Mitt ties Rudy for the lead in Hotline’s Insiders poll
posted at 5:21 pm on July 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
“Insiders” being defined as “members of Congress, party activists, fundraisers, consultants, lobbyists, and interest-group leaders.” They’re in the game, ahead of the curve, and sensing big things for the man from Michigan and Massachusetts. I’m … surprised. I like Mitt, and his fundraising prowess is impressive, but is anyone psyched to turn out and vote for him? Except for Hugh Hewitt and my pal Barnett, I mean. He’s basically Fred with less charisma and much longer pro-choice rap sheet.
Here’s the latest video hit job on him from a site called Romney Facts. I’m willing to shrug off the sound bites as standard “I transcend partisanship” fare served up by a Republican to left-wing (Massachusetts) voters, but it certainly does him no favors given the suspicions of political opportunism that surround him.
Update: Then again, what do Insiders know?
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 curious to see how this all plays out; anyone of the big 3 could easily be ‘the guy’.
Rudy has been and is still generally considered front-runner, but Mitt, based on his campaign chest and the various polls that have him rumored to lead in the key first primary states, he could be the guy. And Fred, who knows how that translate to in primary votes. It’s interesting.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Yup. Of the announced candidates, he is the class of the field. He’s leaing in Iowa and leading in NH. As to the charisma factor, the more you know about the guy the better he gets.
Give him time. A few months ago, he was an unknown nationally. He’s moving to the front of the pack as people get to know him. Just as I said he would.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Romney Facts .com is paid for by the Masachusettes Democratic Party. Yea, it’s a hit piece all right. Doesn’t matter to me, I don’t plan to vote for Mr. Romney anyway.
Got my eye on Fred !
2theright on July 12, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I’m not surprised at all that Mitt is neck and neck with Rudy in the Insiders poll. He is going to impress as the campaign continues to roll along.
That hit piece on him was absurd. A one party system is fertile ground for the growth of corruption and incompetence. Is anybody in their right mind actually for a one party system? Polarization and competition is good for keeping both sides in check. Jeesh.
Zetterson on July 12, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Yet he raised less than Rudy last quarter, and less than himself the quarter before.
amerpundit on July 12, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I’m enthusiastically supporting whoever wins the nomination because the alternative is unthinkable.
TheBigOldDog on July 12, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I read somewhere that 80% of people think dead-lock, ie one party has executive power the other legislative, is the best situation for the nation. It’s one of the reasons I think D. Morris projections on the future of the R party to be so absurd.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I’ll regretably support Romney if he gets the nomination, but I hope it doesn’t come to that.
As awful as they both are, I really don’t see Hillary or Obama losing to Romney. He’s the major GOP contender I find the absolute least impressive.
Vyce on July 12, 2007 at 5:59 PM
So, AP, is the hillary nutcracker equal to or more important than an Iphone?
lorien1973 on July 12, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Interesting.
Zetterson on July 12, 2007 at 6:04 PM
What is it about FlipFlop Mitt supporters? Seem to be a pretty delusional bunch. Despite spending enormous sums of money (including millions of his own money “loaned” to his campaign), announcing in January and participation in two debates, his numbers have barely changed in the past 4 months. His numbers in Iowa are mostly a reflection of the fact that he’s practically lived there and spent over $1 million on ads… with 6 months to go.
Romney is the class of the field? If by “class” you mean “pandering slickster”, you’re correct. There’s hardly an issue he hasn’t flipped on since he started contemplating his run for President- guns, abortion, the Bush tax cuts, amnesty, views on Reagan (among a few)… he’s the most inauthentic candidate in the field, and his stagnant polls numbers are a reflection of that.
Getting to know him better also means getting to know his flip-flops and extensive RINO past. I’m not even sure Romney knows what “Federalism” even means- he’s made it clear he doesn’t believe in it.
Maybe I’ll change my mind if he goes hunting with me sometime, him being a “lifelong hunter” and gun owner (who doesn’t actually own a gun himself and no hunting licenses on record) and all.
After 8 years of Bush, the last thing we need is someone with such a decidedly non-conservative recent history and apparent lack of unwavering core beliefs.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 6:08 PM
What did he say wrong? I’m registered republican but only because that’s how the voting system is set up. Are we supposed to be republican before conservative? Are we all proud of how the republicans ran congress for 12 years? They didn’t fix out borders, they didn’t put any pressure on Clinton to do anything about terrorism. They got wealthy, they got arrogant and then they lost congress. I should consider myself one with Arlen Spector, Chuck Hagel, Lindsay Graham and Susan Collins?
peacenprosperity on July 12, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Ok, that clip is comical. Could it be any more clear those are selectively edited comments in which he was responding to the fact that MASS is a sinlge party Democratic state? Is there anybody out there who watches this clip and doesnt realize that? LOL
honestly you have a screw lose if you interpet things like to mean he is not concervative
Resolute on July 12, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I’m a very strong supporting of Mitt Romney and think he will win the nomination. he’s very charismatic and in a way reminds me of Ronald Reagan. As for this flip-floping issue, if you look at his tenure as governor he does have a very conservative record (vetoed stem cell research, Balance the budget without raising taxes, supported an amendment banning gay marriage, ended taxes on interests, dividends & capital gains, and vetoed 286 bills from the extremely liberal state assembly). Anyway, thats just me.
chip91 on July 12, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Exactly! When are we going to stop letting the MSM tell us who is electable. Put any of the real republican contenders on a stage in a legitamite debate with Hilary or Obama and it would be a conservative landslide. Put Newt up there and Hilary and Obama would cry. But it will never happen. We will sit back and let Timm Russert run a debate and lob softballs to the democrat candidate and hand grenades to the republican.
All the people who called and e-mailed and wrote to fight the immigration bill need to get involved in the next election and demand an honest fair contest. Why the hell is the League of Socialist Woman Voters in charge of the debates evry elction cycle? When are we going to stand up for our rights>
peacenprosperity on July 12, 2007 at 6:21 PM
And actual executive experience. And compelling business experience. And original stances on issues that actually matter. And he’s not a bait-and-switch tool.
What are Fred’s qualifications again? Oh yeah, he played a lawyer on TV, supported McCain-Feingold, did nothing of note while in the Senate. He has zero executive experience. His positions are all old rehashes of long-argued conservative talking points. He’s essentially an essayist auditioning for President.
BKennedy on July 12, 2007 at 6:22 PM
And voted against impeachment leaving his collegues swinging in the wind.
peacenprosperity on July 12, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Facts don’t matter to some. He made the unpardonable sin of being in favor of the assault weapons ban and thats all that matters. Leave aside that governors, paricularly those who have large urban centers, have to deal with the affects of gun violence not senators.
No matter how many facts you put out, or point to the obvious that governors tend to know just a tad more about federalism than senators because they actually live it, some will always brand him as a flip flopper for taking the exact same stance on abortion as Fred. Get used to it.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 6:28 PM
In ONE TERM? That’s averaging more than a bill a week. How the heck does that happen?
logis on July 12, 2007 at 6:30 PM
*Raises Hand
Count me as one person excited about voting for Mitt. I don’t want to get lumped into the Ron Paul voter category so I’ll simply suggest anyone who has not given Mitt a good look should give him a good look.
Tough on illegal immigration, advocate of small government and low spending. Wants to further support the military and win the war in Iraq. Just a few good qualities.
I think he will win in many primary states where people get to meet him in person and listen to his message. It’s no surprise to me living here in NH that he leads here and in a few others already.
proudinfidel on July 12, 2007 at 6:34 PM
That’s an interesting statement. I don’t think any sin in America is unpardonable by the electorate, if the candidate exudes charisma, BUT necessitates the ‘won’t do it again’, which would help comfort gun owners everywhere.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 6:34 PM
It’s MITT ROMNEY man, the guy can move mountains.
Oh yeah, and Massachusetts is a liberal hellhole, meaning that Mitt’s veto pen was on overdrive. Too bad it can only be said he forced our one-party legislature to supermajority override him.
BKennedy on July 12, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Why should he? Did Reagan apologize for lobbying on behalf of the Assault Weapons Ban? Did Reagan apologize for lobbying on behalf of the Brady Bill? Did Reagan apologize for banning cop killer bullets and undetectable weapons?
Have the heads of virtually all law enforcement agencies in the country apoloized for supporting the Assault Weapons Ban?
You can in fact be a supporter of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, a good Republican and a supporter of limiting certain types of weapons.
Ronald Reagan thought so. Me too.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 6:44 PM
“Very conservative” compared to Ted Kennedy or the average MA resident perhaps, but not compared to mainstream Republicans. He raised gas taxes, doubled or even quadrupled fees (a nice way of saying taxes) and effectively raised buisness taxes (closed “loopholes”). He vetoed an increase in the minimum wage, only to propose a smaller minimum wage increase. Much of his supposed budget balancing came on the back of a capital gains increase.
Add with his support for gun control, opposition to Roe v Wade being overturned, distancing himself from Reagan, and support for big government health care and education and Romney’s record is not one of a conservative, but a “moderate” (aka RINO).
He may have been about as conservative as can be elected in MA (though only for one term), but that doesn’t make him a conservative nationally and shouldn’t be trusted as such.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 6:45 PM
A candidate who opposed the overturning of one of the most poorly reasoned, activists decisions in modern times (Roe v Wade), in favor of big government health care and education plus supports federal gun control is a federalist? You must be joking.
Given his pre-presidential campaign position on Roe v Wade and enthusiastic support of abortion rights and Fred’s votes in the Senate and consistant postion that Roe v Wade be overturned, their positions aren’t by a long shot “exactly the same”.
Were it just his gun control support in MA, it would be disappointing but forgiveable. That he supports carrying his “scary looking weapon ban” position (one of the few he’s been consistant on, come to think of it) to the country as a whole, in addition to his big government (read: “compassionate conservative”) agenda and overall pandering flip-flops, he’s not a suitable Republican nominee.
He’d have better suited switching parties and going for the Blue Dog Democrat vote in my opinion.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 6:57 PM
You just said unpardonable. I wasn’t giving him advice, just saying it’s not unpardonable.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Come on, Hollowpoint–tell us how next he’s responsible for causing cancer, he eats live babies, and dreams of gassing puppies in blenders.
Could you be any more of a hit job artist?
Vanceone on July 12, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Its easy to cherry pick the facts on his governorship, but lets not forget he had to deal with a legislator thats 85% Democrat.
chip91 on July 12, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Hollowpoint-
A couple things. First, and I know this comes as something of a shock, most of the country and a significant portion of the Republican Party, aren’t as conservative as you. Without those Blue Dog Dems that Ronald Reagan cultivated, no Republican will get the Presidency. Just what is.
Did Romney run as a personally pro-life candidate but one who pledged to support MA abortion laws? You bet. If you know anything about MA, the most blue state in the country, he was considered much too conservative on abortion. When he vetoed the morning after pill bill a couple years ago he got hammered. You can call it political expediency, probably was, but the simple fact is there is absolutley no way he ever would have gotten elected anything in MA without taking the same position as Fred. Personally pro-life but committed to supporting the law. Also, I might add, the same position Ronald Reagan had as Gov. of CA.
On the Assault Weapons ban, how do you square his support for this with Reagan’s support of the Assault Weapons ban, the Brady Bill, signing a law banning machine guns as Gov of CA, etc., etc., etc.?
Romney did raise some fees on things like marriage licenses. He did close loop holes that allowed companies to not pay taxes, laws that had been passed by his predescessors passed under the mistaken belief that companies and jobs would flock to MA. Do you honestly have a problem with companies like Raytheon and Fidelity Investments paying taxes? That’s a conservative position?
He also balanced a budget four times, something Fred hasn’t done once. He led a Democratically dominated State House, something no other candidate has done. He implemented a universal health care plan with the support of the Heritage Foundation (are you going to tell me they are liberal?) that didn’t cost a dime and in fact is saving money.
Yes, Fred ran as a pro-choice candidate. You’re just going to have to learn to deal with it because its a fact. You are also going to have to learn to live with the fact that Ronald Reagan passed pro-abortion legislation as Gov of CA that Romney never did. Your going to have to learn to live with the fact that Reagan raised taxes as Gov of CA. Your going to have to learn to live with the fact that Reagan was a “gun grabber”.
You can define a conservative anyway you want but as they say, everyone is entitiled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 7:22 PM
MA citizenry is overwhelming registered as Democrat. The assumption, based on this fact, that therefore any Republican from MA is therefore less concervative then Repuplicans nationally is exactly wrong. There is zero (R) party organization here. To have the courage to send in the voter registration with an (R) on it – when often there literally are not even any (R) to vote for in the election – you have to really mean it.
That is great summary and I think it is absurd to even compare that to Bush. Bush was not even 1/10 as effective with a friendly Congress as Romney was with an absoloutly hostile MA assembly during the exact same time period.
Resolute on July 12, 2007 at 7:27 PM
For those here who are familiar with MA politics, and it seems there are some, the name Barbara Anderson and Citizens for Limited Taxation have meaning. This woman has been the most vocal critic of big gov’t and lower taxes I have seen anywhere, local or national. She is a full time pit bull.
In her words.
Read it all. Frankly, she knows what she is talking about regarding taxes in MA.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Have to say that he strikes me as being more conservative than the current governor of California. I haven’t thrown my support behind any candidate at this point. Keeping a pretty open mind except for McCain, who is strong on the war, but weak on immigration and just about everything else.
Snidely Whiplash on July 12, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Yeah, and I bet she wasn’t too happy when Romney refused to sign their taxpayer protection pledge and refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts. Well, I guess he did sign the pledge and endorse the tax cuts AFTER his term was up and began his campaign for President. Yet another pandering flip flop.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I’m hoping Fred plays out as conservative as he sounds but if Mitt gets the nod I won’t mind supporting him. We obviously aren’t going to nominate any of the actual conservatives in the race, they’re all riding in the second row.
Buzzy on July 12, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Um, no. He was adamantly pro-choice, and opposed the overturning of Roe v Wade. That he might have personally been against abortion is irrelevant.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Obviously, Hollowpoint, you didn’t bother to read the link I gave you. OK, I’ll do all the work for you.
Next.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 8:20 PM
I also said that he was about the best that could be hoped for in a liberal state like MA. Just not for the country as a whole, and particularly not as a Republican.
Sorry, I just don’t trust someone who’s stated beliefs do a 180 depending upon what office they’re running for. The ones he’s been consistant on- gun control, big government health care and education- aren’t exactly appealing to me as a conservative. (and not the East Coast definition, which seems to be someone at least a little to the right of Hillary).
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 8:24 PM
And where did his increased “user fees” go? Specifically to those activities the fees were necessary for?
Nope- the general fund. “Fees” are simply taxes in a party dress. The increased gas tax was a tax increase as well.
Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 8:28 PM
And yet you love Reagan who was an abortions supporting, gun grabbing, tax raising Governor of CA. What, you only like west coast RINOs?
No matter how many time I point out to you that his health care plan actually is saving taxpayers money and was written in conjunction with the Heritage Foundation, no matter how often its pointed out to you that there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with being a 2nd Amendment supporter and supporter of limiting some types of weapons (just like Reagan), no matter how often I point out to you that he rammed through immersion in MA schools and supports merit pay, you keep going back to the same tired arguments that just aren’t factually true.
Why, its almost as if you don’t know what you are talking about in regards to Romney and you just have some issue (GUNS) which prevents you from seeing the facts.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 8:38 PM
I live in Mass., and when Romney was Governor here, he could have stopped same-sex marriage easily, but wouldn’t stand up to our crazy state judges. He showed zero backbone. Why? When he ran for Senate, he boasted he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy on “gay rights.”
His words and actions have proven him to be pro-abortion.
Please, America, save us from God-less Massachusetts politicians!
sacerdos on July 12, 2007 at 8:41 PM
I realize that I am a guest at this blog, but I find Allahpundit’s swooning love affair with Fred! and his habitual sniping at Mitt
a bitreally irritating, and tiresome.What’s Allahpundit going to do if Mitt gets the nomination?
I think we are very fortunate to have Rudy, Mitt, Fred (if he ever gets off his butt to sign up) and possibly Newt as candidates.
They all have a lot to offer.
Buy Danish on July 12, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Are we serious about that video?? I mean, just imagine, a Republican elected in a solidly blue state reaching out to…. Democrats????? You mean the guy actually wanted to accomplish something for the good of the commonwealth instead of playing the same old partisan games??? Did he not enact sweeping “R”eforms in the way those liberals ran their state? I’m more impressed with someone that manages to enact conservatism in a blue state than by someone that doesn’t have to worry about re-election because of the “R” next to their name. Of course it’s a burden in a blue-state. Then, of course, there’s the kicker: paid for by the Democratic party of Massachusetts -Scared???
Go Mitt
Medicated on July 12, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Understatement of the year
Medicated on July 12, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Flat.Out.Wrong. Mitt gets lambasted on it only because it happened on his watch. He respected the state supreme court’s decision, there’s no option for a veto on a court ruling, and for some reason the press ignores how he responded: which was by immediately lobbying for a state-constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Medicated on July 12, 2007 at 9:01 PM
He also tried to get it directly on the ballot as a referendum. I can hardly even believe sacerdos is really from MA after reading that incorrect post
Resolute on July 12, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Fred just gets the comments. I want a Newt for Pres thread b/c I keep hearing he can’t win too many negatives and in the next breath Hillary is inevitable. I’d like to hear the esteemed HA crowd’s feelings.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Thank you! Romney is the GOP’s best candidate.
chip91 on July 12, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Not only that but I don’t think he has tons of people behind him. 80K last I heard. Compared to Obama’s 250K.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 9:32 PM
I live in Boston. So tell me how he could have stopped the SJC decision “easily.” Educate me.
TheBigOldDog on July 12, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Fortunately for Romney, Obama isn’t running in the Republican primary. He also hasn’t had the messiah loving press that Obama has.
Hillary is going to be the candidate for the Dems. The Republican race is wide open. If Mitt continues to romp in the debates as he did in the first two, the money and supporters will continue to grow.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 9:40 PM
So many of you are talking about this “newfound conservatism…” Frankly, I don’t see it that way. Romney has demonstrated how much of a conservative he really is. All the senators had to do is vote on something someone else came up with. I don’t know when we allowed conservatives to be defined only by gay marriage and abortion, but if you really think that Mitt’s not in line with your ideals, give me a chance to tell you a little more about him. I’ll focus strictly on issues of “record” and not simply statements. Not one of the top tier candidates (not even Fred!) has a defendable stance on gay marriage. Every candidate up there has made statements that weren’t in line with the party platform, every top candidate has, at one point or another, said that it was a state’s rights issue (especially Thompson, who is a federalist by all measures). Mitt gets lambasted on they gay marriage thing because it happened on his watch. He respected the state supreme court’s decision, there was no option for a veto on a court ruling, so what would his critics have him do? Try and replace the supreme court?? Fat chance. For some reason the press ignores how he responded: which was by immediately lobbying for a state-constitutional ban on gay marriage, and as another reader has pointed out, tried to bring the issue to referendum (I think I recall him even putting something in the party platform, as well, might have been while he was chair of the republican governors assoc.). But youtube’s more important, right? Forget his actual actions. His critics prod him for going along with spousal benefits, but once again, what choice does he have when the state supreme court rules that it constitutes a legal nuptial. The difference between Romney and the Senators: they have to defend their votes in the Senate and their co-sponsorships of all bills, even if they never made it out of committee (lots more room to find a discrepancy); It appears that Romney has only to defend himself from 15 year old you tube videos in the most liberal state of the union… So onto the abortion and life issues. Yes, a man with a gigantic family of children and grandchildren, that vetoed every new piece of legislation on abortion that ever crossed his desk (including embryo farming, theraputic cloning, and non-parental consent laws), has to defend his “record.” I apologize for the critics, but his “record” speaks for itself. If we want to talk about his “record” on Abortion and embryonic stem cells, it’s almost 100%, with only his RU-486 decision at odds. The senators? McCain votes to expand stem cells, Thompson wasn’t around long enough to face many votes on life issues, but Thompson and McCain’s votes match for those that occurred while both were in the senate, the only exception being McCain’s problem with cases of rape and incest….
Medicated on July 12, 2007 at 9:44 PM
You mean like freds? 1994 pro-choice belief and then his magical switch to pro-life in 2007? AND, worse than that, the guy LIES about it.
Glad to hear you are realizing that fred? is not to be trusted. Good for you.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 9:49 PM
So how about other issues of conservatism?
On taxes, trade, balancing the budget/ fiscal conservatism, who has the best record? The Governor that balanced the budget four consecutive years… or a senator? Get real. The budget bills are written long before they hit the Senate. All they have to do is get behind the leadership and vote on/ add to what the house sent them. Mitt, with an extremely blue legislature amidst a $3 billion deficit crisis, threw out their proposed spend-a-thon, wrote his own budget and sent it back, then somehow managed to convince a room full of liberals to give it a shot. That speaks loads for his “executive ability.” Never saw the Senator From Tennessee pull that off, and Senator McCain’s been nothing but polarizing (even to his own party) in his attempts to reach across the aisle in recent years. Mitt balanced this disaster of a budget his first year in office (and every year thereafter) without raising taxes once. This, in a state that has always just simply thrown money at its problems -Just like they tried to do with a universal healthcare initiative. They had the support in the legislature to override any veto by the governor, so what does Romney do? He immediately reached across and drafted a plan that would achieve a mutually acceptable end result without raising taxes and without socializing healthcare. He sent it to the Heritage foundation for advice, and the bill passed with a ringing endorsement from both sides of the aisle. The same success stories occurred time and time again in every company Bain & Co resurrected. Mitt cut expenditures, balanced the budgets, and made them profitable. That kind of experience only comes from business, and you’d be hard pressed to find examples of failures. Same goes for the Olympics, where he turned what was a $397 million budget shortfall into a $56 million dollar surplus to fund the next games. So what, may I ask, are the reasons I should support Thompson over Romney? There’s so much enthusiasm for him here and, quite frankly, I’m yet to see a real reason aside from “charisma” that I should support him. I don’t see Fred’s platform issues as differing much from any of the other front-runners. I do think he’s a great writer, and I agree with much of what he says, but I’m not electing a writer, I’m electing a President. I’m open to convincing, but convince me with facts and their records, not some youtube spin-clips.
Medicated on July 12, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Romney himself ordered the change to marriage certificates to read “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “Bride” and “Groom”. Romney followed the judges’ order, but he didn’t have to. Romney could have easily said, “No, this is unconstitutional.”
I attended a pro-marriage rally in Boston where Mitt spoke. He didn’t say a single word against the concept of same-sex marriage. All Romney said was that the judges had no authority to decide the issue. He led us in a chant of “Let the people vote.”
Of course, you’re right: the Democrat alternative is unthinkable.
sacerdos on July 12, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Really? He didn’t have to? Is that how it works?
Wow, and for all this time I thought we lived under a system of laws.
JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 10:02 PM
That was good, thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Anatomically, Mitt’s skull is too high and narrow. He needs to fix that. Fashion-wise, his hair is too coiffured, he looks artifical, like a gameshow host. That, I don’t know if he can fix.
jihadwatcher on July 12, 2007 at 10:13 PM
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 9:49 PM
csd, when you start trashing Mitt threads with your anti Fred stuff it is time to get help with your problem. As a friend, really.
Buzzy on July 13, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Lately, Romney has been putting out a message that I find appealing. If Tancredo and Hunter drop out, Mitt will be my #2 choice.
jaime on July 13, 2007 at 2:56 AM
Medicated,
Those were nice commentaries laying out Mitts! record. It’s clear that he is the most qualified candidate for the nomination.
Nice job.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 6:25 AM
WHen asked about Gitmo, he said that he thinks it should be doubled in size. He needs to be POTUS for that alone!
promachus on July 13, 2007 at 8:03 AM
Unfortunately a mormon on record as wanting to double the size of Gitmo would be unelectable in a general election. Hopefully GOP voters won’t make the mistake of making him the nominee…
sublime on July 13, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Unfortunately, a mormon on record as wanting to double the size of Gitmo would be unelectable as POTUS. Hopefully GOP voters won’t make the mistake of making him the nominee.
sublime on July 13, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Fixed.
BKennedy on July 13, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Sublime,
What’s the matter? Are you afraid that when Mitt the Mormon speaks of doubling the size of Gitmo that he intends to do it by allowing Polygamous, gay jihadi weddings?
Oh wait, isn’t that more apt to be something Hillary the ultra left wing Methodist would do?
Who is the candidate whose constituents largely think “marriage is just a piece of paper” or should be redefined to eliminate that pesky man/woman thing?
Buy Danish on July 13, 2007 at 10:03 AM
I’d like to hear your rational for that statement. Why, would a Mormon be unelectable in a general? How does doubling the size of Gitmo relate? I think I know, but I’d like you to be more specific.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 10:15 AM
The ironic part of your statement is that the hardest part for Romney will be getting the nomination, not attracting Independents and random Dems if he gets the nominaton. The people who care most about religion are the Christian right, a significant part of the primary voters in certain key states. Winning them over is the real challenge.
Dems in MA, the overwhelming majority of voters, showed they had no problem voting for a Mormon. They tend to be more secular. And if you need more proof that Dems will vote for a Mormon, I give you Harry Reid.
JackStraw on July 13, 2007 at 10:21 AM
He’ll probably be dodging the flying pigs.
Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Reagan isn’t running for the nomination, obviously.
Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 10:29 AM
This is really scary stuff from Mitt’s Mormon father and former Michigan Governor, George:
Americans have four basic ways of solving problems that are too big for individuals to handle by themselves. One is through the federal government. A second is through state governments and the local governments that the states create. The third is through the private sector – the economic sector that includes business, agriculture, and labor. The fourth method is the independent sector – the voluntary, cooperative action of free individuals and independent association. Voluntary action is the most powerful of these, because it is uniquely capable of stirring the people themselves and involving their enthusiastic energies, because it is their own – voluntary action is the people’s action. As Woodrow Wilson said, “The most powerful force on earth is the spontaneous cooperation of a free people.” Individualism makes cooperation worthwhile – but cooperation makes freedom possible.
Does the acorn fall far from the tree?
Egads!
Buy Danish on July 13, 2007 at 10:31 AM
So I’ve heard. But you brought him up.
I just thought I would point out Reagan’s actual record as Gov which by your definition would make him a RINO.
While we’re on the topic of facts. Romney on Reagan.
Here’s what he had to say when he was awarded the Frontiers Of Freedom Ronald Reagan award this past April.
I think you’ll really like this one. Nothing like getting endorsements from Reagan’s financial team for your candidacy, no?
When you talk about him running away from Reagan, perhaps you could be more specific.
JackStraw on July 13, 2007 at 10:46 AM
So Allahpundit is hopelessly emotionally over-invested in his single-minded hatred against Mitt Romney, but CS and the other psychos wouldn’t even CONSIDER suicide bombing if Thompson happened to get the nomination?
Yeah, riiiight…
logis on July 13, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Yeah dude, now he’s praising Reagan’s legacy. You gave us only half of another one of his many flip-flops.
When he was running for governor he distanced himself from Reagan saying he “wouldn’t want to return to the days of Reagan / Bush” and claimed to be an independant at that time. Hell, he even tried to distance himself from his own party… but yeah, now we’re supposed to believe he’d be a good Republican.
As to who’s on his payroll, I’m unimpressed considering these were the very people he tried to disassociate himself with just a few years ago.
Doesn’t much matter anyways- he has about the same chance of getting the nomination as does McCain.
Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM
logis on July 13, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Puhlease.
I can’t speak for the other “psychos” but…
Look, Fred may make a good, or even great, candidate. It’s too early to tell since he hasn’t even signed up or debated yet. He sounds terrific on some issues, but then again so does Mitt.
I am really at a loss to understand how one can be so pro- Fred! and yet so anti-Mitt at the same time.
Buy Danish on July 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Because one has a fairly consistant conservative record and the other doesn’t. It’s not that hard to understand.
Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM
A Mormon would be unelectable in the general because a large segment of the public is biased against Mormonism. It’s unfortunate and irrational, but I don’t think it’s something that Mitt can overcome. I would argue that the only reason he’s polling well in the early states primaries is because he’s the only one advertising there, and support in the smaller states is easiest to buy…he has nowhere to go but down when the other campaigns move in.
The Gitmo comment wasn’t meant to relate…I just think that the liberal media have poisoned the public perception of Gitmo to such an extent that the GOP candidates would do well to avoid going on record praising it. Prisons are necessary, but to go out of your way to laud them doesn’t make sense to me.
sublime on July 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Outside of Utah, the average American doesn’t really have an opinion one way or the other about Mormonism. And that’s the problem; it’s a blank slate.
The day the primaries are over, that would start to change. By November of 2008, the media will have portrayed Mormonism as a “demon cult”. The Democrat Party will be running on one platform and one platform only: That anyone who refuses to vote for a woman and a black man is an evil “bigot.” For us to try and outdo 150 years of liberal conditioning in one campaign season, and simultaneously create a brand spanking new protected minority, would be a pretty tall order.
I figure it’s something like a 5% swing. Not enough to kill another Ronald Reagan, but it’s a millstone we don’t need on our ticket.
logis on July 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Jackstraw really nailed it with this comment…
You have the bigotry against the mans religion correct, but you pointed to the wrong people as his biggest hurdle. If Mitt! gets the nomination, he will be the next president. Only Rudy has as good a shot. The rest of the rep candidates and non-candidates will lose in the general. Hands down.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM
The Mormon hit piece movie “September Dawn”, which opens in September, will begin that process well before the primaries are over. If Mitt! can weather the storm that movie will create, then there is nothing the Clinton smear machine will have to attack the guy on his faith after he wins the nomination. There will surely be other areas, but Mitt! will destroy that cow in any debate.
The end of September will be the tipping point. Be prepared for the so called “Christians” who will claim absolute moral authority as the decider’s of whose religion is correct and whose is not.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Yeah, I’m sure that’s the problem.
logis on July 13, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Then you would be correct.
Odd that Romney is leading in NH, leading in Iowa but doing poorly in SC a Bible Belt state.
JackStraw on July 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM
In case that wasn’t clear enough for you theres this
Nice, huh? Taliban, Hamas. John McCain, classy to the end.
JackStraw on July 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM
It’s been pointed out already that one of our greatest Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, did not have a “consistent conservative record” if you go way back to the beginning.
Neither did “neo-cons” like David Horowitz, who are inarguably staunch and reliable conservatives now.
If you want to pick at actions that make one question a candidates conservative creds, I don’t think that supporting McCain-Feingold, which Fred did, was very conservative either – and that is an understatement.
What is important is whether or not Romney is a conservative now, and whether his change of heart on abortion (for example) is sincere and reasonable.
I think it is fair to say that Romney is not someone who is nothing but a political opportunist who will say anything to get elected. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Romney is a conservative and would lead this nation accordingly.
Buy Danish on July 13, 2007 at 4:52 PM
There are plenty of people out there who think Mitt is a great candidate – and more power to them. But I haven’t seen much of that around here. All I hear are a handful of extremely virulent anti-Fred fanatics who – when pressed – will occassionally try to claim that there are other Republican candidates who don’t turn their stomaches. But I’m not buying it.
logis on July 14, 2007 at 12:34 AM
I don’t know if it makes sense to say that George Bush was an “opportunist” either. He’s what George Will called “personally conservative:” he goes to church a lot, and lives a clean life. His heart is in the right place, and on MOST issues his stand is a conservative one. But he’ll occasionally take stance – every bit as passionate – that utterly boggle the mind.
George Bush may have spent much of his life in Texas, but he ain’t no Texan. His family is rooted in Conecticut. He is in every way the perfect model of the New England “Rockefeller Republican.” He said what needed to be said during the Primary, but then went right back to his roots when he was back in his element – among Democrats who were always ready to help him “compromise.”
If there’s a difference between Bush and Giuliani and Romney, I sure don’t see it. And 8 years of that crap is just about all I can handle.
logis on July 14, 2007 at 12:46 AM