Redstate

I do appreciate many of Mitt Romney's positive attribtes.He is prolife which is a non-negotiable issue for me. He is extremely intelligent,earning both a law and business degree from Harvard simultaneously. (Hillary flunked her bar examination in D.C.)He has an excellent command of the language and should do well in debates. He has enough money that he can contribute to his own campaign if necessary.He is certainly an attractive candidate.

Now for my concerns.Will the Southern Baptists accept him? We must keep them because they are a huge voting bloc and we need to carry all the red state. Will Dr.Dobson and his followers form a third party and had the election to Hillary?

If he would accept Rudy as his veep,we would have a strong ticket. Is this ticket the best? What about McCain and Rudy?

...living under that rock?

He is prolife which is a non-negotiable issue for me.

Now.

He is extremely intelligent,earning both a law and business degree from Harvard simultaneously. (Hillary flunked her bar examination in D.C.)

President Bush earned an MBA from Harvard.

He has an excellent command of the language and should do well in debates.

"Should do well"? There've been quite a few debates, my friend. How do you think he's done?

He has enough money that he can contribute to his own campaign if necessary.

Again, "can contribute" and "if necessary"? That ship's done sailed, as they say -- he's been pouring his own money into the campaign from the beginning.

"President Bush earned an MBA from Harvard."

The Dolphins and the Patriots are both football teams too, they must also be equal.

While the Dolphins and Patriots are clearly not equal, both are professional footbal teams - meaning that just being a pro football team doesn't mean you are all that good - so saying someone got a degree from Harvard doesn't necessarily mean they are intelligent (although from what I've heard, Bush is highly intelligent - it just doesn't show up on TV...not sure what I actually think on that point)

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

If I hear that the son of a president gets to go to Harvard Business School, that fact alone will not impress me.

If I hear that someone went to Harvard Business School on his own merits, and graduated near the very top of the class, and also went to Harvard Law School, and again graduated near the very top of the class, it's going to mean a lot to me.

Being a Romney and being a Bush were about the same deal when both were accepted to Harvard Business School.

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

one the first day, but it's where they were at the end that makes all the difference in the world.

I am a Republican who will support the nominee regardless of who's chosen. Give me your reasons for supporting another candidate.I am not trying to be augumentative, just stating an opinion and seeking facts.

White Southern Baptists already vote 90% Republican and southern states are all solidyly Republican. The South is the least of our concerns as far as the electoral college! The Midwest and Florida is where this election is going to be won.

If Rudy is the nominee, then Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania will be tossups as well.

IF he gets the nomination, do you the southern baptists voting for Hillary? A few may stay home, but all the red states are going to stay red. And Dobson is not going to form a third party over the mormon issue. He's just wants a candidate to be prolife and profamily.

A lot of people would stay home if Rudy were the nominee, but not many people will stay home if Romney is there. He might not be their first choice, but they will support him.

I feel a little sheepish about that comment . . . I tried to word it nicely . . . but I realize it fits in line with conspiracy theory type stuff and wouldn't be opposed to it being retracted.

Forgive me my suspicion, but I've felt that Romney hasn't gotten a fair shake here at RedState for several months. Maybe that's changing. Hopefully.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

I don't know if I was premature or it is in reaction to my post, but never look a gift horse in the mouth.

then we're screwed as a party. The truth is that Hillary doesn't break 50% against any Republican at this point (including the Dr.) so we could run Alan Keyes and still have a fighting chance. In other words, there really isn't an electablity factor at this point.

there really isn't an electability factor at this point

I remain utterly unconvinced that Mitt will do as well nationally as Rudy.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

I don't know for sure, but you are probably right. My arguement wasn't that Romney would do the best nationally, but that he (or any GOP) would have a chance given Clinton's negative numbers.

If all were equal and we only went on beatablity then we should put up McCain, he does the best against Clinton. Heck, if beating Clinton was the only objective then we should put up a Blue Dog Democrat, we'd beat her then. In reality, there really isn't a difference between generic GOP (38 - 48) to that of McCain (44 - 46) at least not enough to justify electablity.

Seems like the difference between being 2 points behind and being 10 points behind to me. It would be 3 or 4 times more likely to overcome a 2 point deficit than a 10 point one.

The difference is that Hillary doesn't poll well against anyone, we could run a log effegy of Reagan and she wouldn't be above 50%. Yes, McCain is closer to her than anyone but the difference means very little at this point.

unconvinced that Mitt will do as well nationally as Rudy.

I'm not particularly fond of Romney, but I have to notice the following fact: in those states where he has made sure that he is well-known (e.g. Iowa, New Hampshire) Romney has an imposing lead over the other candidates.

We all know that at this point the national polls are largely name-recognition contests. The fact that Giuliani, McCain, and Hillary Clinton dominate those polls bears that out (one wonders whether Fred would do better if people were asked about "Arthur Branch.")

I suggest that it is impossible to know how Romney would fare nationally until he is as well-known nationally as he has made himself in Iowa, New Hampshire, and increasingly, Florida. The results so far suggest that the more people find out who this Romney fellow is, the better he does. Note that this is the exact opposite of what has been happening with Fred, to the consternation of many (including me) who had hoped that Fred would live up to the hype.

I am one who subordinates positions on issues to my perception of a candidate's executive ability. I believe we're voting for the head of the Executive Branch, not some überlegislator who can impose policies by decree. If I don't believe a candidate can get things done, or make the Federal bureaucracy march to his tune, he's off my list regardless of how well I might agree with him on "the issues." We've had eight years of "Can't get it done" and "constantly stabbed and stymied by the permanent bureaucracy." What we've observed is that such a President will, in order to "get things done", throw in with Ted Kennedy just to have an accomplishment to point to. No thanks to more of that. And no McCain for me for just that reason. And goodbye to Fred as well, since he has proven himself unable to organize or manage his way out of a paper bag.

I don't think it's a coincidence that many people believe that the nomination struggle will come down to Rudy and Mitt, or that Huckabee is coming up fast on the outside. These are the only guys in the race who have actually caused large numbers of people to behave in some organized fashion in proceeding towards a goal. That sounds easy to people who have never had to do it, but it's not easy at all. Most people who enter line management never succeed at it. Very few are any good from Day One. My view is that the Presidency of the United States is an inappropriate first management job.

For the time being I'm keeping my powder dry. I could live with Romney, but I have to confess that my initial, gut reaction to him is that he's too perfect by half. I don't trust him to be what he appears to be. If in fact he can get large numbers of other people to believe otherwise, I might re-visit my impression of him.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

If we had some head-to-head polls in NH, IA or SC, that would help. The name recognition problem would not exist as it does nationally. That would be very interesting data if we could get it.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Ahead of Clinton.

Giuliani 46
Clinton 41

Romney 47
Clinton 39

Thompson 47
Clinton 38

McCain 48
Clinton 38

Rasmussen poll conducted on November 14 I believe. There is another recent FL poll where Giuliana leads by margin of 50-43 and the rest of the field also lead, but by smaller margins. Point is that even in FL, where Romney is still working to build name recognition, he polls well against Clinton.

I suspect that in NH or IA, he would poll even stronger against Clinton.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1...

"Saying Romneybots are just shills for Clinton” Please give me a break. I will take any, and I mean any Republican Candidate over Billary. I can not think of anything more disgusting than calling a Romney supporter a shill for Billary. It is worse than calling a Romneybot a four letter word.

Proud to be a RomneyBot….

I personally think Romney is the MOST electable of the major candidates. And for many varied reasons.

First, he best distances himself from both Bush and Hillary. And what do I mean by that? Frankly, Thompson could very easily fit into the mold of George Bush. They've got the folksy voices, the swaggers. Thompson at times looks a bit less than polished in an interview. Frankly, we need a candidate that in NO WAY resembles Bush if we're going to do well in 08. That alone could kill us.

As for Hillary, Rudy shares too many views that align with hers--albeit only social ones. All the same, this practically eliminates those issues from contention in 2008. I don't think that helps us motivate the base in the slightest.

With Romney, you have a masterful organizer who speaks well on the cuff and who can deliver a pretty darn impressive foreign policy speech. He's been a salesman his entire life--something we've badly needed and simply not received with Bush. I can't tell you how many times I've banged my head in the wall when Bush is absolutely dead on the money and simply can't spell out anything in a logical manner. He's also got the right stance on social issues. While his views on abortion may not send social conservatives to the polls, they're rightly positioned, and contrasted against Clinton, they're golden.

Romney supports protecting the unborn under the 14th and has said he'll seek judges who think the same way. Even Thompson has stopped short of granting Constitutional protections to the unborn--something I frankly think is long overdue and where I trust Romney before Thompson.

Romney has also never been afraid to scrap with the best of them. He's struck out against Hillary, against Pelosi, against Reid, and the list goes on. He's also never been afraid to call a Jihadist a Jihadist. And if you'll see his foriegn policy speeches, he gets the global war on terror and articulates as much convincingly.

And while I'm skipping over a lot here, I think it bears repeating: Hillary Clinton is going to be desparately dependent on the female vote in the general. Men simply don't like her. And which candidates in recent memory have stolen the female vote? Why, Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy. Both attractive male candidates and articulate speakers. It's the same way that men will let an attractive woman get away with murder and give undue praise--we read onto people what we want to read on them all too often.

Romney, in that sense, is Hillary's most formidable opponent, as he can and will steal the female vote from her. And you can bet men aren't going to flock towards Hillary.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Rudy, McCain, and Romney all beating Billary. Voters in the general usually vote against a candidate, not for them. That’s why slinging mud works, especially if there is truth in it.

And thats a big if, he will be viable and will have found the fire in the belly, otherwise he is toast.

I came across this article by Larry Kudlow today.

Oz

Read my most recent story, "No speech from Romney is a reason to avoid him" on First Cut Politics

I can't imagine Mitt beating Hillary. He's the perfect Rockefeller Republican. I'm with Fred, no doubt about it. The only person I would pick Mitt over would be Ron Paul.

Visit The Scratching Post!

Several candidates, including Romney are moving ahead of billary. Also, you make a big assumption that billary get the nomination. The polls in Iowa not show here losing. Oboma may very will win the nomination.

It's all well and good to support the candidate with the best ideas in the primary. Usually. Now, it's all about stopping Rudy from driving the Party into the ground. That's why I'll vote for Paul if the Not Rudy forces haven't gotten our collective act together by the time the primaries roll around. If we have, I'll pull the lever for the alternative, too.

www.republicansenate.org

Well, I'm still backing Fred, but once it becomes clear (it's not CLEAR to me just yet, but will be in a month) that Fred's effect will be simply to take away votes from a VIABLE social conservative against Rudy, then I'll jump on board the Romney train.

As I'll post below, I think Fred should have a few more weeks to show if he's got any fight in him.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

We need to vet our candidates. I am okay with some attacks as long as they are legitimate. We don’t want a candidate who can’t stand the heat. The last thing we need is a candidate that has been tested under fire. If any Republican candidate can’t stand up during the primary, how is he going to stand up to the Democrats? There will be time for healing after the nomination.

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

Are you judging him on is actions as Governor where he governed as a Conservative or as a candidate for Senate/Governor where he ran as a moderate? All top tier candidates, bar none, have changes their position slightly or greatly as they have become candidates.

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

touch the "FINE" gun laws already in place? He said they were there to "protect" the people. HAH! Conservative governor my arse.

How quickly everyone forgets about Ross Perot. He had a major impact in that election. As Robert Doles problem (and I lived in Kansas at the time) is he was great person but a lousy campaigner. He also lacked that fire in the belly.

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

Romney has twice the charisma and ten times the fire in the belly that Dole had. Dole was kind of a shot-in-the-dark candidate anyway. Romney really is a good candidate. His campaigning skills and resources are virtually unparalleled. He also leads every candidate (Republican AND Democrat) in the amount of events he has held.

Oh and just for reference, Fred Thompson was at the bottom of that list (below Ron Paul).

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

==== 13 ====

No, I'm just suggesting you vote for somebody who has a strong work ethic and runs a competent and aggressive campaign.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

But what I meant was that in Dole we had a candidate that nobody got excited about. And I believe that in Rudy or Romney either one we'll have a candidate that will generate about the same level of excitement in the base in non-blue states.

Frankly, I attribute Perot's success in both elections more to that than to him. Perot drew mostly people who weren't going to vote for Bush anyways after he flip-flopped on taxes in 92, and then in 96 the party hadn't done enough to get all of them back.

It seems to me that people like Mitt once they have the chance to hear what he says. The early states where he has been stumping, Mitt is getting results.
I keep waiting for Fred to do something, what I don’t know anything. I was at the Defending the American Dream conference, and had the chance to listen them all. Started out leaning towards Fred, left hoping Fred would give me a reason in the future to throw my support that way.
I don't have to decide yet, but if I did... put yet another vote in the Mitt column.

People like Mitt once they have a chance to hear what he says. And then another group who wants to hear something else will hear that as well.

That's not comforting.

And I just don't see the Southern base of the party getting behind either Romney or Rudy. And sure, while both will pick up votes in traditionally Blue states, all voters are not really equal. Because the base is a force multiplier. Give me a candidate I can get excited about and I'll be giving money, and working to get them elected.

Give me Rudy or Romney, and while I'll vote for them in the general, I won't be doing the same, because I have severe reservations about both, and wouldn't want the responsibility of having talked someone into supporting them against their better judgement. Because, frankly, I understand it.

Too perfect? Wow, that's a rational thought based on evidence and reason, isn't it? Romney's not any more "perfect" than Fred is. He's just a better candidate than Fred.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

I think if you still like Fred, good for you. If you are in an early state and he is still viable (which all of them are now) stay on his bandwagon. But if he becomes not as viable, then its time to find another Wagon.

Actually, When you said "Yes, Romney is perfect". First, I would not call him perfect, he has made lots of mistakes along with some of the others.

When you said "What seems too good to be true, usually is." Thats what I thought about Fred until he under performed. It was thought he would be the Next Reagon, instead he came out as Dole. Although he has been picking it up some lately, the question will be is it enough. It also hurt him staying out of the mix so long.

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

He needed to run an ad a while ago to stop the bleeding of staffers, supporters, and poll numbers. If you can't convince those around you that YOU are intrested why would you expect that they stay intrested?

There's a thin line between a campaign "my way" and a campaign by myself. I'm afraid Fred has crossed that line.

Giuliani, MCain Ron Paul and Fred have all ran ads in early states; not nearly as much as Romney but still plenty

Also Rudy has had done huge amounts of mailers in NH as well a radio ads.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

That Mitt's detractors can be annoying gits at times, too.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

The country will elect a Socialist Woman President over a more qualified Conservative candidate based purely on his religion. Do you really think this is where America is now?

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

Based purely on his religion? No. But is his religion a factor in the Bible Belt? Yes. Should it be? Absolutely. Should it be a disqualifying factor? Absolutely not. But to try and tell people that they shouldn't even consider the religion, or lack thereof, of a candidate is silly. And to those raised in evangelical churches who were taught to believe that Mormonism is a dangerous cult (which is probably most churchgoing people in the rural South) it is a warning flag.

But for me personally, that's not a problem. The problem with Romney is that I just don't know that I believe that he's actually a conservative in any way, shape or form, but rather that he's just trying to play one on TV. That's better than Hillary, no doubt, but it's not comforting.

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

The ARG poll which looks to be a statistical outlier, or the others which basically show a dead heat? Here are all the poll results for SC at Real Clear Politics and as best I can tell nobody's sealed the deal there.

Will Romney lose some votes in the south over his religion? Yes, some. Will he lose votes because of the positions he took to get elected in Massachusetts? Yes, some.

Are these enough to make him lose Southern states? Yes, probably a couple, though without very many electoral votes. Especially if Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

No, not even close, and that's what matters. That anyone is trying to make this argument now that we see how he's doing in South Carolina is hilarious.

No candidate is doing exceptionally well in SC. Look at the numbers from the composite, which I linked to above:

Romney - 20.5%
Giuliani - 20.5%
Thompson - 16.8%
McCain - 13.0%
Huckabee - 8.3%

All you can say about that is that SC is still basically undecided. And you're right, with the exception of Arkansas the South isn't in play if it's a Hillary matchup. But Obama? You bet it will be. We probably still win them, but we'll have to spend money defending them.

He's tied for first, beating out the golden boy of SC. If you think he's going to do that well in the primaries, and lose Southern states in the general, think again.

As for money, it's a very good thing that Romney is both a great fundraiser and has back-up money.

But is his religion a factor in the Bible Belt? Yes. Should it be? Absolutely. Should it be a disqualifying factor? Absolutely not.

You are saying it should be a qualifying factor?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

What I'm saying is that the religion of a person absolutely is a factor that should be considered. I wouldn't require a religious test of a candidate. But if a candidate is religious I need to know how it will affect his policies.

For example, let's say we had a Muslim candidate. I would be appropriate to ask him questions about how he felt about the treatment of women and sharia in general, and whether he felt that government should be controlled by the clergy. But if he was convincing in all those things, then there's not a problem. But it would be a red flag requiring investigation.

Similiarly, from what I've been told, Mormons believe a number of things that seem kind of crazy. Now, they're probably no more crazy than traditional Christian beliefs are to non-Christians, but there they are. So it raises a red flag, and requires further thought.

And that's the problem with Romney, I can say that all of these things:

Managed to get elected in Socialist Massachusetts.
Pushed through disastrous Hillary-care lite there.
Flip Flop reputation
Mormonism

are all red flags to some people, whether or not they should be. Each of them will cost him some votes. Each subtracts from the level of comfort that some people will have with him. Enough to lose to Hillary? I don't know. Enough to lose to Obama if he gets the nom? Once again, I don't know, but it's a different calculation because as best I can tell Obama has a bunch of charisma, and unlike hillary, seems actually likeable.

Skey, I realize that you are trying to stay intellectual while trying to defend your points from all opposing sides, but I felt like I had to join redstate.com tonight in order to respond to this comment. I am tired of Mormons--for the sake of argument among Evangelicals and political strategist-- being treated as cautiously as muslims, just for the sake of justifying their soft bigotry.
I can understand why our country would hesitate to question the muslims at this time; not because of fear who they ultimately answer to, but because we are currently embroiled in a global war that happens to center around Islam, and the frightening silence that has beset the Islamic community concerning condemnation of the attacks.
Mormons have more than proved their loyalty to this country and its security since the Spanish-American War. My ancestors' sacrifice to this country have been just as valiant as any others'. My immediate recollection is that both my great-grandfathers, grandfathers, uncles, cousins have served in every war that the last century saw. A great number of missionaries that I befriended on my two year LDS mission serve today in Iraq.
So, no, there is absolutely NO reason for the Mormon faith to be questioned as far as it concerns a candidate and whether he will act in the best interest of this country.

>>>But is his religion a factor in the Bible Belt? Yes. <<<

The Bible Belt will go to a Republican. I say that sitting here in Tennessee. I frankly don't care too much about a few grumpy Southern Baptists, as they're not going to shift this election in the slightest. And I say that as a guy who grew up in a Baptist Church and is there every Sunday. I'm far more concerned about Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oregon. Republicans can win those states. But it's about time we stopped sending hillbillies and folksy drawlers off to do it. And yes, I say that from my mountain top in Tennessee. :)

Romney frankly has run as a conservative all his life. He ran as a conservative in 94 and 02. Just not as a Pro-Life conservative. I frankly see him as having evolved and believe in that transformation. In 2002, he said he was personally Pro-Life but would remain neutral to Mass' abortion laws and uphold. Why would he even make that concession running in a state as liberal as Mass is if he didn't mean it?

Is he perfect? Nope. But honestly, the idea of venture capitalist running the roost in DC sounds pretty darn good to me after all of these years of non-stop spending.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

What a bigoted and ridiculously ignorant thing to say. Remember JFK and Catholicism in the 1960's.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Lincoln said the same thing in another context-1854, he was still a Whig:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong....In both [cases] you are national and nothing less than national. This is good old whig ground. To desert such ground, because of any company, is to be less than a whig---less than a man---less than an American."

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm

Romney is right on life, right on the family, and right on fiscal responsibility. To not stand with him, to "desert such ground," just because that's keeping "company" with a Mormon, would make one "less than a Republican--less than a man--less than an American."

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

I like Fred Thompson a lot. I differ with his federalist approach to abortion, marriage, and tort reform, but he's a principled, likeable guy. I'm not sure his heart is in this, but the next few weeks will tell the story.

That said, kind of like all the Duncan Hunter supporters out there, I say stand by your man until it's clear what lies ahead.

I do sincerely believe that it's going to come down to Romney v. Giuliani, and I do think that Romney will win. But if Fred should rise and Romney fall, I'd back Fred.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Who's your candidate, Menorah? Tell us who he is and why he's better. Baseless accusations will get you nowhere.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

Either that, or you just have no idea of who you are talking to.

Not that I'm some important person, but rather that if anyone may fairly be accused of being "deceived" by Romney's flip-flopping, I'm pretty far down the list.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

the wrong impression.

Rudy had his chance. He could have come out with "I'm pro-choice but anti-Roe" or any number of other plausible election-year hedges; he instead came out with "no litmus test" and "I think if it's a constitutional right and someone can't afford it there has to be public funding for it." He had a pretty good chance to ease a lot of minds and instead he just stepped on pro-lifers, which leads me to believe pretty conclusively that he's a lot more committed to being pro-choice than a lot of his supporters are willing to admit.

But still, sorry you got the wrong impression.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

and I hadn't read your prior post, but reading it now I find your argument completely unconvincing.

First, I don't buy that 27% of Republicans wouldn't vote Rudy when staring down the barrel of a Hillary presidency. We're one year away from the election. Saying things theoretically when the possibility of a Hillary presidency is not staring you in the face, IMHO, does not hold water. Anti-Rudy Republicans may have their preferred candidates, but I think this number would diminish drastically once campaign season rolls around and the campaign gets into full swing. Most of these 27% will come home.

As for having no reason to vote for Rudy other than not being Hillary, I find your statement to be almost incomprehensible. First, he will not only pledge to win the Iraq war and oppose all efforts to cut and run, but will fight the larger war on terror just as aggressively as President Bush. He has pledged to extend the Bush tax cuts and has outlined plans to counter HillaryCare II by promoting free market solutions to bring down health costs and expand coverage.

And, most importantly in the context of your post, he has pledged to appoint judges like Scalia, Alito and Roberts to the federal bench. If he does so, I fail to see how his personal preferences on abortion are relevant. If, at the end of the day, we are at the same place vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade with judges Rudy appoints as Romney or the other candidates, there is no practical difference. This is why, among others, he has been endorsed by Rick Perry and Pat Robertson.

I am a social conservative and, in a perfect world, I would prefer a staunch pro-life candidate. However, I am also a realist, and I know that Rudy is rock-solid on 85-90% of the issues I care about and has the ability to reach out to voters who are not traditional Republican voters. I live on Long Island and work in New York City, and I can tell you from my personal interactions that Rudy has the capability of getting a lot of crossover votes that Romney has no chance of getting.

Based on your logic, doesn't Romney put Massachusetts into play

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

and for a host of reasons, first and foremost, you can answer the question yourself by asking, why didn't Romney run for re-election?

Your (truthful) answer should tell you why.

(Not to but into a two person argument/conversation)

There is no way on God's earth MA will be I play. Romney might get closer than anone else, but he'll lose MA by at least 10 points.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

but remember two things:

Reagan won there twice.

In the only two elections since then where the GOP got more than 50% of the vote, the Democrat was from MA.

So there is a real possibility that the Democrat margin there is thinner than it seems. In a very good year, it might be in play.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

And I'm factoring in the fact that our current idiot - I mean, Governor - and legislative mental midgets are doing everything, and I mean everything, they can to try to get the Massachusetts electorate to wish they had voted for the other gal.

Too many moonbats. Too many limo-libs. Too may hacks. Too many pro-life, anti-tax, anti-gun-control, anti-homosexual-marriage Catholics who, since birth, have been taught that voting for a Republican was something for which they would have to go receive absolution.

And not nearly enough of a GOP infrastructure here to make the state any more competative.

In other words, this ain't Ronald Reagan's Massachusetts.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

It was designed to help the bots understand that they can't convince me.

I'm very sad to say that it's failed miserably.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

You'll be a proud member of the "27%" and stay home or throw your vote away? I surely hope not.

Rudy's a deal-breaker. 27% is quite a large number, why wouldn't you think that there would be some here?

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

irrational for someone like Rudy Giuliani, who has busted his ass getting Republicans elected nationally since he ended his mayoralty, to be a "deal breaker." In fact, it pisses me off that anyone considering him/herself a Republican would not support someone who, if elected, would support virtually the entire Republican platform. So, it;s irrelevant that Rudy agrees with conservatives on judges, the war on terror, taxes, health care, and a host of other issues. He's personally pro-choice and doesn't support gay marriage but supports civil unions. To 27% of Republicans, these are apparently hanging offenses, worthy of staying home on election day or voting for some no-name third party candidate. These "Republicans" seriously need to wake the hell up if Rudy is the nominee. Support whoever you want in the primary, but abide by Reagan's 11th commandment above all else.

And the "far right-winger" George Pataki thanks Rudy for his retroactive support.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing out that 27% of Republicans say that they will not vote for Rudy in the general (I doubt when the race is actually Clinton v Rudy they will stay home/3rd party). And that 27% is quite a large number, so it's not out of the realm of possibilities that there would be people here who believe that (I would say it's probably about that % here as well).

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

The percentage is probably a lot smaller than 27%, but it is > 0, based on many exchanges here over the past months.

that although rudy supports roe v. wade, he can be counted on to nominate judges who will overturn it?

yeah. makes perfect sense.

more realisically, we could expect a rudy presidency to give us another david souter as opposed to another stephen breyer were hilary elected.

with Hillary, you KNOW you'll get David Souter clones. If Rudy has people like Ted Olson vetting his nominees, I'm pretty confident in whatever choices he'll make.

I think he'll actually do pretty well here in Oregon (not so much in Washington though). While I don't think it matters too much, there is a pretty large Mormon population here (they probably vote R anyways, but maybe a little help in GOTV or working for Romney). Clinton would probably still win the state, but I think Romney would have a decent shot and it'd be closer that any other Republican with the exception of Rudy.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

but IIRC McCain is a better fit than Rudy. Rudy really improves his margins in the Northeast. McCain does well in states with large Indie voting populations. ME, OR, and NH are good examples.

I think McCain could probably win OR, Rudy and Romney might, and the others would probably not.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

even though he's moved up again in my list, I still don't remember to think of McCain as someone who will win the Republican nomination. McCain probably does the best here.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

First, I'll just state that I'd vote for Rudy if he was the nominee, though I'd do so far less enthusiastically that I would for Romney. I like Rudy, but not necessarily as our President.

But why does Mitt lose and Rudy win? I personally find Romney a far more likeable character. He's far more of a family man. He's better looking. His resume is to die for--just success after success. He's written his own book on managment.

As for the two of them, I find them both extremely articulate--the best two in our batch. Both can scrap with Hillary. Giuliani comes across as extremely confident and bold. A bit standoffish, but I think we can accept that in a New Yorker.

But how is Giuliani more electable? I'm at a loss. Because he's an undevoted Catholic and Romney is a devoted Mormon? I look at Romney's business background, and I see all kinds of new states at play--states that you claim only Giuliani can win. Color me puzzled.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

He says he will appoint original judges, but in NY, he appointed Democrates.

Kripto, a proud Romneybot.

and there are no simply Republican judges here. Moreover, judges are elected in NYC, aside from a few family court and other low courts -- and there are probably literally ZERO Republicans on the family court or practicing in the family court bar.