I don't care what you or I want, this race is Rudy v. Romney right now.
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You all know I'm a Fred guy, but I'd be doing a disservice to the site if I didn't offer what I view as my objective opinion about matters political. This is just one man's opinion. Make of it what you will. Even with my biases, I am trying to be objective here.
The race for the Republican nomination at this moment is between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. You can disagree if you want, but that's where we are. This can change, but right now it is the dynamic.
As I write, Mike and Fred are going to be fighting each other for the serious social conservatives. Fred did himself no favors on Sunday in a discussion I actually thought was very good. Evangelicals who were readily committing to Fred are now breaking up with him and flocking to Mike. What Fred could have solidified, he's not going to have to fight for with Mike. That means Mike and Fred are going to spend their time fighting each other for a set of voters who may get so fed up that they stay home.
Romney and Rudy, at this point, have clear paths to take. And they will fight with each other at the top. Romney is holding his own with social conservatives and Rudy is, and pay attention here, maintaining his lead in the polls, despite his liberal leanings. While we may be going state by state in the primaries, the schedule is so compacted that it virtually amounts to a national primary month. Romney can get bounces in Iowa and possibly New Hampshire to propel himself forward at Mike and Fred's expense. Rudy will be laying the ground work later in January to beat back an encroaching Mitt.
Mitt Romney has the money and man power to be formidable. Rudy has the name identification and national security voters to potentially create a firewall against MItt in the big states.
The guy who, if he plays his cards very well in the next fifty days, could surprise everyone is John McCain, though given his money situation, I kind of doubt it right now.
With all of this, I'd say the advantage is to Rudy right now, but only by a slim margin, because Romney needs part of the voter pool Fred and Mike are fighting over. Once one of those two kill the other one, the survivor will be going after Mitt. I suspect, however, that Mitt's money will be able to deflect the attack. The question is whether it will distract him from the prize.
The road to the White House for the GOP is still up in the air, but as we draw closer and closer to Iowa, Mike and Fred have less and less time to kill each other off, which leaves Rudy and Romney sitting pretty and McCain plotting a historic comeback strategy.
And that's my late afternoon, superficial, feel the need to write something take on Campaign 2008. Oh, and I still think Fred can bounce back from Sunday's MTP appearance, retake lost ground, and kick some butt. His commercials are stellar and his game plan is sound. He just needs to stick to scripts better.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Reconsidering Sen. McCain (R) For President — Comments (180) »
I don't care what you or I want, this race is Rudy v. Romney right now. 74 Comments (0 topical, 74 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Fred has done no disservice to himself or others by being honest and holding to his federalist priciples.
"Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl." -- Frederick the Great
I think you are right but it is far from over. If Fred would do more ads like the one he released today and go on some of the tougher venues like Oreillys show he would help himself out tremendously.
And I certainly appreciate his candor. But Fred's appearance on MTP this past Sunday was the final nail in the coffin for me. If you cannot accept or run on the GOP's prolife platform, then you're not my candidate. That's why I am now firmly in the Huckabee camp.
That having been said: Anybody but Rudy. :)
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.
Theres going to be a lot of Anybody but people chewing the carpet.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As Freddy "The Beatle" Barnes said, Rudy & Romney are the only two with credible paths to the nomination as of right now. I happen to favor Romney, but will support Rudy if he's the nominee. I honestly think both of those guys will be good leaders for our party - may the best man (hopefully Romney) win!
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I don't support rudy or mitt. They are far to liberal for me and from what I understand mitt has close ties with the bush family and his dad was gov in Wisconsin? or Michigan in the 60s or 70s? So who wants a guy that has led a privileged life and never had to work for anything. We need a real man of the people like Fred to lead this country. Everything he has done he has done on his own. Now there are going to be nuts who will dispute that but oh well. I still think he is the best man for the job.
I'm on board with Fred and think he can turn it around, but he's going to need to be aggressive *and* he's actually going to need to memorize some talking points, lest he dig a bigger hole.
him never having worked for anything is simply crap. Did he have advantages that most of us haven't? Sure. But, in point of fact, in the private sector he earned his success (and his money) by doing an excellent job leading the companies for whom he worked.
In MA politics, he won the Governorship based on his efforts, and I can absolutely guarantee you that his family name got him nothing, his membership in the LDS church got him nothing, and his personal fortune got him nothing. They might have helped in Michigan (where his dad was Governor), but in MA, the yankees could care less.
If you're gonna take shots at Mitt, at least bother to make them shots of substance. This was a cheap shot and was generally stupid at that.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
for making my point exactly, mbecker. we don't need people who started accounts today making worthless posts. as far as i'm concerned, "countryboy" can take his wealth-envy prejudices over to dailykos. he'll fit right in.
BTW, when are we finally going to get a waiting period for new members before they can post comments and diaries? these idiots are really bringing the discussion down a level.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
"He just needs to stick to scripts better."
That is precisely why I support him now more than ever. I do not agree that it is a two man race. Fred is still #2 in likely primary voters, and the state races are all over the place. 70% of the party is not going to nominate Rudy, and who they will ultimately coalesce around is up for grabs.
I am still convinced that Fred is the best choice to win the general, and the best choice to be President.
Fred is principled to a fault. He is a federalist, and change that to pander even to groups that he agrees with. In fact, I'm donating to him again, which means at this point I will have given more to Fred already than I have given total in any election to date.
As a committed Pro-life, pro-marriage, pro 2nd amendment, limited government, low taxes, free market loving, GWOT supporting(with the campaign medal to prove it) conservative, my money is still on Fred.
I think anyone voting for a candidate at this point based on whether or not they can win the NOMINATION is misguided and self-defeating. Vote in the primary for the guy that you want as nominee...if your guy doesn't win, the guy that does win will take notice of what you stood for.
Crap, I'm rambling again. Sorry.
There hasn't been much change in the number 1 slot in the state races, but the #2, #3, etc have varied frequently, and the percentages have moved all over the place.
Thompson has been sinking in most of them.
So your "the state races are all over the place" argument doesn't jive with an argument that Thompson's likely to make a comeback.
A lot of people have recognized that this is a Giuliani-Romney race. I figured this would happen when Thompson's campaign celebrated that he didn't embarrass himself in the first debate. Hype can't sustain itself on those terms.
Things could change, but those odds are getting longer.
It all makes sense.
Also, I agree that Fred could make a comeback, but that clock is ticking pretty loudly at this point.
I'm out of sync with many here on Fred, because what alienates them - Fred's federalism and independence on positions- are very attractive to me. But they really like his laid back style, which drives me nuts.
The solution, I think, lies in the advance of biotech to the point that we can produce Designer Candidates!
It used to be the one thing I really liked about the guy. Then I realized that he mostly invokes it where it least makes sense - on social issues that have implications across state borders. Thompson's federalism is an excuse for not having his heart in social conservativism.
When *isn't* he a federalist, hmm? When isn't he invoking it when it should be invoked?
Give me a break. He's more consistent than most of us are on it. He doesn't succumb to the temptations of convenience and lust for power.
Men like that are what the system was designed for.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
And I'm not just saying that federalism is wrong for those issues because I want to impose social conservativism on the states. There are some issues - such as defense, marriage, and abortion - that are truly national issues, not state issues.
While the details of family law can be left to the states, it is not workable for some states to recognize a marriage and others not. Marriage does not appear and disappear as you cross state lines. Families transcend state boundaries.
And states can't protect their interest in the lives of the unborn if you can just hop over to the neighboring state. It simply has to be a national issue.
The question was: When isn't he a Federalist? You are making the claim that he is just using Federalism as an excuse on a couple social issues. Then you should be able to point to other times when he is being inconsistent.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I read Neil's first line wrong. I responded to this question in a reply to Hooah Mac below.
The short is I'm not claiming any particular instance where his stand isn't consistent with federalism. I'm saying two things:
First, he doesn't get points for invoking federalism on things like gay marriage, where federalism is a bad fit, because it is a national issue.
Second, he talks about federalism a lot in general terms, and a lot to parry social conservative issues, but I don't hear federalism brought up as a solution to other specific issues where it does make more sense. So his emphasis is wrong.
First, he doesn't get points for invoking federalism on things like gay marriage, where federalism is a bad fit, because it is a national issue.
You say it is a national issue. That doesn't mean it is. It is a state issue right now and we don't have 50 states where SSM is legal. Anyway, the FMA has zero chance of getting anywhere, so it is a non-issue. I don't get worked up about things that have no chance of ever getting anywhere.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm saying Thompson's reasoning for rejecting it suggests he uses federalism as a buzzword, and doesn't understand what state rights really are.
Federalists would generally prefer to resolve issues like this at the state level, not the Federal level. Even if you go through the amendment process, you are still taking rights away from the states and giving them to the Federal government. That's not a federalist-friendly thing to do, even though it is perfectly legal when done through the amendment process.
Federalists don't have to support amendments transferring power from the states to the Federal government just because they are taking the legal route, instead of trying to use the ICC or some other ruse for justification.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm afraid you comment won't stand on the information you have provided.
What non-social issues has he failed to apply federalism to?
First, he is applying federalism (badly) to social issues. That stands, and you don't seem to contest it.
Second, I'm not sure how to prove a negative. I've heard him mention federalism several times. Every time I've heard him mention it, it has either been in general terms or to parry social conservative issues. I'm don't doubt that he would consider federalism in other specific contexts, but that doesn't seem to be a high priority in his rhetoric.
and our ability to HAVE a limited federal government. It underlies a whole array of conservative-friendly policies: lower taxes, respect for property rights, the constitutional powers of the states and the people, etc.
IMO, it's not a dodge to avoid dealing with social issues.
While it's clear that Giuliani is currently on top in the polls, Fred consistently polls ahead of Romney. Heck even McCain is ahead of Romeny according to realclearpolitics.com. Romney's almost where I'd consider him 2nd tier.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
The idea is that Romney is going to get a metric ton of free advertising when he wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, and the Republican donors will collapse to the mainstream press storyline-designated Top Two.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
It isn't applicable until Romney wins 2 or 3 early primaries. That would be when you could say it is a 2 man race.
...are saying that it is very likely that Romney will win those. Thompson has tanked in the early states while the guy he was supposed to be leeching support from has solidified his position. Thompson has even lost the front-runner position in South Carolina, the most Thompson-friendly state. Huckabee appears to be a non-starter, and McCain will at best (though not likely) switch places with Giuliani.
That more people will flock to Mitt as he becomes the obvious anti-Rudy choice. It's fine to be split 3 different ways now, but if people start to look for a serious candidate that can beat Rudy then go on to beat Hillary, Mitt will probably stand to benefit from that.
I'd prefer Fred but I think he needs to step things up a few notches and I'm not so sure he is going to. We might already be seeing top gear from Fred. If that is the case, it isn't going to cut it in the general.
Huckabee has so many huge negatives. I don't see him getting anywhere with his record. If he did start to get somewhere, the other candidates would destroy him based on what he has said and done over the past decade.
So I concur with the OP that it is pretty much a 2 man race at this moment at time.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And while I could live with Romney, he is such a lackluster candidate with such a "slick" appearance that I wonder if he can win in the General Election.
In his case a lot might depend on choice of running mate. Only because, I have only known two times in American History when a person won the presidency on the basis of being a "get it done" technocrat. Those unfortunate examples were Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Romney is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire as of today, and he is in a statistical dead heat in South Carolina. Polls also show him leading in Michigan, or at least in second place. If those leads hold and he manages to eek out a win in Florida, it's curtains folks - Romney is the nominee. That will not be easy, but that's where things stand right now.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
This race is NOT Huckabee v McCain.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I generally agree with your assessment. I think you give a bit too much credit to Romney and I will explain why in a minute, however I think it is overdoing it to say this is a two person race.
Rather, if Fred wants to win, he has to come up with a better strategy. It isn't that Fred can't win, but that he is not doing the things he needs to do to win. He isn't accessible to the media. That isn't going to work. You aren't going to win strictly going on some talk radio, foxnews and the blogs. He seems absent most of the time. I think his speech making needs to improve as well however that can come with time.
As for Romney, he is ahead in Iowa because he has spent by far the most time there. He is ahead in New Hampshire because he is basically from that state. Yes, if he won both that would help him, however he is way down in national polls and those states don't have many actual delegates. It may give him some boost if he wins both but I don't see it being enough to overcome the amount he is behind nationally.
At this point Rudy is the front runner and only unless someone's strategy improves or he falters will he lose. That is my opinion and of course for full disclosure Rudy is my guy, though I tried to be as objective as possible.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
How many ads has Romney run Nationally? Hmm.. ZERO. That is good business sense since running ads is expensive, even for a rich man.
"he is way down in national polls", you know that what they were saying last month about him in South Carolina. Interesting what his message machine has done there within one month. The man is sticking to his plan. Once he wins Iowa, there will be some free media. A week later he gives his Mormon speech, more free media. Hard push of ads in NH and wins there, more free media. Then he blitzes national ads. Expensive yes. Can he afford it? Yes. Priceless? Not even if he wins, but he can affort it. ;)
Intrade agrees with you:
|
...the traders who are putting their money on the line agree and that says a lot.
It's been a Rudy-Romney race for a couple months now. People thought Fred might come in and make it a 3 man race, but it hasn't happened and it won't. Regardless of whether you think Fred is the most conservative, has the best personal story, has the most character, none of that matters.
The simple fact is that two months before the states start voting Giuliani is still way ahead in the national polls and the big states - NY, CA, FL, PA, etc. and Romney is still the only candidate that has a legitimate chance to win IA, NH and SC. The momentum from such a potential sweep could be enough to do in Giuliani.
The only way it's not Rudy or Mitt is Rudy finishes 3rd or worse in each of IA, NH, and SC and Mitt carries no more than 1 of those states. In that scenario, Rudy may be damaged enough, and Mitt still not popular enough nationwide for McCain or Fred to make a move. Right now, I only see McCain having that potential.
Fred needs to turn things around and do it quick. Again, it's not that I disagree with him or don't like it, he's just not getting it done on the campaign trail.
Ugh - I really need to do a better job of reading over my posts.
Above should be:
"Fred needs to turn things around and do it quick. Again, it's not that I disagree with him or don't like him, he's just not getting it done on the campaign trail."
Could he lose in Iowa and just fade away, because, in his case, folks just won't vote for a liberal GOP guy even if the media thinks it's okay?
No one had Kerry doing as well as he did, right?
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- I see abortion as a pro-choice issue... the baby's choice would be life.
-- imwithfred --
If and I say if it is a choice between Rudy or Mitt I would have to pick Mitt. He is still heads above any liberal. I think he has less personal baggage and he understands the tax situation better. In regards to my earlier post I just have a hard time with the privileged because most of the time they cannot relate to the common joe such as myself and most of the time have no idea what it means to work hard for what little they get. Now did mitt work hard for what he has sure but did he have alot of opportunity that 99% of america doesn't have probably. I am not faulting him for what he has or how he got where he is just that he probably can't relate to the middle class like Fred probably can.
I'm not sure "I worked my way up from the common classes" is Thompson's strong point. His acting career just fell into his lap. Most of his wealth is from luck.
Sorry, but most times you make your own opportunities.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- I see abortion as a pro-choice issue... the baby's choice would be life.
-- Christians don't do luck. We do blessings from God.
-- imwithfred --
the "privileged"? are you freakin' kidding me? have you been listening to jesse jackson too much lately?
sounds like you should switch your support to huckabee...or edwards.
now it is the dynamic." Plus, what is "it"?
Words on paper. Nothing more. Come on Erick, this is just too beltway filler, horserace meaninglessness.
GC gone to a substantive blog...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Fox have decided they like Rudy so that's who they want to cover. They want the subway series. NY vs NY. Meanwhile Mitt has decided that millions of dollars say he's the man. I'm just not that happy with either.
Seems like Fred (the actual conservative) is a vision speech away from this thing. However, if he doesn't give that "morning in America" moment I'm praying he gives then I'll settle for Mitt.
Anyone who's kids hate him really gives me pause. I don't think I like the man.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- I see abortion as a pro-choice issue... the baby's choice would be life.
-- imwithfred --
A politician who believes in the bible but does not follow the constitution is no better than a dictator if he has no respect for freedom and liberty that both documents espouse on mankind. In essence, if he doesn’t follow the constitution then I have little belief that he’ll follow the bible (which is of a higher regard) when it comes to hard choices.
I respect Huckabee as a Christian but I have little respect for his history as a politician. His ten-year economic-policy record as the governor of Arkansas is mixed, at best. His history includes numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation.
To me, Huckabee seems to think that government must play the role of God by doing more for the people where God has not provided. Those that think the government must do more and provide more, in my mind, are basically espousing to the idea that we can have heaven on earth and that we can form our idol of government into the perfect solution to provide that heaven on earth, instead of looking to God and our fellow man.
Ben Franklin once said, “This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
I think your concerns about Huck's record as governor (taxes, etc.) are worth discussing, though I have a different take on his record there. What I don't get is how you believe he's not following the constitution. I'm confused as I'm not aware of any issues in this regard.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
local library. I was talking with some other volunteers (ranging in age from 50-83) about the race. All were Republicans. They are not particulary political, but ALWAYS show up to vote.
Two said that they would vote for Romney, one for Huckabee and one for Thompson. They all thought that Rudy had no chance in SC (based more on the fact that he is a Yankee than anything else and they find his "pushiness" annoying) and that McCain was just "too old." Coming from some active 80 yr olds I thought that was interesting. Except for the one Fred supporter, they also thought that Fred looked too old and sick. I'm not sure that Jeri's diet has done him much good in that respect.
from an article on Thompson's visit to Greenville, SC today.
"David Woodard, a Clemson University political science professor, said Thompson seemed more at ease during his latest stops as opposed to when he first came to the state in September. His taglines and phrasing were stronger and more relaxed, Woodard said.
While Thompson might not be a natural campaigner, he showed enough to a crowd of about 250 who craned their necks over dining room partitions and the backs of chairs to see him that he can win over many South Carolina voters by January.
Attendance at Tommy's Ham House was easily one of the largest crowds drawn by a Republican so far in the 2008 campaign in Greenville.
He touched on many of the key issues amongst South Carolina conservatives, such as the Second Amendment, illegal immigration and terrorism. His speech routinely drew rounds of applause...
Woodard said Thompson was the likely front-runner at this point."
Here's the link to the full article.
"...his taglines...were stronger and more relaxed."
At least one of his taglines was plagiarized from Gov. Huckabee: "I can't buy votes in South Carolina...I can't even rent them." He should be paying royalties.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Not sure what you mean. I'm just making an observation that he borrowed a well known and used Huckabee phrase from the Iowa Straw Poll. Huckabee was all over the media with that phrase. Interestingly both Huckabee and Thompson were referring to Romney when using the phrase.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
actually happening. The race is not happening on the set of msm tv shows. Not even Fox News!
And Fred makes 3 horses at minimum in the Palmetto State.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42
Please look at what the Director of National Right to Life said:
The head of National Right to Life says he's not troubled by Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's opposition to federal legislation ending abortion, and therefore right-to-life activists across the U.S. should not be troubled as well....
"David Osteen, director of National Right to Life, says he does not have a problem with Thompson's stance because a human life amendment has been a 'long-term' goal of the pro-life movement.
'You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate,' says Osteen. 'You'd have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitutional], so it's not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term -- and of course, the president doesn't have a vote.'
Osteen says 'what's more important' is that Thompson had a solid pro-life record while in the Senate, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and would appoint judges who would reverse Roe. 'He's pro-life, he's got a strong pro-life voting record in the Senate, [he] was a consistent vote for the pro-life side during the eight years he served in the U.S. Senate -- and I think his record speaks for itself,' he claims.
Osteen notes that before Roe v. Wade, abortion laws were passed at the state level. He says even passing a human life amendment would not protect human life unless enabling legislation was approved."
Here's a link to the full story.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/11/national_right_to_life_praises.php
argument. That he was well familiar with the losing battles of the past on the HLA. He wants to win the arguments of this century!
amen
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42
typical MSM/political reporter mistake and assuming that a lead is solid when there is no evidence of that. If you look at some of the more in depth reporting on NH and, especially, Iowa, a large number of voters say that they are very open to changing candidates between now and the caucus or primary. Thompson and Giuliani are hoarding resources for use when they abolutely need it. Politics, like acting, is all a matter of timing. Thompson is starting to pick up the pace this week because now is when people REALLY start to pay attention.
As I understand it, Thompson's initial strategy is to get close enough to Romney in Iowa to mitigate his win. Now, whether he does that by finishing a close second or through a tight cluster of Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson is not clear. Then he MUST win South Carolina. Three of the only four polls of SC have Thompson ahead with leads of between 1-5 points. Only the ARG poll has Romney ahead and if you believe that Mitt Romney has over 30% of the SC vote right now you are smoking something illegal. After that, Florida and taking the the South and Plains states where the number of available delegates is a lot higher than most seem to realize because of the new rules the GOP put into place this year.
As far as Mitt's money is concerned, You can have all the advertising in the world, but if people don't like your product they aren't going to buy it. Look at Iowa and NH. Romney has spent nearly a year bulding up name recognition and organization in those two states. He's spent 3.5 MILLION in Iowa alone and has run literally thousands of ads and has hit a ceiling of no more than 30% in each state against opponents who have spent no money and have run no ads until, literally, today when Fred's first ad went up in Iowa. He still has NH to himself. He's had no real competition yet. And his floor is not firm. Let's see how firm his lead is when Fred and Rudy really start full bore campaigning in the next couple of weeks.
Sorry to be so long-winded.
Mitt should have high numbers in S.C. He's the only candidate of either party with television ads, and lots of them.
Advertising only gets you so far. The candidate himself or herself has to close the deal. Romney is not closing the deal in either Iowa or NH. Teresa123 mentioned the responses of some of the volunteers she works with. Well, let me mention the anecdotal evidence I hear. Family and friends who have been paying attention seem to be saying the same thing. After longer term exposure they just don't like Romney. He comes across as too artificial, too calculating. I was surprised by the reporting after his speech at the Value Voter's Summit. The attendees who heard his speech all said that hit hit all the buttons he had to, but he came across as too artifical (the exact word many seemed to be using). For most people, electing a President is at least 50% emotion. Romney just doesn't wear well. He doesn't make that emotional connection. Here's something real interesting. Peter Hart, the Democratic pollster, recently held a focus group of twelve undecided GOP voters (in a Southern state, I believe). Hart said there was a "professional" and "personal" component to each of their decisions. Giuliani won the "professional" component hands down. Thompson won the "personal" component hands down. At the end, 9 of the 12 went with Thompson. I truly do believe that the pollsters, professionals, and pundits (even Erick) are misunderestimating the emotional or personal component and Thompson wears well.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42
There should be a primary season of at least 8 months to let us sort them all out better.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
the trees for the forest. Fred's argument is a winnable one. It is a bloodbath winner take all argument at the federal level. We can fight it out from now on or change the debate and send the power back to the states. I'm sick and tired of the supreme court telling the rest of us how to live.
Which do you think will save more babies? Fight it out at the federal level or let states decide? I'll take my chances on the hearts and minds of my citizens. You can have the 9 kings.
He has no chance of getting nominated.
Fred, on the other hand, will never win any media primary. It's only actual voters who like him.
Please take my survey about the 2008 primaries! I am a graduate student at USC.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WN1VSo660mk_2bgwxU0VFIdg_3d_3d
Thank you!
...but Rudy is a liar and a phony and is utterly unfit to be president. Romney is competent to be president, but what does he really believe and can he be trusted to remain true to anything he says? Not a pretty picture.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.