The obligatory “Romney’s in” post
posted at 2:08 pm on February 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’m on record as saying he’s the man to beat, which … sounds kind of stupid in hindsight. I do think he’s got a mortal lock on the Veep slot if McCain gets the nomination, though. The GOP needs to roll back the rising blue tide in the northeast and having him on the ticket will help.
Here’s the transcript of his announcement. Hokey takeaway: “I chose this site for a number of reasons. It’s filled with cars and memories.” Red-meat takeaway: “Today, as we stare at the face of radical violent Jihad and at the prospect of nuclear epidemic, our military might should not be subject to the whims of ever-changing political agendas. The best ally of peace is a strong America!”
Consider this an open thread. Up for discussion: Obama apologizes for saying what everyone on the left believes; Hillary weathers Barry O’s announcement media storm; and Rudy leapfrogs the field in the latest GOP Blogger poll. Rudy’s also allegedly the favorite within the Bush administration, which seems unfair to loyal war supporter John McCain on the one hand and on the other isn’t something I’d imagine McCain is particularly broken up about.
Actually, here’s some late-breaking chat fodder: the Smoking Gun has obtained a copy of Rudy’s vulnerability study from his first campaign for mayor in 1993. Quote one: “The Giuliani campaign should emphasize its candidate’s independence from traditional national Republican policies.” (Underscore in the original.) Quote two: His “personal life raises questions about a ‘weirdness factor.’” There’s a section on draft-dodging as well. I suspect it’ll interest a certain social con I know who’s been kicking the hell out of him on her blog this past week.
Update: RINO Rudy rides again!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m supporting Duncan Hunter
Defector01 on February 13, 2007 at 2:10 PM
In an ironic twist, I also have an obligatory Romney post, but out of deference excised the word obligatory.
Sarcastic exit question: why hasn’t the media told us he’s a Mormon?
JammieWearingFool on February 13, 2007 at 2:14 PM
And the peasants rejoiced.
natesnake on February 13, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Gotta love the relentless Giuliani attacks. It has begun.
Republicans, hold your water, as they want you to hate Rudy. Then , we won’t have a chance of winning in a national election with a fringe candidate.
I expect to be yelled at for that last sentence.
Vincenzo on February 13, 2007 at 2:16 PM
And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu–
MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.
x95b10 on February 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM
ROFL!
Wait, I know! For the same reason the media hasn’t told us Obama’s not a Muslim?
flipflop on February 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Please excuse my ear shattering sigh of ambivolence, but beyond “the presidential look” why would I want to vote for Mitt?
His malability on social issues does not instill a sense of confidence.
I’ll readily admit that I’m pissing in the Cheerios. I still don’t have a candidate to back for ’08.
natesnake on February 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Nice.
natesnake on February 13, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Vincenzo, I’m not yelling, but I don’t see how Rudy represents me. I see no reason to compromise for Rudy just because he has an “R” next to his name.
I really don’t get this call for settling that I’m seeing on the Right these days. People keep talking about how a true social conservative won’t do for President as though the only important thing here is beating Hillary/Obama.
Isn’t this why the Left lost in 2004, both literally and morally? They picked Kerry, not because they wanted him but because they thought he could win.
But instead, they lost.
Personally, I’d rather lose an election by voting for the person I want, than by voting for the guy I think can win. Otherwise voting is just as futile as many people believe it is.
Esthier on February 13, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I’ll more than likely vote for Romney, unless someone better comes along. But at the moment, out of the top three… he seems to be the best out of the pile of crap.
Not that it still isn’t a pile of crap… but it’s good to be on the top if your going to be in the pile.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 13, 2007 at 2:24 PM
So getting only part of what you want with someone who isn’t completely ideologically pure isn’t an option?
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 2:25 PM
I can get part of what I want with any candidate, Democrat or Republican.
Esthier on February 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM
I’m for Giuliani. He may call himself pro-choice but he has promised conservative judges, which from a practical standpoint is pro-life.
januarius on February 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM
All republicans are weird. I know this because the media tells me so.
lorien1973 on February 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
januarius, it is except that when it comes to things like a ban on partial birth abortion, he isn’t pro-life.
Esthier on February 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Which is exactly why, until recently, I was a split ticket voter. And why I’m voting for Giuliani. Not simply because I think he can win, but because he reflects my political beliefs. Not all of them, but enough.
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 2:29 PM
He’s actually said he supports a ban on partial birth abortion. It’s a recent step toward the right on this issue.
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I’m strongly conservative but am leaning to Rudy for a number of reasons, but primarily feel very strongly with him on national security, and without that, nothing else matters. I opined as much in an obligatory Rudy post this past weekend at my place.
In the end, I’m a Broken Glass Republican. I’ll crawl naked over broken glass to vote GOP over any of the Democrats.
JammieWearingFool on February 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM
All I can say is look at Rudy’s record and accomplishments as Mayor of New York City and prosecutor.
He delivers, albeit a bit more in the center becuase of Manhattan.
Abortions went down in NYC during his stay: real results.
Affirmative Action laws were repealed in NYC: real results.
Taxes cut: real results.
Sure, there are lots of politicians who blow hard and get out blood running, but do they deliver? Many of them seem to do it just for our confidence till the next time we need to elect them.
As for Rudy, he’s got convictions and he’s real.
Vincenzo on February 13, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Fair enough. I simply don’t see Rudy as being close enough for me. I’m not expecting a candidate to agree with everything I do, but I’d be settling too much if I went for Rudy when there are others closer to my views.
He’s saying that now, but he said the exact opposite thing just a few years ago. Plus, he’s still favoring the “health of the mother” as a reason to allow it, which is really a large loophole, especially considering that health reasons do not factor into a partial birth abortion, at least not physical health.
Esthier on February 13, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Does he really have convictions, though? Read those two Kirsten Powers posts I linked.
Allahpundit on February 13, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I like you Slublog. You’re good folk. With all respect please keep in mind that we’ve heard political promises in the past…
“Read my lips, no new….”
Neither Romney or Guiliani have struck a cord in my cold-dark-neocon heart.
natesnake on February 13, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I’m going Romney, as a christian I don’t see his mormonism as an issue with the presidency, although I am not a fan of the religion. I think it will be down to him and Rudy.
JVelez on February 13, 2007 at 2:37 PM
She makes very good points.
Were he a Democrat, wouldn’t we be calling him Flipper?
Esthier on February 13, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Heh. Wait…neocons have hearts?
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Which is a shame. On the Left, they’re going nuts over Hillary and Obama, while we’ve got no one who seems to be able to get us excited.
Esthier on February 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Yes. They’re about the size of a walnut and look like burnt 3-day-old chunks of Jimmy Dean sausage patties.
natesnake on February 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Remember what Hillary said: “You don’t have to fall in love. You just have to fall in line.” :-)
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 2:46 PM
One thing you can with some interesting results is to google a candidate’s name and then click on the news link for the latest whistle stop articles and opinions.
The value I’m seeing in this is that sometimes some of the local area news are putting in more quotes and reactions than you get nationally. I think you get more details and more accuracy.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 2:53 PM
That’s wishful thinking. No one is politics is “real.” If they were, no one would vote for them. For example, Barack’s statement about the troops lives being wasted in Iraq was “real” and he immediately had to apologize for it.
I assume the reason that KP is trumpeting Rudy’s “rehabilitation” is not because she really thinks he would be a bad President, but because she knows most of her readers are right-leaners whose opinion of Rudy is sullied when they think about him shacking up with a couple of his gay friends.
And the sad thing is, she’s probably right. This is the dude who led NYC through 9/11 and yet the biggest obstacle to him winning his own party’s presidential nomination is that he doesn’t think gays should be second class citizens, and he thinks that an exception for “the life of the mother” should be included in any partial birth abortion ban. That’s pretty crappy.
Enrique on February 13, 2007 at 2:54 PM
“The Giuliani campaign should emphasize its candidate’s independence from traditional national Republican policies.”
If you think about that for more than 5 seconds it makes perfect sense. The man was running for election in New York City. That is the only way to get elected in a city that is what, 80% Democrat?
He would stand a snowball’s chance in hell otherwise. Romney did the same thing running for Governor of Massachusetts.
crosspatch on February 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Prediction:
It ain’t gonna be Rudy or McCain.
Not sure who – but neither of them.
I got me a feelin’.
Note: I had this same feeling about the Chicago Bears, so bet no more than you can afford on this particular hunch. That is all.
Professor Blather on February 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM
No, she’s on the level, I’m sure. She’s pretty conservative on social issues. I think she’s just irritated with him for being pro-choice.
Allahpundit on February 13, 2007 at 2:57 PM
KP makes this salient point, which I apply to all candidates, not just Rudy.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Hence the reason I don’t see him as a viable candidate.
natesnake on February 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM
The war and only the war will be the issue. If the war goes well, Reps win. If the war doesn’t go well, Dems win. The media has weighed in. All the bad news you can handle till 09. Immigration, SS, hybrid cars, Gore warming, whatever, all BS. It is all about the war.
Sorry fellow Reps….I give any of the Rep candidates a snowballs chance in hell of getting 1600 PA ave on their address labels unless AQ is bunkered and we are knocking on the door.
Limerick on February 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM
The Jewish Dems are criticizing Romney for the locale of his announcement speech, but it is a red herring. I don’t like him, but it has nothing to do with my being a Jew or his choice of annoucement location. Mitt Happens.
Debbie Schlussel on February 13, 2007 at 3:10 PM
That’s not exactly what she has said.
And really, I agree with this point as well…
Esthier on February 13, 2007 at 3:14 PM
If Romney can break through the noise and get the chance to be heard I think he will become increasingly attractive as a candidate.
Before the flip flop thing on abortion gets to ingrained, flash back to when Reagan was Governor of CA. Reagan turned out to be a pretty conservative President as I recall.
JackStraw on February 13, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Most conservatives will say that national security is THE ISSUE heading into the ’08 election. I agree to a point, but I’ll not turn a blind eye to the social issues. I’m not comfortable with the “evolving” social opinions of either Romney or Guiliani.
Fact is that with the exception of Chuck Hagel, most GOP candidates will be strong on national defense. I’m holding out on endorsing a candidate until the right one surfaces. This lesser-of-two-evils and whoever-can-beat-the-Dems smacks of desparation.
natesnake on February 13, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I don’t think Reagan changed his mind in order to track with voters.
Opposing Abortion: How Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde, Others Became Pro-Life:
I’d love to see some of the current candidates write their own passionate pro-life essay.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Rudy can win the primary, and he can win the general. I just don’t think he can win a second general. He’s got one-termer written all over him.
spmat on February 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Voting for Rudy would be much like voting for a Clinton.
wytammic on February 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM
It doesn’t bother me if a candidate changes their position on an issue….It doesn’t even bother me if a candidate changes their position on an issue in order to get votes…
AS LONG AS the candidate delivers on their promises.
Rudy can be the most liberal man in the universe, but, if he has a solid history of delivering on his campaign promises and he promises what I want….well, I’m not going to hold it against him that his ‘view’ changed. As long as he really delivers on his promises.
With the majority of candidates these days, that’s the most I can hope for.
JadeNYU on February 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM
All that matters is getting conservative supreme court justices nominated to the court.
You can vote your conscience all you want, but that is what was done in 1992 and we got 8 years of clinton and two liberal justices. We have a real opportunity here to break the insane liberal legislations from the bench that have brought this country to the edge of destruction. If we can get a conservative elected, we can put the moonbats back into their caves where they belong. They wont be able to infect the next generation with their craziness.
Then we can start using the tools we need to kill the islamo-fascists without the moonbats assinging human rights for those whom behave inhumanely.
csdeven on February 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM
“Much like” are the operative words here. The major difference is judges. I don’t trust McCain on judges, since he screwed us with the Gang of 14. Mitt is a total question mark on the issue, but Rudy has promised to confirm judges like Scalia.
Comparing Clinton and Rudy really is an apple/orange situation.
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM
After going to Debbie Schlussel’s webpage and seeing that obnoxious, anti-American quote of Romney’s in the Guardian, that finishes Mitt Romney for me.
januarius on February 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Dang it. Beat by two minutes…
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Sorry Slublog, I’m not buying that Rudy would appoint conservative judges. He’s just saying that in an attempt to deceive those of us who value human life. It makes no sense to support a barbaric practice such as partial-birth abortion, and then appoint conservative judges.
Not gonna fool me ;)
wytammic on February 13, 2007 at 3:41 PM
And there’s no evidence that Romney has either unless one accepts that the MSM calling him a flip flopper is evidence. Both were governors in middle to left leaning states and had to be at least somewhat moderated if they had any chance at being elected. On a national stage, game changes. Romney also has a pretty strong record of actually fighting an activist court in MA over gay marriage. His
We still have almost 2 years to learn about the candidates. I’m betting we will see a lot more position papers and planks in that time.
JackStraw on February 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM
When all those folks Down South find out that Rudy ain’t that guy from that sports movie, it’s gonna get ugly for him.
faraway on February 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM
An open question for everyone in this thread: if you were voting in the Republican primary today, and you had to choose between a fiscally conservative atheist and a socially conservative socialist, which candidate would you vote for?
(Assume that both candidates are hawkish, pro-gun, and anti-amnesty, and that the atheist candidate was willing to support a federal ban on partial birth abortion that included an exemption for the life but not the health of the mother.)
Watcher on February 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Fiscally conservative atheist.
Slublog on February 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM
JackStraw,
Read the article about Reagan. He was already governor when he signed the bill.
From a parents’ group website in Mass, they state that according to the MA constitution:
and that Mitt could have stopped the gay marriage process if he’d so desired.
I’m not an attorney, I don’t know. But this is a blog, Robert Paine, Esq., written by a MA lawyer and he goes into it in detail.
Now I’m not trying to be pugnacious, I just want to try to get down to some facts. So far all I keep feeling like I’m lost in smoke and mirrors with Mitt.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 4:05 PM
If the GOP goes with McCain then they’d might as well hand the presidency over to Obillary now. The man has about as much charisma as a bag of hair.
All presidential elections hinge on the moderate vote and the candidate who can best exploit this will win out.
So far, I think Romney’s the only GOP candidate who could accomplish that.
The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I have to admit that I don’t know much about Mitt. However this video is very damning for him. Unless he has done a 180 on a lot of the things he said back then, there is no way I could support him. Just in that short clip he said:
1. He is Pro Abortion
2. He is quoted as saying that he will be more supportive of gay rights than Kennedy. Wow! More liberal than Kennedy!
3. He favors gays in the Boy Scouts
4. He’s no fan of Reagan
5. He wants companies be required to report on it’s gender and racial make up as a means of identifying and pressuring these companies to hire based on race and gender.
#4 is an opinion I guess but the rest are too troublesome. He seems to be way more liberal than I would vote for.
Guardian on February 13, 2007 at 4:13 PM
sigh* Here’s the video.
Guardian on February 13, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Ditto … he’s the only one without all the lame controversy, without the “celeb” attitude (ie: non-Egomaniac), and he’s very very in tune with stopping illegal immigration, plus much more good stuff.
SilverStar830 on February 13, 2007 at 4:16 PM
None of this really matters anyway. We’re going to lose the election due to those of us who want to “settle” for another liberal dressed in red.
It seems that too many of us have forgotten the Reagan years, and … the ironically, the reason Bush got elected in the first place. Both Bush and Reagan were elected BECAUSE of their overwhelmingly conservative stance. They stood up, waved the flag, talked about God, and about the need for a strong military, and they were both elected to two terms. The fact that Bush has turned on us is the reason we lost the mid-terms. Now, conservatives are suddenly scared of voting conservative. Either that, or this blog is filled with trolls, which I believe is a strong possibility. The lead blogger on this site makes a habit of mocking the only truly conservative candidate in the mix.
It also seems that many of us have forgotten how the liberals plan on winning this election. It’s not by picking the candidate “who can win.” They plan on winning by going as far left as they possibly can, and you might recall that it actually WORKED for them quite well in the mid-terms, did it not?
So when I hear someone say …
I have to ask … have you been paying attention?
Here’s why we’ll lose this election:
A good percentage of conservatives will vote for the candidates based on their conservative actions. These candidates, according to people like Vincenzo, are the “fringe” candidates.
And then, people like Vincenzo will vote for someone like McCain or Giuliani, based only on their belief that we can’t win with a Gingrich or Tancredo. It is their own actions that cause the fringe candidate to lose. It is their own weakness and refusal to stand on principle and to vote for the correct candidate.
So here we are. Half the conservatives will vote for Giuliani, 24% will vote for Tancredo, 24% will vote for Romney, and 2% will vote for McCain. We’ll end up with Giuliani as our candidate, and honestly … I’m not exactly sure what any of you think we’ve accomplished.
Even IF Giuliani wins the general election, what have we gained? He’s far left of Bush. He’s open borders. He’s all for taking guns away from American citizens (if it helps fight crime), and he’s pro same sex marriage.
Those of you who claim that he’s tough on National Security, I would ask you how you can be tough on National Security, and at the same time support open borders and amnesty for illegals?
By voting for the candidate “who can win” … you’ve assured that we lose no matter who wins in 2008.
As I’ve said before … there’s a very good reason why Giuliani is so popular in NY. It’s because NY is the same city that loves Hillary and overwhelmingly supported John Kerry in 2004.
Think about it.
You might also think about the reasons the liberal media continuously ignores Gingrich and Tancredo, even though they are at the top of every straw poll. Every story you see harps on Giuliani leading the polls, which is actually a lie. Gingrich is leading every poll I’ve seen. Bar none! Do you ever wonder why the media ignores this and pushes Giuliani and McCain as the only true contenders?
Could it be because they WANT Giuliani or McCain to win the nomination?
Most confusing to me, is why conservatives who are so pissed off with RINOS and the self destruction of the Republican Party, would then go out and nominate someone like Giuliani or Romney. Again, there’s a reason why the Bush administration is supporting Giuliani. And it should scare the hell out of all of you that the same people who voted for John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are liable to vote for this man.
Those of you who plan on voting based on “who can win” might want to ask yourself a question.
What are the issues that have pissed you off the most in the last four years or so?
After you’re done answering that question … ask yourself if the candidate you plan to vote for would do anything to change those issues.
I would swear most of you have been whining all year about RINOS. So why would you choose to elect another one?
Gregor on February 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Watcher at 3:56 PM,
That’s an interesting question, although I kind of think a socially conservative socialist is an ideological oxymoron.
I would go with the atheist fiscal conservative.
BTW, the mother’s life is not really an issue with abortion anymore. In an ectopic pregnancy both mother and infant would die, and infants are surviving at such an early gestation time today, that preeclampsia is fading away as a rationale for abortion as well.
Just today, as a matter of fact, Jill Stanek points out “Life of the mother” abortions now a nonissue. She does it, ironically enough, by quoting an Associated Press article on the high-risk pregnancies of women with serious medical problems who choose to have children.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Add this to the reason we’ll lose. Why don’t you just write in your own name. It will have about the same impact on the election.
Gregor on February 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I believe my fellow social conservatives had better start rethinking some of their hardline stances (i.e. abortion & gay marriage) when it comes to chosing a suitable candidate. These are not the issues you want to be focusing on during this particular election.
Again, moderate voters steer elections and the sooner you come to grips with this the sooner the GOP will once again become the Grand Ol’ Party rather than God’s Own Party.
If you insist on being a single-issue voter, might I suggest immigration?
The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I’m also for Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback
wytammic on February 13, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Watcher at 3:56 PM,
That’s an interesting question, although I kind of think a socially conservative socialist is an ideological oxymoron
:-).
I would go with the atheist fiscal conservative.
BTW, the mother’s life is not really an issue with abortion anymore. In an ectopic pregnancy both mother and infant would die, and infants are surviving at such an early gestation time today, that preeclampsia is fading away as a rationale for abortion as well.
Just today, as a matter of fact, Jill Stanek points out “Life of the mother” abortions now a nonissue. She does it, ironically enough, by quoting an Associated Press article on the high-risk pregnancies of women with serious medical problems who choose to have children.
INC on February 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Again with that “gotcha” video from 1994.
In 1994 I was a Clinton/Gore liberal.
People change.
The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 4:43 PM
KP may not be as far to the right as we hope she one day is, but the reason she is villified from the left is that she writes her convictions, and her honest analysis of what she sees. She’s not a spin doctor. Her opinions of Rudy are what they are based on her review of knowns, and should be given credence.
Rudy is pro-choice, he does not support the 2nd Amendment (while claiming that he does), and he favors gay marriage. On balance he is a good administrator, and he was certainly the right man for the time in NYC. But he cannot have my vote for President with those positions. Ever.
I beg for people to not make a decision this early (20 months out) about “their man”, when so many things can happen between now and then. I also beg for people not to make a selection based on the weak-kneed position of believing that only a centrist Republican can pull in the votes. Let’s keep our spines and argue for our values and convictions, see what it gets us.
Freelancer on February 13, 2007 at 4:51 PM
INC-
I know Reagan was Gov. when he signed the law. But the fact is he signed it and it greatly expanded abortion in CA. Reagan claimed it was his biggest mistake in his career and he went on to be a staunch pro-life national candidate. My only point was, people can change their position and as any ex-smoker will tell you, converts are often the most vociferous standard bearers.
It’s all well and good for a lawyer to say that the MA SC decision was not based in law and that Romeny should have just said “there is no basis in the law for this so I oppose it and won’t enforce it” but no more realistic than expcting the feds to have done likewise in Roe v. Wade.
I was living in MA for a good part of this battle. Romney can be accused of a lot of things but not being weak on this fight.
JackStraw on February 13, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Bush with a republican senate and house didn’t get Roe vs Wade overturned, I’ve given up hope on that ever happening. Jihad and illegals are on the top of my worry list now. Too early in the race for me to choose ‘my man’ but, Mitt has my attention.
ekuspa40 on February 13, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Giuliani criticizes Gore…for not having “enough zeal to take on the special interests” to combat global warming.
I remember when they used to say Tancredo shouldn’t run for president because he’d be a “one issue candidate”. Rudy definitely isn’t a one issue candidate, he OWNS several issues, such as: abortion, gun control, gay marriage…and now global warming!
Perchant on February 13, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Yes…by all means argue for those values and convictions and see where it gets you.
Meanwhile, this weak-kneed conservative will be looking for a candidate who best represents Reagan’s big-tent GOP values.
In other words, a candidate who can win the hearts and minds of the majority and not the minority.
I’ve grown weary of the “us and them” mentality in this country. I’m looking for someone who can bring the majority of us and them together again.
I have a dream.
The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 5:57 PM
I can’t believe most you buy hook line and sinker, exactly what the media sells on these candidates. Romney was a Republican in MA. The media has been doing hit jobs on him before, during and after his govenorship and he still comes up smelling like roses most of the time.
I didn’t read that blog but I already know that isnt correct. Romney was a strong critic of policy making by the judiciary. I’m no lawyer, but he invoked some rule/law that said the legislature was forced to vote on the gay marriage issue. They failed to do so, and this was reported (even in the hostile local press) that the legislature was not following the law.
If judges is your issue, you are simply uninformed if you dont already know Romney is the most concervative person in the race on the issue. He complained again and again that democracy was being subverted and the law and state consitution was not being followed. It seems to me he did everything he could on the issue, short of storm the legislature with state troopers.
Resolute on February 13, 2007 at 6:26 PM
When you say “the majority” … are you referring to the majority of Americans, or the majority of conservatives? Because I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Reagan brought the majority of Americans together through rock solid conservative values. That’s what it’s going to take again.
Romney is no Reagan. Romney is further left than Bush is, and Giuliani (other than military issues) might be even with Hillary. Many will argue this, but I think his record speaks for itself. And before anyone brings it up, yes … I’d vote for both Giuliani or Romney in the general election before I’d vote for Hillary. But I’m not sure we’d be getting much difference in the end.
If you’re referring to the majority of “conservatives” … then you’re still off, because it’s views such as Giuliani, McCain, and Romney’s, along with the actions of Bush that have torn the Republican base apart. Again, it’s going to take rock solid conservative actions to bring us all together again.
If you think Giuliani or Romney will bring the conservative base together, you’re dead wrong. They are both further left than Bush and will tear us apart even more than we are.
If you think they will bring “Americans” together, all I can do is scratch my head. Liberals will go off the deep end if anyone representing the GOP should manage to win another election. If you think the divide it bad now, just wait to see what happens if they lose in 2008.
There’s only two men currently running that would be able to stand next to Reagan. That’s Gingrich and Tancredo. And except for the un-deserved bad rep Tancredo has been given, I would put him in front of Gingrich due to Newt’s hypocritical infidelity, although … those who want to bash him on that will be guilty of hypocrisy themselves if they then claim to support Giuliani.
Reagan would turn over in his grave if he felt he was being compared to Giuliani or Romney.
Gregor on February 13, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Romney’s stance on immigration …
Sounds a lot like Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Doesn’t it?
Nothing about the wall.
INCREASE immigration?
Make immigration MORE attractive? How do we do that? Offer MORE benefits? Do we really need to do anything more to make immigration to this country more attractive? What’s the problem exactly? Are people canceling their applications?
Wake up! You’re being conned AGAIN!
Gregor on February 13, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Gregor your selective highlights are intelectually dishonest. He said in that quote he wants to secure the border and make living in the US less attractive to illegals. Moreover he is focusing on making immigrants become Americans instead of permenant underclass guestworkers. How is there any question this is to the right of Bush?
he favors states rights
is against judicial lawmaking
calls the Jihad threat what it is
has proven fiscal concervative track record
wants to secure the border and enact tamper proof documentation and employment verification system
besides all that he is a great politician who can can often outmanuver a hostile legislature
I think you are detached from reality if you think you are going to get a president elecected more concervative then those issues
Resolute on February 13, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Actually, Gregor, he sounds a lot like Reagan. Or are we giving Reagan a pass on his amnesty plan that got us where we are today?
Reagan’s hard right conservative values? You mean the divorced and remarried Reagan? The guy who signed abortion legislation as Gov of CA? The guy who gave us Anton Scalia (big ups) and Anthony Kennedy (pretty mediocre). The guy who spent the first half of his life as a self-proclaimed FDR Democrat? It was Reagan who coined the whole “I didn’t leave the Dem Party, the Party left me”. There’s a lot more including his escalation of international debt to historic heights.
Point is Reagan did a lot of great things but he was not the perfect saint people try to make him out to be. And he also had the great fortune to run against Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Reagan owes a great deal of his legacy not just to the fall of the Soviet Union but also to the disaster that was Jimmy Carter. If Hillary or Obama becomes our next President, you might have a different idea who is acceptable to succeed either one of them.
JackStraw on February 13, 2007 at 7:11 PM
I would follow Rudy Giuliani into a burning building.
mikeyboss on February 13, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Please tell me this is NOT all we will have to choose from. It’s only February 13, 2007. We have time to find someone else, don’t we??? I’m underwhelmed by all our choices so far. I’m voting for AllahPundit.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on February 13, 2007 at 7:20 PM
JackStraw: There you go again ; )
The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 7:26 PM
And just for the record…
I’m not sayin’ Romney’s definitely Mr. Right, rather he’s Mr. Right Now ; )
The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 7:30 PM
…and I like Gingrich but frankly he’s unelectable at this point.
Way too many personal & political skeletons in his closet.
The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Politics is the art of the possible.
Otto Von Bismark
JackStraw on February 13, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Kirsten Powers, no offense to her, is a democrat. So why should I care that she doesn’t like Rudy?
JohnJ on February 13, 2007 at 7:44 PM
If the “But Reagan did it” argument validates a new amnesty today, will the next amnesty proposal 10 years from now be validated by “But Reagan and Bush did it”?
Would it be possible in the future for Republicans to stand against any subsequent amnesty proposal ( or if you prefer: “comprehensive immigration reform” that legalizes millions of illegal aliens ) being offered by a Democrat president if the Republicans were responsible for the previous two?
Perchant on February 13, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Maybe you’re not sure what “intellectually dishonest” means. I included the entire quote and bolded the important part.
Both portions you mentioned were included in my comment. I bolded part of it to show the tricky word games that Romney uses to make it appear that he’s tough on immigration, just as Bush does. There’s nothing dishonest about this. If so, anyone who bolds a portion of a statement would be inellectually dishonest.
You however, do in fact purposely leave off the meaningful part of the quote which you post. You write …
His actual quote was …
Yes, bolded section is mine. Notice anything familiar in that line to the Bush “comprehensive immigration reform” plan? How about the words … “reform the current immigration laws?”
There’s nothing about a wall, which is what I said. Romney’s plan is to CHANGE THE LAWS in order to actually make the illegals … LEGAL.
Nice.
As for the second portion of that quote …
How exactly do you do that? There’s only one possible way that you make the U.S. less attractive to illegals, and that’s to take away all of the benefits they are currently given for free. Benefits such as free medical, free educations, jobs, free college tuition, free food, and deportation in place of prosecution.
Please give Romney a call and ask him if he plans to take any of that away. I think you know the answer. And with that being said, can you think of ANY other way you make the U.S. LESS attractive to illegals? Less attractive than say … MEXICO?
Once again … making (illegal) immigrants become Americans instead of underclass guestworkers. Sounds familiar. To leave off the word “illegal” is in fact “intellectually dishonest. That’s mysteriously the same tactic pro-illegals use, conveniently labeling anti-illegal groups as anti-immigrant groups, in effect classifying them as racists.
It’s the same Bush plan. No difference. Please explain the difference between Romney’s immigration plan, to Bush’s.
… SO DOES BUSH
… SO IS BUSH
… SO DOES BUSH
… HUH?
… SO SAYS BUSH.
… So was Clinton. Does that mean anything?
Gregor on February 13, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I don’t get it. Are you knocking Scalia as being liberal? Am I missing something? If only ALL judges could be Scalias.
Gregor on February 13, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Gregor in general when Michelle or Allahpundit highlight part of a quote I think it is because that is the important part of the quote. Ussually you can just read what is highlighted and still have a fair idea of what the point of the whole paragraph is. You on the other hand highlighed exactly the part that you believe shows your point despite that something in the same paragraph contraditcs your point. If you read just what is highlighted you have a totally biased view of what was said. I was specifically pointing out what you were ignoring. But that really isnt important. The matter at hand are the issues.
No, the word illegal is not there because Romney was not talking about illegals. His platform makes a large distinction between illegals and legals which Bush doesnt.
You have failed to even read about Romney before commenting. He vetoed in state tuition for illegals. He was in favor of state troopers arresting illegals. He was in favor of system for employers to more easily check if people are illegal. He was in favor of English immersion and MA has abandoned teaching en Espanol by ballot initiative.
he favors states rights
… SO DOES BUSH
I disagree with that – federal expansion everywhere
is against judicial lawmaking
… SO IS BUSH
lip service only to get his friends on the bench (Myers?), Romney has been in entrenched battles on the subject
calls the Jihad threat what it is
… SO DOES BUSH
No bush has spent years waging war against a strategy (terrorism) instead of a philosophy (jihad)
has proven fiscal concervative track record
… HUH?
seems pretty straight forward
besides all that he is a great politician who can can often outmanuver a hostile legislature
… So was Clinton. Does that mean anything
So you want another President like Bush who can’t convince the opposition in congress that water is wet?
Resolute on February 13, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Resolute,
Doesn’t Romney have a city called Cambridge in his state that refuses to recognize federal immigration laws?
Why hasn’t he sent the Mass. National Guard there to crack some heads?
Would Romney allow any city in his state to become a sanctuary from any law or is it only immigration laws that he feels aren’t worth enforcing?
Perchant on February 13, 2007 at 11:08 PM
…All those Folks who say they won’t vote for Mitt ’cause he’s a ..oO0 “Mormon” 0Oo..
Should Quit watching T.V. ’cause that was invented by a Mormon too….
0.0
(they are every where!!!)
-Wasteland Man
WastelandMan on February 14, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I am not going to “settle” for Rudy. I am not going to settle for rewarding law breaking illegal aliens. I am not going to settle for allowing courts to decide issues that belong in our congress which makes the laws.
All of us have changed ideologically as we have matured. I won’t hold that against the Romney.
He is against rewarding illegals, he is tough on borders, he is tough on fiscal policy, but in the most important issue of our day “the Jihadist’s war against non-Muslims”, he gets it. He understands it is a war we are already fighting right here in our streets. I think he gets it more than any other candidate, including Rudy.
paulsur on February 14, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Resolute,
Doesn’t Romney have a city called Cambridge in his state that refuses to recognize federal immigration laws?
Why hasn’t he sent the Mass. National Guard there to crack some heads?
Would Romney allow any city in his state to become a sanctuary from any law or is it only immigration laws that he feels aren’t worth enforcing?
Perchant on February 13, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Ecuse me, Romney isnt Gov of Ma. anymore.
paulsur on February 14, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Odd that the only front running Republican with only one wife is a Mormon. Speaking of which, I didn;t know Rudy’s wife #1 was his second cousin. Should play well in some red states…..;^)
honora on February 14, 2007 at 9:58 AM
This is a blanket thank you for all the replies to my comment on Romney yesterday. I want to get to the bottom of who he is. I am also wary of a group think (not saying that’s anyone here, so don’t take it personally) that wants to rush to remake a candidate’s image into something ideal. Whoever I vote for, I want to do it with eyes wide open.
INC on February 14, 2007 at 12:08 PM