The primary season begins: What are we going to do with this "upper tier" notion?
(Do we need one and why?)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (71) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ever since before it was arguably complete, there has been an "upper tier" of candidates for the Republican nomination. If the top tier is determined by early polling in States with early nominating contests, the upper tier would be Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. If the top tier is determined by national polling, the upper tier would be Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Fundraising? It would be Rudy (and Romney, if you include self-donations).
Well, there is a sort of early revolution going on in the GOP with this upper tier nonsense. The candidate who cavalierly attacked Ronald Reagan by falsely insisting that as governor of California, Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice," has now determined that a candidate must raise $20-million to be allowed into his tier. He's raised plenty of money from himself and from others, thus that's the metric he prefers.
Read More…
"I think you're going to have to see what level of ground support that they have and what level of fundraising they have," Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If Huckabee raises $20 million this quarter, like we did in the (first) quarter, then he'll become a front-tier candidate."
"And I think from Thompson's standpoint, I think he certainly has to look at $20 million as sort of the — this is, if you will, the low hanging-fruit quarter for him," Romney said, adding that it's easier to raise money in the first weeks of a race when friends, family and allies are tapped.
Mitt Romney has a point, in that Huckabee and Thompson will need to raise money to compete for the nomination; that being said, much of Romney's money has been spent piddling around, building an organization and chasing after telephone poll results and pay-per-play straw poll fundraisers. Thompson at least has avoided this early nonsense, with Huckabee keeping his spending to relatively reasonable levels. What all candidates – Rudy, Thompson, Huckabee, and Romney – need right now is enough money to keep the message alive in the minds of the voters and to generate excitement. Huckabee seems now to be creating a modicum of excitement, and Thompson has a vast potential for doing it. Giuliani seems not to need to do so, and Romney has shown so far that he cannot generate excitement. This would mean, if it be the case, that Romney would need to spend more money in this endeavor than would Thompson.
It is interesting also that Romney would group Thompson with Huckabee, given that Huckabee becoming upper tier is still a long shot and a successful Thompson effort drains Romney's multi-year quest for the nomination.
"Money may be the primary rationale of Mitt Romney's campaign, but the rest of us know this election is about ideas and who has the best conservative message," said Thompson spokesman Todd Harris. "Fortunately for us that is something money can't buy."
So does this leave us any closer to or farther away from having an identifiable and delineable upper tier? I would argue that we still do not have one, as this campaign is just beginning. All that has happened to this point has been something for bored people to observe. I really believe that, and I also think it's going to fascinating to see what strategies are used, what tactics, how this battle is fought.
If, in fact, a true upper tier can be forged. What will be the criteria and who determines the consensus?
And we get to second-guess.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | We Won't Have Chuck To Kick Around Anymore — Comments (43) »
The primary season begins: What are we going to do with this "upper tier" notion? 71 Comments (0 topical, 71 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I don't know. Brownback is still in my personal "top tier" in terms of his *thinking*, as is Duncan Hunter. Mitt Romney is at the top of my top tier because he currently has the best blend of attributes.
I think what you're really saying with this post is that we as Americans shouldn't allow anyone to decide who the "top tier" is for us, and I agree with that.
Just strategically, I think we should keep the Donks guessing until the absolute last possible minute. Their entire strategy this election cycle has been to draw the Republicans out early, all the better to shoot at them.
Just say no. I intend to cover the debate in Baltimore as candidly (and with a few new twists) as I can, but I'm not committed to any of what I would call the "top eight" right now.
I have a personal trio of top-tier candidates (Thompson, Romney, Brownback). This has to do with my perception of them, and nothing to do with any national polling data.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
any more than I would these little Statewide polls at this point. The national polls could signify fundraising and potential activist support, as well as something repeated by the media to give a candidate the appearance of doing well.
One thing we will have to observe is just how important Iowa and New Hampshire are in this current system? To me, it seems clear that they are not very, although the traditionalist in me would like to romantically dream that everything is as it was.
I still don't get where you're getting the notion that Romney can't "generate excitement." I would say that if anyone can't "generate excitement" it's Sam Brownback, but not Mitt Romney.
And besides, as I've said, I think there is a lot of excitement yet to come. I think a lot of smart people are holding back whatever "excitement" they might be thinking about using right now. I know I am, and I'm still pretty excited about Romney, as are a lot of other people here on this blog. So this is one of the times, Mark, when I just have to disagree with you. If the election was held tomorrow, in the absence of knowing enough about Fred Thompson yet, I would absolutely 100% vote for Mitt Romney.
You can't get more excited than that.
When I saw what he had to say on Iran and on entitlements, that was exciting to me.
But excitement isn't everything. I'm not sure it's a whole lot, either. Were a lot of people particularly excited by President Bush in the last two elections?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's getting to be time that I really set down my thoughts about all the candidates in detail in a long post that people can read and pick apart.
But I'm not going to do that until *after* the 5th of October, when I have both covered the debate and the Defending the American Dream summit in DC.
After that, I think I'll have a much better idea of who among this field I'm really interested in going the distance for. Despite the millions of dollars that have been spent thusfar (and I haven't given a dime to anyone) I think it's all been very premature. I think subconsciously when everyone "decided" to announce so early and start campaigning so early I just tuned them out. I'm not even ready to start making up my mind, and I still have a heck of a lot more time.
Talk away, candidates!
...is a good idea. There's plenty of time (like you said) and you'll have gained a lot of knowledge from just preparing for those assignments.
Btw we're really looking forward to your reports from both events...;0)
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
You can be absolutely sure that since Baltimore is both the city where I was born and also still a place that I have a few friends (and am waiting to see again) that I'll be *stoked* to do this coverage. And this time you can be sure that I won't forget my big Compact Flash card and a few other things.
There's nothing like "going home" after a long time absent to get someone really excited about seeing the changes. I'll be in that mood while I'm there, so I should be pretty sharp.
Or at least it seems contradictory with what I said in my previous post, but the election isn't going to be held tomorrow. So my excitement can change, and probably will.
But really, I'm looking for a movement surrounding a candidate, that kind of excitement. I'm aware that this is a rare thing, but I think the Republicans will need it this year to win.
And as far as the nominating process, that kind of excitement is more valuable than any monetary advantage.
Not yet. But I will be, when the time is right.
Did I ever tell you about my CX650 Turbo? It's a FUN, once you learn its little quirks, the biggest of which is that because of the lag in spooling up the impeller, you twist the throttle and then there's a little pause, depending on the gear and the RPM, before the 19PSI of boost hits and it practically yanks your arms out of their sockets. In those few seconds, the engine's power grows logarithmically. Of course, the most important thing is to know just when it is going to hit while watching out for road hazards.
None of our candidates are facing really serious road hazards right now, except perhaps for the Big Trucks being driven by certain Road Warriors from Team Paul.
This is a little like that... :)
He is in McCain territory in the national polls. He has won a single, like, uno, one straw poll. Lost one straw poll in Texas, lost TWO in Minnesota. In Minnesota, he lost to Thompson.
Money can't buy happiness, or hopefully, elections.
First off, national polls are garbage. That's thek ind of stunt the Democrats do all the time wen they can't win in the electoral college. It's a race to win delegates.
Second, he's done quite well in straw polling. Better than even the straw poll specialist, Ron Paul. See my analysis.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Maybe so, but they are all we have until the election. I saw the analysis when it was posted, but it seems skewed, like seriously.
Now, I do understand that the national polls are garbage, but dude, do you really think that the polls are so far off with regard to Ron Paul? The only reason he gets mentioned by the MSM is because he is a thorn to Republicans. Otherwise, vis a vis the news, he would get the same lack of attention as Dodd or Biden. Still, even with that attention, he is almost off the radar, in spite of the fact that he ranks second in your weighted straw poll. I got to believe that somewhere in the second analysis, you have factored in the possibility that Ron Paul, as indicated by the national polls, has no chance whatsoever, in spite of the straw polls. Maybe the national polls have more validity than you are claiming.
First, the "strength" of Romney in your polls is based on 3rd place finishes. Subtract the third place finishes, and Romney comes in behind Ron Paul, or possibly tied. It's a close call either way. In your weighted poll, Ron Paul has more points than Romney. Per your poll, Ron Paul has more first place finishes than Romney.
Rudy and Fred have pretty much ignored the straw polls. Their supporters got them a tiny bit of mention in Ames, but they have not participated. Factor in some bitterness from the local sponsors that their poll was ignored, some serious campaigning by Romney, Huckabee and Paul, and you have skewed results. At least, the results appear skewed to me.
Fred came in second in the Texas straw poll in spite of the fact that he did not campaign. Rudy, who did not campaign, beat Romney. Fred came in second in the Iowa Republican straw poll, even though he did not campaign. Romney won by one, uno, single percentage point. Fred, Rudy, and McCain placed one, two, three in the state fair straw poll. Somehow I gotta think that the straw polls may have less validity than the national polls.
Romney may get the nod, but I can't see it. He will likely become the Republican "peace candidate" (when Ron Paul drops out. Or is finally ignored. or whatever), "moderate candidate", and so on. He has yet to make a definitive statement on Iraq. He is the only candidate to talk about an eventual pullout regardless of outcome. That does not bode well for his chances with Republicans.
Well guess what: even if you only count first place finishes in straw polls, Romney's still ahead of the pack as at least our #2 guy:
With Paul:
Thompson 9, Paul 7, Romney 4, Brownback 1, Hunter 1, McCain 1
Without Paul:
Thompson 11, Romney 7, Giuliani 3, Brownback 1, Hunter 1, McCain 1
So guess what: you criticized Romney for not doing well in straw polls, and you failed. Just accept the freaking correction and move on. We all make mistakes once in a while when we start ripping on somebody. And the worst thing you can to is to drag it out, letting me keep putting up numbers that make my guys (Thompson and Romney) stand out from the pack, heh.
Oh, and I marvel at how you manage to weave out of thin air an attack on Romney being the 'peace' or 'moderate' candidate, when he of the candidates talks toughest on the War on Terror. Who else is talking aggresssively re: Iran? no, the rest of the guys are too busy going in depth about why they looooove agricultural subsidies and FairTrade™.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
silence that won you over to Romney?
And before you answer, remember the rooster's fragile ego...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Originally I was open to Mitt by default, more or less. Your liking him surely helped, though.
But reading his website yesterday, compared with reading what most of his competitors are saying, was eye-opening.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Yesterday I said the field is strong. Today I say it was weak???
Well yesterday I referred to the field now. Above I refer to the field as it stood before Romney and Thompson joined in.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Reagan
past fields
guvs v senators
dems
2006
now
I have said the same thing. Mitt and Fred could be Reagan-like in their policy positions. We'll see.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
watching a speech by him on C-Span and after hearing too much meely mouth bring the troops home emphasis vs winning in Iraq emphasis from Mitt of late. Now, after I hear Rudy say that if we made illegal presence a crime we "couldn't enforce it" since we WOULD HAVE TO deploy ALL border agents to arrest ALL 12 million, and thus having my intelligence insulted again as it was when he waxed about the "right to choose" and how he would "leave it to the courts" when he has all kinds of opinions on all kinds of other cases,
I now lean to FredDuncRudyMitt.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
have you even considered giving Brownback another look? Neil told you he was impressed reading Mitt's web site. This weekend I was impressed reading something by Leon on Sam's web site.
On the United States leadership in confronting Iran: “You have to also recognize that the founder of the current Iranian regime, Ayatollah Khomeini, said, if we destroy Israel, Allah will reward us. That was his stated policy. That is something that he stated. I think you have to take the factual setting of what you put forward, take it to the American public and to the Congress, and ask for the authority to use military force for two purposes. Number one purpose is to go after the military forces being developed on the ground and trained on the ground in Iran to attack our people in Iraq, and number two, towards the nuclear weapons development program that the Iranians are working on.”
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
an Hunter. That is a good statement by BB on Iran and Leon has convinced me that BB would be strong on the war. I still don't favor his partition approach as it smacks of giving up too early on the current process of the freely elected government and imposing an American structure.
Love BB on life and marriage issues. Don't like him on immigration and some nanny state tendencies ala Huck.
I like MittFredRudy, and really like all the repubs reasonably well, except for RP on foreign policy and McCain on several issues and temperment probs. But you have to love McCain's strong support for the war.
I just can't stand it when ANY candidate (or even ANY person for that matter) insults my intelligence. When they look you in the eye almost knowing that you know they are lying and daring you to say anything against it because they are on your team.
Rudy does this a bit too much.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Interesting that you consider Sam as a top tier guy. I agree, and I don't hear many post about him this way. I also agree that his weak achilles heel is his favoring nanny state entitlements. I don't think he is as bad as Huckabee in this regard, but it is a problem. In fact if it were not for his positions on expanding entitlements then he would be my top choice. He has no baggage concerning free speech, ie BCRA.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
First tier to me can only be those that look to have a good chance to win, ie Mitt, Rudy and Fred. 2nd tier: McCain and maybe Huck. Then the rest.
Now, if I could pick from the candidates, based on what I know now, and make them president, I think Hunter would be the best based on issues, character and demeanor.
BB leaves me wanting in his style. Great man. Good on most issues, but his immigration flip-flop w/i hours of the crucial vote looked bad.
The senate has a way of ruining people. He's not ruined, but that vote was a bad sign.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Right now I am supporting Fred. I'm actually thinking that Brownback would be a good VP choice for Fred to help him on the issue of BCRA. I know a Kansas Senator would not be strategic in terms of electoral votes, but Pres. Bush wasn't too concerned with electoral votes with his VP from Wyoming.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
When I visited his website this weekend I read this statement:
"We ought to now push for establishment of a Sunni state in the West. Still one country — still one country, but separate states. That’s a political solution that you can take advantage of what the military has done on the ground. That’s what we need to do to move forward now.”
He was emphatic about not talking of an India/Pakistan/Kashmir type of partition. He's talking of a
New York/Texas/California type of partition.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
the way, but its way too early to push for it and it really should be the Iraqis that do it, if its done.
I haven't liked McCain and Biden playing armchair CINKs for 5 years either.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
May I humbly submit my opinion?
As I mentioned on this blog before, I went to the Iowa straw poll. It was very enlightening. Romney brags about money and how well he can let it burn.
Why on earth would anyone vote for a Republican who loves to spend money after 8 years of George Bush running the deficit up?? Does this guy have any Idea what the heck a concervative is? Abortion? No! War on terror? No! Can you trust him not to flip flop? No!
What on earth are we buying into?
He commented to Combs after the last debate that 3 Billion of dollars is nothing.
He said that Thompson and Huckabee must raise 20 million this quarter to compete in the so called top tier.
I am much more impressed with Mike Huckabee spending 58 bucks for each of his second place votes than Mitt Romney spending upwards of 1,200 bucks per each of his 1st place votes. 58 verses 1200 is one heck of a big difference.
This is just plain sad!
Jim Tomasik
Why are people so taken with Huckabee? He's a progressive for God sakes. Look at his record in Arkansas. It's dismal (if you are a conservative). Why do you think he never talks about it in the debates while Rudy babbles on about NY and 9-11? Because it's not good. I mean he looks at illegal immigration as a racial thing (as if enforcing the law is a xenophobic thing.)
I like Mike Huckabee. He is the funniest guy in the race. Would I vote for him? Not on your life; the guy is a Smoke Nazi. I don't even smoke, but I figure that a guy who is a Smoke Nazi is one step away from being a Donut Nazi. He'll send FBI agents to my house to make me eat my spinach. He might even bring back C. Everett Koop. No thanks.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
His strong points are domestic issues like health care and education. Regarding the "cigarette ban", here is clarification:
http://onemom.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/huckabee-blogger-conference-call-...
He's one of the best social conservatives in this race. And he's not too bad on economic issues either. E.g. see his call for Pres. Bush to veto spending bills:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0...
Given his support for the "Powell Doctrine," which shows a fundamental loss of touch with the fact that we're not fighting an enemy that's going to march out onto the field of battle against us in uniforms, and the fact that he wants to maie nice-nice with our enemy Iran while hectoring our ally Pakistan, I don't trust him to conduct the War on Terror.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Man, this comment inspired a whole post. :|
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/remington_steele/2007/sep/09/romneys_spending_too_much
and just being pro-business doesn't make him conservative.
Since he is from Taxachusettes, you can give him the benefit of the doubt, but benefit of the doubt isn't proof of conservatism.
Don't get me wrong, I'll take Romney over Rudy or McCain any day of the week for the Presidential election, but don't think that doesn't mean I'd have my doubts while I pulled the lever. At the moment, for the past mistakes Fred has made (and supporting McCain-Feingold was a biggie) he's my first choice.
I agree Gadfly that fighting a super majority Democratic congress in Taxachusettes makes it tough to shine fiscally. Yet, he did. They were 3 billion dollars over budget when he was elected and they were all ready to drop several MOAB Tax bombs on the citizens including a retroactive capital gains tax. Romney got the dems to reduce spending and even issue a Tax Refund on capital gains. By his last year, he had saved 2 Billion dollars in a Rainy Day Fund. A 5 Billion dollar difference from "in the red" to solid black is proof of fiscal conservatism no matter what state he's in. The fact he did that in Taxachusettes is what really makes that achievement astonishing.
If you check out the video at the end of my post linked to above. You'll see the specific fiscal conservative promises he's making that are more specific and targeted than any other candidate in the field.
Which means that someone should googolplex it. Because it's true. I live in the People's Republic now under Clinton Apparatchik Deval Patrick and I can tell you from firsthand experience that the taxes are going up, and they're going to continue to go up. Not just income taxes, but excise taxes and user fees and permit fees and every other kind of fee that you can think of.
The people who are talking about Romney and tax money have *absolutely no* idea of what they're talking about. Here in the Bluest of the Blue states, it's positively *extraordinary* that he was able to hold the line as much as he was. This is a People's Republic in which you can listen to advertisements on the radio each day on major FM stations *begging* people who think they already earn too much to *get on the public dole*.
I would also like to say that the general climate for tax-positive legislation and action by townspeople and selectmen and everyone else in a state is *determined* to a large degree by the way the governor treats taxation.
Here in Massachusetts, one of the most reliable revenue sources are excise taxes. What excise taxes basically do, if you're a small business owner especially, is to immediately take 10% more money than you *already spent* to buy a piece of equipment.
Which is why in Massachusetts most smart people don't own their cars, they lease their cars. Ditto a lot of expensive capital equipment.
The excise tax situation in Massachusetts is in fact geared and determined to *discourage* capital ownership, by slapping an enormous surcharge (greater than the profit the manufacture makes in most cases) on anything you buy, and giving that money *straight* to the government.
So you work to buy the equipment and then you work to pay the excise tax bills on it.
And people wonder why the Northeast is such a moribund place when it comes to small business, and everyone else is heading south.
When you work to pay the excise taxes, guess who you're really working for?
It isn't you. Even though if you do the math you're putting in 4 hours out of a 40 hour week for him:
You're working for the Governor of the state, who did nothing to deserve the money.
Hi kowalski,
You have my pity for living in TaxLand. I googled 10^10^100 and got a phone dialing service with not bad of rates ;-) I'm not sure I follow your comment though. It sounds like you're saying Romney did the best he could given the TaxAdicts in congress there. I would agree with that. Can you clarify which people have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about? Do you lump me into that group, and if so why?
I don't lump you into that group. I know that Romney did a much better job here than he is being given credit for in some circles. In fact, I know that some of those circles are in fact largely comprised of the circles who didn't like him while he was the governor of this state. All those circles.
We need a Venn Diagram, which I'll produce.
But you're not in the set. There are a few people who are saying that because Mitt Romney spent a lot of money per vote in the Iowa Straw Poll that means he won't be responsible with tax money. But as far as I know, Mitt Romney was a capitalist because he spent *his money* in the Iowa straw poll.
Here's the definition of a Googolplex from Wikipedia. Actually this number is the inspiration for the name of the popular search engine.
I'm actually a litle surprised that typing 10^10^100 into Google doesn't give you GOOGLE.COM as the first link. Oh well, I guess Sergey and Larry aren't into self-promotion ;).
Here, more than anything else, are the two main reasons this situation exists in this state. It is so that these two people will *never* be poor, or have to worry about it:
And...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Budget deficits have been going down. Perhaps you're concerned about accumulating national debt.
For my part, I don't know what a concervative is either.
this piece shouldn't really surprise anyone since kilmer apparently has it in for mitt and has since mitt made his Reagan comment.
I guess my only surprise is having to reread the same months old criticism of Romney in yet another front page article.
and it is not to be discounted as such. This was not a version of any "same old criticism of Romney"; rather, it was a look at the notion of the "frontrunner" and who determines the criteria.
Remember, Romney has only just made these assertions about how much money people must raise. Is that criterion valid? Do we need a frontrunner?
This was not a per se criticism of any candidate, and the news is frsh.
I'm pleased that the adults have addressed my post on its merits, and it seems your post is just another hit on Reagan. (My point in that regard is valid.)
If you could have written this without letting your animus for Romney show through so much, maybe it would have been better received. But given the aggression with which you went after the guy for his Reagan error, people are looking at this posting in that context.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
especially when he has not acknowledged an error and apologized. This is further proof that he did not think he was making a mistake; rather, it was a calculated attempt to excuse himself by slandering the deceased. If Hillary had said the same, I would not back away until she straightened her story.
I was right about Romney and Reagan, and that is a factor in any discussion of him as a REPUBLICAN candidate.
Romney said at the debate that the surge is "apparently" working, and McCain jumped all over him for that one. And rightly so. Romney tries to use moderation and qualifiers in a lot of the things he says so he can be all things to all people.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I don't think you should regret correcting the record. However, given the times as they are right now, spending too much time talking about Romney in this piece just served to distract from your main point.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
taking a hit on Romney you might not introduce him as the candidate that attacked reagen. The main point of the piece may have not been to attack Romney, but you certainlly managed to do so. Your main point may have regarded a question of an upper tier. But you certainly seemed to have a side point of attacking Romney. You not only reffered to him as the candidate that attacked Reagen ( something that has nothing to do with you main point about the first tier), you attack the way he has spent his money as nonsense. The post seems to have strong implication that you think Romney is a self funded loser. Also interesting is that you say McCain and Guiliani are at the top of the National polls. This has been the case, but RCP now shows Romney with a four point lead, and leading McCain in all current polls they list, so where do you get the data that McCain is ahead of Romney. I have to assume that you are an itelligent person and can understand that this piece could definitely be interpreted as an attack against Romney even if that wasn't your main purpose.
BTW, You can't really call me a Rombot. I am more of a McCain person, but if he fades away which it appears he will I am leaning towards Romney.
any discussion of Romney as a Republican candidate. He has not backed of his false assertion.
It was an accurate introduction, and it is a factor in determining how seriously to take his candidacy.
And I never put a story pointing out Romney's attack on Ronald Reagan on the front page at RedState.
is an important point about whether he should win to a lot of us. So is the fact that he had a bad personal life. So I guess if I introduce Rudy as the pro - choice thrice divorced candidate that should not be considered an attack on Rudy.
I tend to think that Romney, Thompson, and Guiliani make an upper tier. These are candidates which it doesn't take as much imagination to see them gaining the nomination. Romney could win the nomination if the early states retain their role, which I think they may at least retain a great deal of it. Thompson could conceivably win either by early states or by the national route, and Rudy seems poised to do well on 2/5 at least if the early states don't matter. Guiliani is also well positioned in SC. For everybody else it seems less likely that they win. Do you see McCain or Huckabee, or the other candidates as having rougly the same chance as Romney, Thompson, and Guiliani? Because of this I would say there is a upper tier, as it seems to me Romney, Thomson, and Guiliani are much better positioned to recieve the presidency than the other candidates. Note, I say this as someone who was disapointed to see McCain fall. There being a first tier, though is relative. I don't know of anyway to prove that one candidate is this or that much more likely, it's all a matter of making probable guesses. And my thought would be that Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson seem to make up the first tier.
I would have used to view McCain as the sole holder of the second tier, as he didn't seem have a greatly likely path to the presidency, but his fundraising numbers and his national numbers were above all the third tier candidates. This is still the case, but I think that Huckabee has started to make a bid for the second tier. Since the Iowa straw poll he seems to get a lot more publicity. If this publicity translates into money and eventually raises his poll numbers than he might be in the second tier. I don't know whether to consider him in the second tier with McCain or not, but we should have an idea of whether his campaign has gained any momentum by the next financial reports. Right now I suppose I would put McCain and Huckabee in the second tier, with McCain trending downward ( though hopefully he has hit his bottom) and Huckabee trending upward, though we don't know how much.
I think all the other candidates have raised about 10% what McCain, Thompson, Rudy, and Romney have, they each except for Huckabee, and Newt, have about 1/10th the national poll number of any of those four leading candidates. And nobody except Huckabee has shown any sign that things might get better. For this reason I think we can say there is a third tier. One that Huckabee may be heading out of.
seems to be working. Mitt Romney’s doubled his support in national polls; going from 6.2% to 13.8 % in national RCP averages - this seems to have involved a bump in about March and another one of about four points in August –maybe the money spent on the straw poll wasn’t wasted afterall. He has gone from 8% and third place in Iowa to first place with a lead 17.5% at 31.5 %. Romney seems to have increased by about 8% since the Iowa straw poll. In New Hampshire he has gone from 16.8% to 31.3, going from third place to first place. All of this in the time from Feruary to September. So I think you can see why someone like me who tended to think of Romney as a 2nd tier candidate with McCain and Guiliani as first tier candidates - now sees him as a first tier candidate. Romney has had good movement. You claim he doesn't get any excitement, but I don't know how you measure that, he gets people who say they will vote for him and people who will give him money. Even with self funding he did well fundraising.
1) Even if I grant you that "adamant" may not be the best characterization, Romney's overall point that Reagan himself evolved in his views as well as the ardor with which he held those views is unmistakably true. The fact that you nit-pick over this weakens the broader points you are trying to make.
2) Your comment about fundraising is patently untrue...even if you exclude self donation, Romney outraised Rudy by 17% for the first half ($35M vs. $30M). Again, you undermine your own points by taking this sort of approach.
3) It's sort of obvious that there is a first vs. second tier. The metrics you cite whether it be national polls, early state polls, or fundraising are all different data points that help formulate who is in what tier. Mitt is strong across the board (#1 in fundraising, #1 in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and Michigan, #3 and rising in national polls). Mitt fits the bill as first tier in all respects.
This is the first time I've read any of your stuff, but my guess is that you're a Fred person. I absolutely think that Fred is first tier at this point, but the jury is out as to where he stays there.
The Principal Chair
http://principalchair.blogspot.com
He was never pro-choice, adamantly or otherwise. Romney's assertion also was that Ronald Reagan's views on abortion evolved just as had Mitt Romney's. This is absolutely untrue, and it could not be true given the state of the abortion question in each time and case.
First: Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney
Second: McCain and Huckabee
No one else matters. The good thing about having these debates and straw polls so early was that the candidates with very little money would have a chance to catapult themselves upward. Huckabee took that opportunity. Paul took the opportunity, but ended up gearing himself toward Democrats and Libertarians over regular Republicans. Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter have utterly failed to catch fire. They may as well go the way of Gilmore and Tommy now. (In the case of Brownback, I wish he hadn't shot his wad on this election now that Huck is the obvious SoCon VP nomination choice. Hunter has a good shot at SecDef in a GOP administration.)
In Mark Kilmers post it is suggested that Romney is not a top tier candidate based on national polls and suggest that McCain is. Despite that most recent national polls have Romney ahead of McCain. He also argues that Rudy is a top tier candidate in respect to fundraising, while Mitt is only given this privellege subject to his self funding. Even without self funding Romney has raised more then Rudy. Thats the facts. Just thought I should make it clear. So in essence Romney is a top tier candidate based on fundraising, polling in early primary states and national polling. In fact he leads in all areas except national polling. As early as June Mitt acknowledged that he probably wont lead in national polls until January. National polls without looking at trends are nothing more then a popularity contest at this stage. It wont really count for anything until end of January and early February when half the states will decide on the nominee.
eloquently raised by PopCon, et al.
"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."
-- Milton Friedman
Romney has raised more primary money than Rudy has. That isn't counting his own donations. Yeah, I know that may be hard for a Romney hater to believe, but go look it up if you don't believe me. Romney while polling much lower, with much less name ID than any other GOP candidate.
Also Romney is ahead of McCain nationally and 2 points behind FDT. Are you really this clueless?
Romney and Rudy are the only candidates who qualify for your top tier status in all three areas. FDT also qualifies if you give him a pass on fundraising.
Oh yeah, because all that pesky polling and straw poll winning... we'll let him slide on that.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I only meant that the money FDT raised so far wouldn't put him in the top tier, but he should get a pass for that because he wasn't actively fundraising.
I think the top tier is pretty simple, Mitt, Fred and Rudy. McCain is the next most likely to win, but the odds of that are pretty well represented by Intrade, a little less than 5%.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
due to mistaken e-mail tone.
I had warned him not to get his wife involved in the business, but....
My hens are in the henhouse at least!
excuse me, I hear an egg hatching
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 was somewhat limited by being only online via phone.
Populist Conservative and Neil Stevens made my point better than I did -- continually bringing up the Reagan quote distracts (obviously given my reaction) from your real point.
As for your shot at me as taking "[my] post is just another hit on Reagan," that's a complete non-sequiter. I never said I agreed with Romney's quote, I just think the gratitous repetition of is well repetitive and a repitition (yeah that was done on purpose).
Reagan did what did both in California and as Prez and his overall record leads us to call him the greatest Republican of our time.
Finally, your shot at me that "the adults" were responding to the merits of your argument leads me back to point one. I quite probably would have responded to the merits of it if you hadn't introduced Romney for the zillionth time with your Reagan quote.
And for the rest of you as Disclaimer, I'm trying to choose between Fred and Romney in the primary. I've already chosen whover the Republican is in the general.
I'm not a seasoned political strategist and I've had no outside help and certainly not the benefit of any advanced American electoral argot poured down my neck, so I could be completely wrong but...
I've thought since from almost the very beginning of this very early, very premature contest of $$$ that the implication (if not the intent) of it was to *narrow* Americans choices by kicking out the "weak candidates" before anyone had a chance to even hear them, leaving the rest of Americans who pay attention later in the race with a "preselected" field of big-money candidates and the rest of us with a serious headache for having to follow the thing moment-to-moment.
In other words, I don't believe there should be such a thing as a "top tier" of candidates right now. I certainly won't treat any of our candidates with that prejudice if I get the chance to cover them all at the debate in Baltimore, and I didn't while I was at St. Anselm. This baloney was deliberate, because not only did the Democrat Top Tier not enter the Spin Room to hobnob with the proles, neither did any of the Republican "top tier."
I was extraordinarily disappointed that Mitt Romney decided to skip the Spin Room but maybe he wanted to give all the good Conspiracy Theorist coverage to Brownback, Thompson, Hunter, Paul, et. al. Because the conspiracy theorists were out in force at St. Anselm, as I've noted many times, and Ron Paul was *by far* their favorite candidate.
Maybe we've gotten past those shenanigans, maybe not. All that I know is that the "top tier" Republican candidates at the time were probably *wise* not to show up in the Spin Room given the fact that CNN did such a poor job keeping the jokers out of the room.