Redstate

Any and all Republican candidates are going to be savaged by the press. They are coming off of a monumental success in winning the 2006 midterms by concealing, lying and exaggerating so they are feeling their oats. Their only disappointment is that they have not been able to destroy the military as yet but there is still time.

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

I UPS'd the rope.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The MSM won't lay a glove on McCain, certainly during the primary process. He's positioned as the "anti-Bush". He mumbles just enough support for the Administration that his supporters can wail about how supportive he's been, while he undercuts them at any opportunity - G14, torture, taxes, GW, etc. McCain will be the anointed candidate of the MSM. Until he gets the nomination. Then the gloves come off. McCain will get buried by the media if he is the nominee. He gets softball treatment now, at worst, and when they go after him, when they attack his wife, when they start pounding on his age and his temperament, he'll blow up. It'll be a Moe Udall all over again only he'll be the Republican candidate not some primary contender and the election will be over.

Rudy will get some shots across the bow, but he's been a national figure for years and his "stuff" is pretty well known. He's also imminently capable of defending himself. The media won't take Rudy down, if he goes down it will be because of issues - abortion, gun control, etc.

The issue with Romney, is that he's never had to deal with the national media. The Boston Globe doesn't count, they're moonbats but they can't generate the heat that national stories will. We have no clue how he will respond and deal with the death of a thousand cuts they will hit him with.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I think the media will eventually go after McCain hard because of his move to the right after being their centrist darling for so long. Moderates and liberals are beginning to realize McCain was not as sincere as a centrist as most think.

Romney probably will handle the media well. I doubt they will go after him for the social issues for too long once he takes a strong stance towards the right. They will just attack him for being a right wing nut.

First, they will go after him continuously because he's a Mormon. They will position their attacks by finding someone - a new someone every week - who will find some point of Mormonism to be "concerned" about and publish stories about how the dreaded religious right will never support a Mormon. They will not really be "attacking" him, simply informing their readership that large parts of the Republican party are religious bigots. It will be the death by a thousand cuts.

The other thing they will pound him on is his stewardship of Massachusetts. Specifically, the Big Dig. Keep in mind that Romney has exactly NO friends left anywhere in Massachusetts State government. The new governor is a moonbat, the legislature is way to the left of him, and the regulators are slightly to the left of Che. There will be a steady stream of charges from sources inside Massachusetts government about Romney's mismanagement of state finances and government. Look for pictures of starving children and homeless people. Romney is the ultimate hypocrite, a "devout" Mormon hated by the religious right bigots who implements programs that help big business and hurts the most needy in our society. Again, they aren't going to attack his positions on issues, they're just going to inform their readership about what a hypocrite this presidential contender is.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Massachusetts post-Romney has nowhere to go but down. Deval Patrick is already running into the mafia establishment on Beacon Hill in his attempts to constrain the budget. It's impossible to work with people who will break your legs, and Deval is going to have to retreat from his promises in a BIG way, because all of that state money goes to grease the wheels of the real power brokers in this state.

I lived there for a while ('70's and '80's) and I'm sure nothing has changed.

Given the situation you describe, Patrick will be especially happy to feed Romney to the fish, known to some as the media. It will take some political heat off him. It will be interesting to see how he makes out with the "ruling elite" in the legislature. I thought I read something about the Senate majority leader making veiled threats about "agendas" and things.

And a very Merry Christmas...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The media will go hard after Rudy. His post 9/11 iconic status has allowed his "stuff" to fade into the background. The MSM will launch a three progned attacked using his New York liberalism (socailly liberal), his past support of democrats (Mario Cuomo), and his persoanl probelems (messy divorces). And then there are always the unknowns. Kerik was a hero in NYC until he got the federal nomination. Then his dirty laundry ended up on the front page of every major US paper.

If you think the the MSM will hold back on Rudy you are dead wrong. He is a national hero and has a HUGE target on his back. The liberals in the media would love to take him down and mount his head on their wall. He would be the ultimate trophy.

While I will not support Rudy in 2008, I do think that he is an honorable man and a strong leader. Its is going to be very sad to watch the MSM destroy him. I am not looking foward to it.

I said he could handle them. I still believe that. He survived NYC politics, all the same players. They won't be destroying Rudy any time soon, they've already had their shot at him.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Rudy's biggest accomplishment is the 4 month period he led New York City after 9/11. Without this experience he would not be a top contender for the GOP nomination. I am not saying that this is a minor accomplishment (it is a big one) but Rudy has got a lot riding on this.

The MSM will try to find examples to chip away at this experience (lack of preparedness in NY pre 9/11 if it exists, mismanagement post 9/11 if it exists). They are very good at propagating lies and making things up. While they try ruin his 9/1 image they will also highlight his personal problems and his liberal political views.

The MSM will take shots at all the candidates (Romney: past abortion support, Mormonism McCain: Support of war and troop increase) but Rudy has the most to lose. He can handle the press as an American icon and former mayor, but will have huge problems as a candidate for the GOP nomination.

It seems to me that what you're saying about Brownback is what they said about Reagan in 76 and 80.

Wasn't Reagan a stringent conservative in his rhetoric and proposals?
--
Run like Reagan!

mainly his weakness on the war and some other things that I don't remember now because having heard them, I long ago wrote him off as a light weight. But I would say that some of his statements about gays are quite ignorant and mean spirited.

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

and the fact that he's another damn Senator.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

Lets not compare Brownback and Reagan. Never again. Even in 76, when Reagan lost to Ford he was a rock star. Brownback is a dud now, and will always be a dud. Anybody who has seen him on CSPAN speaking on the floor of the Senate knows this. A Brownback nomination would be the first step towards another Clinton presidency.

It's just the way I'm personally reading the tea leaves. I reserve the right to be wrong, and could very well be proven wrong in six months' time. I'm not a crystal ball or an oracle, nor do I profess to be one.

However, I do think that all of the candidates except McCain have a big uphill battle to fight, for different reasons. I like Sam Brownback personally and I think he's a very good man, but I wonder at this moment if he has the ability to successfully take the spotlight and keep it. McCain has such a big dais from which to spread his Gospel, after all. On the domestic side, I think the candidate who can persuade the American people to do the right thing with Social Security and Medicare is going to have a leg up (and rightly so.) That issue has been relatively dormant for a while, with the Iraq war in the front of everyone's consciousness, but it's going to be a really super-duper important issue in 2008-12. What we do as a nation in those years to reform the system and keep it solvent for future generations will be crucial, and the winning candidate will have to break through the static to make that case effectively. We're going to need a candidate who can successfully bring a reformist attitude to the American people on that issue. I actually think Romney would be a great candidate to speak to that need.

And there are some intangibles: Romney is a good-looking man and knows his way around a microphone and can acquit himself well in front of cameras. When I peer into the future and think of his press conferences, I see Romney doing a better job than almost anyone except possibly Giuliani. He may not be a Reaganesque "great communicator" but he's not tongue-tied, either. I think there will be very few malapropisms attributed to a Romney presidency. And as a former venture capitalist I think the business community could muster the will to rally behind him.

All this stuff is back of the envelope calculation right now. I'm not discouraging anyone who wants to try to bring Brownback up to the real position of national prominence he will need to go toe-to-toe with McCain. However, in many ways, Romney is already there.

...to keep the American public committed to the War on Terror, to talk about Social Security and Medicare and to push for a conservative replacement to John Paul Stevens. We really need a conservative communicator in 2008.

The biggest lesson politically speaking in the past six years is that while GWB is certainly a man who knows what good policy is when he sees it, he hasn't been nearly as effective at communicating that to enough people. I don't mean to say that we want a dissembler like Clinton but when we consider our candidates I hope we'll realize that the Presidency and Presidential power hinges crucially on the ability of the Chief Executive to persuade in an "always on", YouTube culture. That means that the person we elect is going to need persuasive power that is at least in the same ballpark with their policy acumen. We can say we don't like it, we can go back and read Tulis to tell ourselves that it wasn't always this way, we can visit the museums and realize that fomer Presidents of the 20th Century had elevators on Air Force One to conceal their inability to walk (FDR), but that is the past.

Many of the presidents probelems have stemed from his sub par communication skills. Democrats are reactionary and cave to public pressure. If conservatives can get the public on their side, demorcats will respond to the desires of their constituents.

The biggest spokesman for conservative values is always a strong commander in cheif. This is why we need a strong communicator in 08.

I just know I could never vote for McCain or Giuliani in the general, and the way Romney's shaping up I could never vote for him in a primary.

So I'm grasping at straws here, candidate-wise.
--
Run like Reagan!

Neil

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

I, as one voter, am only responsible for my vote. I will NOT vote for a perversion of our system of government. I cannot use my vote to betray my principles. So if the party strays, I will NOT follow.
--
Run like Reagan!

and would pervert our system of government (Neil, I came close to typing a flyerhawk "wow" on that last one!) after you go to www.race42008.com and read Murdock's articles. Meanwhile, I am overnighting the obligatory, you are your party's keeper contract and not allowed fits of perot-like pride copping out as Hillary makes us her village, ie France west

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

I'll wait until after Monday to post it as a gift to Thomas, but I'll lay out in a diary why I can't vote for Giuliani.
--
Run like Reagan!

Any one of these three (Romney, McCain, Guliani) would be a better alternative than any of the dems. This country is at a critical moment in its history. Do you believe that we should hand it over to a democrat president to lead us down the path to distruction? Should we become the "Old Europe" of the 20th century?

This is serious stuff. Throwing votes away for write ins is a path to disaster.

I ment 21st century.....

And if YOU don't want to hand the White House to the Democrats, then you'd better make sure our party's nominee can unify the party.

A baby-killer like Giuliani and a troop-slanderer like McCain just don't qualify, sorry.
--
Run like Reagan!

I' m as pro-life as one can get (tied with millions) so hear me out. Rudy is not abortionist. I'm sure you would agree that what matters most is over-turning Roe. Rudy says he favors Thomas/Scalia/Alito/Roberts judges and that abortion should be a state issue. That's what really matters isn't it?

I mean, he would not push for a const amendment but we can't get that anyway.

It would be nice to have a Reagan on the issue making the moral case as well, but he's gone.

I really am coming to like Rudy. Go over to race 4 2008 and read Kavon Nikrad's and DeRoy Murdock's stuff on Rudy, esp the archive of DeRoy covering Rudy since he was mayor.

morelater

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

...is a good guy and NOT a baby killer, but he is going to crash and burn. Despite his name recognition he is a huge long shot. I am not sure how he squares his liberal positions with the base or competes for 08' talent. Does he try to appease social conservatives or does he pull a Pataki and stick to social liberalism? He has faced zero scrutiny thus far and he will melt under the hot lights of the media. Once his name recognition and iconic status fade he will run out of gas.

Most of the liberal positions Rudy held would only be affected by him at a state level. He favors the kind of judges that would un-do imposition of liberal positions by judicial fiat.

He is conservative on the over-whelming majority of issues.

Look, I an an evangelical pro life southern baptist far right religious kook. But we never wanted to IMPOSE our views. We wanted free religious speech rights and the right to compete in the arena of ideas with all in setting policy at all levels, rather than letting liberal judges IMPOSE law on us.

Rudy fits the bill.

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

Guliani is the definition of a liberal republican. Good guy, but the political reality is that he will not play well with the majority of people who vote in republican primaries.

He is going to sink faster than a lead ballon, especially if he makes the point that his liberal positons are meaningless since he is seeking a federal office.

The president holds more than just a federal office. He is the leader of his entire party. Many republicans do not want to see a liberal republican leading the party.

Abortion policy change for the right reasons. I didn't know that about Rudy:

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.
Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999

But perhaps his views have, indeed, changed?

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.

He remains pro-choice, but thinks Roe was wrong and that it should be a state issue. His position on late-term is mainly moot even if not changed since it is a federal law now. He is against gay marriage but I doubt he would back the federal amendment. He may also oppose federal restrictions on Abortion on the margins as well. I don't know.

There are some negatives is what I'm saying, but most are either irrelevant given that he would appoint judges that would oppose imposing those views, or the issue is moot now, or the likelihood of getting certain federal amendments is remote anyway.

So, given all that, I think his positives greatly outweigh his negatives. His record in NYC on the economy, limiting government, race issues and his positions on the war and experience on the issue when in the justice dept make his a sterling choice to me.

He would be feared by the enemy. He gives no quarter to the lib media. He is cool and calm and doesn't let the media slip Knownfacts by him. He's a good lawyer. He's a leader,

more later

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

We could be attacked at anytime. Republicans get that, democrats do not. Any one of the three candidates would be better than Hillary Clinton at defending this contry and its citizens. Period.

P.S. If you haven't yet realized how important Democrat/Spanish /Italian Socaialis victories are to terrorists see the link below.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html

Ok. That is too funny and a good summery of the discussion.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

in 1980 and I knew in my heart very early on that Reagan was unbeatable. And I hated it at the time! I now love the man like a God! I feigned loathing him as I was a libdem, but the contrast between him and carter was just so striking and I could tell he resonated with the great unwashed. Blue haired old ladies in the choirs at baptist churches are never wrong on election predictions.

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

Steele would be an excellent VP choice for the nominee. As for Hunter, until he can distance himself from the Washington establishment, prove he can raise the $$$ needed for a presidential run and score double digits in one poll, he is an 08' lightweight.

But still an 08 lightweight. Sorry.

President, and after McCain drops out in a few months after his poll numbers drop dramatically against Dems and his one characteristic as a probably winner is gone, Hunter could be the #3 or #4 guy. He is just the kind of sincere, solid guy that could make friends in New Hampshire...

or be Speaker in 09

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com

Also, I seriously wouldn't be surprised if President Bush decides to replace Vice President Cheney with Mitt Romney at some point within the next two years. This possible move would give Mitt a "leg up" politically in the race for the '08 Presidency.

Romney replacing Cheney? Where do you get this stuff?

Cheney isn't running at all for President in '08 while Mitt Romney is. Cheney still has a history of heart problems, and he's not getting any younger even if his doctors keep saying every year that Cheney is healthy. If Mitt or one of the other Republican candidates ends up replacing Cheney in the V.P. slot, then that person will immediately get much more attention from both the press and from the general public. The Democrats are still trying to get rid of both the President and V.P. through Articles of Impeachment anyways, and replacing Cheney with somebody new would put an end to this possibility-not that I'm a believer that impeachment will actually happen. Impeachment of the President has about as much chance of passing Congress as does bringing back the military draft. The Democratic majorities in Congress are going to take a "turn towards the political goofy" soon enough on a variety of issues. Bush has many connections with the New England area with him being born in Connecticut, with him later going to school in Massachusetts before going back to Connecticut to go into Yale, and with the Bush family having their place in Maine. Andrew Card is from Massachusetts as well, and he's still a good friend of the President. George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush often visit Fenway Park whenever the Texas Rangers happen to be in Boston. The Bushes have a serious soft spot for the New England area, and Mitt Romney happens to be the latest Republican Governor of Massachusetts. President Bush wants the best of things to happen for Mitt Romney.

There are reasons to think a President might want to replace a VP such as Cheney, in order to influence the choice of his successor. Of course, you could substitute any one of a dozen names for 'Romney' during this portion of your argument, and it would make just as much sense.

But there are two problems. First, I don't think Bush wants to choose his successor. I shared your view for a while. I thought that Dick Cheney would develop a diplomatic heart murmer at the Convention in 2004. It could have made a dramatic moment as the President revealed his new running mate: the first black woman on a major ticket.

Of course, it didn't happen. Either Bush didn't want it, or Condi didn't. But THAT was the dramatic moment to unveil Cheney's successor. After all, Cheney brought no votes to the ticket that weren't committed to the President anyway.

So, no, I don't think Bush wants to choose his successor. And your suggestion that if he did, it would be Romney, doesn't hang together to me. You are positing links between Bush and some states that are near Massachusetts, not links to Romney.

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

hell freezing over.

The only thing that Bush will do for a potential candidate by replacing Cheney would be kill any chance the potential candidate might have for 2008.

He would be forever known as "Bush's boy."

He would not be able to forge his own stance on issues, he would be linked to the current Administration.

He would be inhibited from raising money.

He would take huge heat for accepting the 2nd most important job in the land (bucket of warm spit and all) and then being AWOL while he campaigns for POTUS.

That would simply assure a candidate NO CHANCE whatsoever at the nomination.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Within the next two years, Condi Rice as a possible Vice Presidential replacement for Dick Cheney won't ever be known as "Bush's boy"! There are a variety of Republican candidate possibilities if the President either does decide to replace Cheney with somebody else or if Cheney ends up either dying or is otherwise incapable of performing his civic duties as the Vice President. I'm not anti-Cheney at all. I like him both as a politician and as a person, and I'm happy that he's the Vice President. But, the Republican Party at every political level has just lost badly in the November '06 elections, and Republicans truly need to do all that they can do to bring the political momentum back their way in both the short-term and in the long-term. Political change can truly be a very good thing if all of the right things are done.

And won't be.

Please refer to my post above where you told us Cheney would resign and Romney would get the job. This is even worse.

Bush's approval is in the 30's and he's got a hostile Congress. Condi is already part of Bush's team and that's not a plus. In order to replace Cheney, any candidate would have to be nominated by Bush and sent to the Senate for confirmation. What part of "that would be a three of four month political nightmare" can't you seem to understand. The idiots who will be running the Senate by this time next month will use the excuse to open every kind of investigation you could possibly imagine. They would demand that they be able to grill Condi on every decision that was made, all off the intelligence, every conversation that led to the war.

Cheney will be VP until Jan 20, 2009.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Unless, of course, Cheney ends up either dying before January 20, 2009, or Cheney decides for himself to resign before January 20, 2009, or something else possibly bad happens to Cheney to the point that he truly can no longer fulfil his civic duties anymore as the Vice President and has to relinquish the job to somebody else.

History has proven time and again that Governers do well. State issues didnt hurt Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.. because they are too nuanced. Do you really think the voter in Iowa is going care or even understand the role of the turnpike authority, Bechtel's responsibility, Matt Amorello,... No. Having a congressinional record is much more difficultto overcome. It's diffiicult to present yourself as a leader with new ideas when you've been around for years and haven't distinguished youself. Voters do care and will remember whether you voted for NAFTA or whether you voted for presrciption drugs, the war on Iraq, etc... That killed Kerry and other failed candidates who were former Senators. Other than congressional voting records, personal baggage is the next thing they will dig into. Rudy will come across like slimeball in the MSM just the same way Newt did when adultery was exposed. Mitt is squeaky clean.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? How do we know that Bush likes him "a lot?" Most of the president's people are working for McCain (see Mark McKinnon, Terry Nelson, Steve Schmidt, etc.)

I am not saying that being a "Bush type" is a bad thing, but you have no way of validating this statement.

See reply #52 for the answer to your question.

Your comments about "more dead... to make a rep" are so far off base as to be ridiculous and they are patently offensive. He's a lot of things, that's not one.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

McCain needs to be successfully replaced by a decent conservative in the U.S. Senate, and McCain also needs to be successfully defeated during the '08 Republican Presidential Primaries. We don't need another conservative "pretender" to become the next President of the U.S.! We all truly need to do all that we can to help successfully elect a decent, "real" conservative to become the next President of the U.S.!

be a Senator as long as he wants to be. The only possible way to take him out would be if Janet Napolitano, our Dem governor, ran against him in '10. Like it or not, no Republican will either run against him or beat him.

I expect he will likely retire in '10.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Reagan knew at age 10, just as Gamecock did at the same age or earlier, that when a sperm unites with an egg, a human being is conceived and is from that moment on developing into one of us. Reagan knew, as I did all during my teen, 20s, and 30s, that to abort that developing life was to kill human life.

I was pro-choice for the same reasons Reagan was until he switched: selfish barbarism

I wanted to e able to have consequence free sex and wanted to be able to get rid of inconveniences my children might dump on my lap.

Yes, the photos inside the womb give people an "out", but no one didn't know what was going on in the womb.

Reagan, gamecock and Romney sinned before god in supporting mass murder untill each of us repented and stopped. Science had nothing to do with it.

We must be about conversions and forgivness.

http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com
Gamecock, now DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer