline Hoxby
Veteran's Affairs....Tommy Franks
Press Secretary......Tony Snow
Open to suggestions on Labor, Housing & Urban Development, and Energy (and open to suggestions on others I've already graciously filled for President Romney. LOL)
* Presuming that Mike Pence really doesn't want to run for president and becomes Speaker of the House for a long, long time instead. :-)
Agriculture - Nobody
Commerce - Nobody
HHS - Nobody
Education - Nobody
HUD - Nobody
Energy - Nobody
Labor - Nobody
Other than that, looks fine to me.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Until they're gone, we need a political appointee in there to give headaches to all the mirror images of Achance in those departments!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
First, we need secretaries in their position in order to whack down the beaurocracy before they can be completely eliminated.
Armey would lead the charge to eliminate ag subsidies.
I think we need a small Education Department aparatus to measure the quality of education in America in order to be sure that every corner of the nation is meeting a certain acceptable standard, but as a school choice advocate, Caroline Hoxby would be sure that the government role in the actual administration of education is diminished.
Something similar for the case for Robert Nelson at Interior.
Housing and Urban Development.....J.C. Watts
Homeland Security.................Rudy Giuliani
Energy............................Carole Keeton Strayhorn?
I don't see anything wrong with keeping Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, on as Labor Secretary.
Let him teach the lessons of Times Square nationwide...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
... served there under Nixon.
People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
I'm hoping Fred Thompson returns to politics as Mitt's VP. But Rudy would also be an exciting choice. A safe, conservative choice to reassure evangelicals would be Jim DeMint, the "junior" senator from South Carolina. Huckabee is too liberal on economic issues. For that reason, I doubt Mitt would choose him. I bet Mitt tries to make his VP choice for the right reasons, not just political considerations.
As I think about it, the best governing choice for Mitt's VP would be Jeb Bush, but he's probably out of consideration for obvious reasons.
Very little chance Mitt would choose Newt, who is simply too dominant a figure to serve anyone as VP. Rudy also is a huge figure, but I think he could campaign fine for Romney in a supporting role.
The opposition will tie the "Big Digg" to him like a spiked collar on a pitt bill.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
My Bubble is burst. No one has ever rought up the political consequences of the Big Dig.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com
"I am a night owl and an early bird. So I am wise...and I have worms." The Office
Tie who? Mitt? The big dig came around how many years before Romney?
People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
But it is run by a commission that is unanswerable to governor. It is a marvel of stupidity.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I think it would be smart for the future of the party to pick someone with some experience that is capable of running for President in the future.
Senators John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana come to mind.
We must have a Black as VP. We could kill the Dem party.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
But I think that is a key strategy for winning consideration from the Black community. Eventually this "Oreo"/race traitor stuff they keep pulling is going to stop working. It is already losing its effectiveness.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
don't make Obama their VP, for then we would be the first party to nominate a black on the ticket. I'm serious that we could whig out that party if we took just 25% of the black vote, maybe less.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
The Democrats do have a fragile coalition (more so than the Republicans) and it wouldn't take much to whig them out.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
While I love our discussion of Rice and Guliani as major candidates, I think both have something very important in common with the current VPOTUS... they aren't going to run.
Personally, while I really like Rice, I think she needs a break. And, I think the country needs a break from her. I'm not saying that because I dislike her, but I think it is practical. The next Republican president must be "different" from the Bush administration to gain a solid majority in this country (especially to beat Ms. Rodham). Even as VP, I think Condi should stay on the sidelnes for a few years. She is a great Secretary of State... but after 8 years in the White House, she deserves a vacation.
As for Guliani... I think he's a great candidate, but an unrealistic candidate. We talk about some people having problem with Romney's religion? I think we have a bigger problem with Guliani's position on moral issues. Plus, I have heard it from a lion's mouth... Guliani isn't going to run. My guess is that he will throw around his weight in favor of one candidate... but he isn't up for the election.
I used to think Romney was a long shot. Now, to beat Ms. Rodham... he may be our best shot.
"I'm not a Republican just to be a Republican. I'm a Republican because they believe what I believe, and what I believe will shape the next generation of politics." - Anon.
Romney is the best choice of war-time commander-in-chief. Intelligence, experience, character, and charisma . . all top of the classs. Romney's personal brand of religion makes no more difference for the job than Eisenhower's did in WWII.
In a government where in-fighting among intelligence services allowed 9/11 to occur, installing a consumate manager like Romney for POTUS becomes a life or death choice. The thing about Romney is he is not just a good politician, he is a highly skilled manager, with rock-solid character. The need for charisma in our current war may turn out to be as important as it was in WWII. Can you imagine Britain in 1940 without Churchill?
There is only one good reason the professional religionists like James Dobson might want to nay-say Romney. They are in competition with his brand of faith for converts, and the positive light shed on the LDS faith by a Romney presidency is far more than these ministers can stomach.
In a strange way his faith, still odd to many American's, may equip him to appear as a impartial third party in the culture war between Christian right and liberal left, and allow him to unite the country for the long struggle ahead.
I don't known if Mormoninsm will bridge the gap but it is an intereting idea.
I found Dobson's comments on a Mormon President interesting. On one hand he is evangelical and it was only 2 years ago I think his wife barred a mormon from giving the invocation at a Nstional Day of Prayer.
On the other hand a short googling of "Dobson Mormon" will take you to all sorts of places of people complaining about Dobson being in bed with the mormons (politically speaking.)
In the end I think his comments are probably in line with political manuevering for all those who complain. I can't imagine he really who be botheres by having an LDS candidate who shares his same valus, much like Fallwell.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com
"I am a night owl and an early bird. So I am wise...and I have worms." The Office
As long as that bridge includes a few Michael McConnells, Ted Cruzes, Paul Clements, Viet Dinhs or Janice Rogers Browns on the Supreme Court - and mini versions of them on the Appellate Courts, I'm all about that bridge. :-)
Romney wins hands down! I've been talking about this for quit some time. Over 6 weeks ago in fact on this site.
I stand by the prediction! Yes its a long time until the election. Romney needs to win the primary first. Just remember that McCain will still be in the Senate trying to be all things to all people. He will cast many votes AND try to gain media attention by being a maverick. Yes McCain will moderate himself OUT of the Republican nomination.
Thank GOD..
Lets bring the flip flops back in 2008. I am sure we can nail McCain on quite a few issues then he might enter one of his explosive fits of rage.
We need to decide early who the conservative is going to be so we don't split the conservative vote like what happened in CA50 and the Tennessee U.S. Senate race that got Bob Corker nominated. I'm all for Giuliani and McCain splitting the liberal vote, though, and I think that they're both running for 2008.