Mitt wins social con straw poll, but…
posted at 4:20 pm on October 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
…Huckabee came within 30 votes of upsetting him and, per Byron York, Huck actually crushed the field among people who attended the conference. York thinks that’s significant but I’m not sure why. Yes, Huckabee’s an impressive speaker and there’s obviously a lot of affection for him among social cons. No, he’s not going to be the nominee and he probably doesn’t have enough support to sustain a third-party candidacy. What this does, maybe, is make him the money VP pick.
Rudy finished ninth overall but, interestingly, fifth among conference attendees, suggesting that this morning’s speech did him a little good. The big loser: Fred, who finished behind Mitt and Huck in both polls.
Update: David Brody says it’s no surprise that Huckabee won big among attendees. His speech was reportedly spectacular.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Fred came in fourth right behind Ron Paul, yet somehow Fred was the big loser…..Yea, right……..
doriangrey on October 20, 2007 at 4:29 PM
How did Ron Paul do so badly in a Straw Poll? Hasn’t he been pulling over 70% of most of ‘em?
JetBoy on October 20, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Like I been telling the Fred crazies for months, Fred ain’t who you THINK he is. And just like I said in the earlier thread, this is why Rudy is right to go after Mitt. Mitt is the candidate who has the inside track to garner a majority of the evangelical vote.
Jeeze, I am so smart I scare myself! There’s a red meat comment for you afflicted with csdeven derangement syndrome!
Bwahahahaha!!!
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I’ve always liked Huckabee, but I have to say Duncan Hunter scored some points with me last night when I watched the rerun of this debate, but he only has 2.42%.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 20, 2007 at 4:32 PM
What I found most interesting about this straw poll is that Ron Paul come in third with 15% of the vote. I would prefer to label the attendees as Christian Right rather than Social Conservative as I don’t see their Christian theocratic based agenda as conservative. So, what attraction would a libertarian lunatic have to members of the Christian Right? My interpretation is a 15% utter lunatic contingent at Family Research Council’s Voters Values Summit. By “utter lunatic”, I mean confused about which of a grab bag of lunacies that think is the most important; that is, the right-wing equivalent of the barking moonbats of the Green Party. This fifteen percent could very well go third party.
thuja on October 20, 2007 at 4:33 PM
LOL
abinitioadinfinitum on October 20, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I’m want to get an explanation on your comment, but I have the feeling that I’m not going to be impressed by your spin.
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 4:33 PM
According to one commenter over at CNN, that position for Ron Paul was determined by voting not only on location, but online as well. For those one location, he came in 9th.
amerpundit on October 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM
one=on
amerpundit on October 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM
im hoping for a huckabee VP. Rudy/Huckabee seems like a winner to me.
lorien1973 on October 20, 2007 at 4:36 PM
The question I have is how do they decide who gets to attend. Is there a secret handshake known only to value voters or can just any old crazy SOB attend?
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 4:37 PM
csdeven == broken record
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 4:37 PM
csd…
I have it screen capped and stuck up on the bulletin board next to my machine.! LOL
No surprise that Huck did well at the conference. Fred in fourth ain’t good. Fred it is time to put some STP in the tank!
Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I’d have to agree with that. I like the feel. The only issue would be the open borders issue that Huck is accused of and the slams on Rudy for the sanctuary city dealeo.
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Fred is inevitable
VolMagic on October 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Heh, heh, heh. Glad I can bring some cheer into your life. ;-)
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Why Huckabee is a nonstarter: creationist sympathies.
Why that sucks: his son, John Mark, is pretty cool.
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Thanks, amerpundit for clearing this up for me. I now feel kind of stupid about my earlier post, but to live is to learn.
thuja on October 20, 2007 at 4:48 PM
BAH! Conventional wisdom mumbo-jumbo.
Weight of Glory on October 20, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Of all things, that’s what would keep you from voting Huck?
He said he wouldn’t do that anyway.
Fred and McCain. McCain needs SC.
With those who also voted online added, yeah. Question is what was necessary to vote online. Membership in the group or something much less?
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2007 at 4:57 PM
*I* will show you what a broken record looks like:
Fred employs Spencer Abraham, a jihadist, as his campaign director. He tried to lie about this fact.
And I have to keep bringing it up because every time I do the Fred-heads bury their heads way, way, waaaaaay up their rear ends. Will one of you please defend Fred’s choosing to do this despicable thing?
Loundry on October 20, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Ah..great. So instead of voting for a 3rd party loser and putting Hillary in the White House, they’ll vote for a GOP loser…and still put Hillary in the White House. You think this is a good thing? I think the only derangement here is your own. Romney is a mirage. You’re running flat out for the oasis and all you’re going to do is end up face humping the rear end of a desert tortoise. Let it go.
austinnelly on October 20, 2007 at 5:05 PM
From The Arizona Republic - Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as “inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery.” He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.
Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.”
The bill is modeled after Proposition 200, approved by Arizona voters in November. The Arkansas measure was filed by Republican Sens. Jim Holt of Springdale and Denny Altes of Fort Smith.
Huckabee, also a Republican and a Baptist minister, said Arkansans should be welcoming hard-working immigrants of all races. He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice. My faith says don’t make false accusations against somebody.
“In the Bible, it’s called don’t bear false witness.”
In response, Holt said he was hurt by the governor’s questioning his faith.
“I just want to uphold the law and protect the benefits that apply to citizens,” Holt said.
Which one sounds like a lunatic and which one sounds like a logical thinker? If you want to go around doing the Christian good and ignoring the law go become a monk or priest and leave the enforcing of laws to those who want to do it. I can’t believe that a Governor, someone who is looked upon as a person who is wanting the law to be upheld, could stoop to a personal attack on someone who is suggesting what the majority of the public wants.
*
*
More from Arkansas News - Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.
Holt, R-Springdale, replied later that Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.
Senate Bill 206, filed Wednesday, also would require proof of citizenzhip to register to vote and would require state agencies to report suspected cases of people living in the country illegally.
Holt replied, “I think the politically correct movement has misconstrued what compassion really means. They think compassion means that any person can disrespect our laws and that we’re supposed to be tolerant and let them get away with it.
“True compassion is correcting them so in the future they can be law-abiding citizens,” Holt said.
Amen to Jim Holt. Joe McCutchen, Chairman of Protect Arknsas NOW, a newly formed group supporting the bill had this to say.
“They broke the law,” he said. “My angst is not with them, though. My angst is with the state and federal government for not enforcing our laws.”
People living illegally in the United State has “overwhelmed our school and welfare system,” McCutchen said. As for whether the bill reflects un-Christian attitudes, McCutchen said: “Jim Holt is as good a man and as good a Christian as any man walking this Earth.”
“Doggone it, the rule of law is not being upheld, and that’s wrong,” McCutchen said.
*
*
I will vote for Hillary before I will vote for Mike “Tyson Foods Plantation” Huckabee or Rudy “Santuary City Mayor” Giuliani.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 5:06 PM
I ain’t hiding it…I just don’t have an answer, just like you don’t. Until Fred says something I haven’t the slightest idea. Does it make me put a negative in his column…yep. Excuse me while I pull my head out…..
Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Did you say something?
.
Bwahahahaha!!!
Who knows more about the jihadi than Spencer?
Just maybe Fred! would like to hear what Spencer suggests and be in a position to deny those inappropriate activities to proceed.
Or, are you suggesting a candidate for POTUS should pretend the jihadi do not exist?
News2Use on October 20, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Yup it is attune to thinking the moon is made of green cheese or that flies spontaneously generate from rotting chuck roast or in Santa or the Easter bunny or hot man-friendly lesbians.
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 5:20 PM
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Is that new?
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Oh it must be because I used the L word in my last post.
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 5:22 PM
EvangelicalsForMitt is reporting that 600 in attendance voted online avoiding the long voting lines. Don’t know how they know. If so then the whole “in person” vs “online” is a bogus comparison since it assumes everyone in attendance voted in person. Not saying that all 600 were for Mitt, but maybe it wasn’t as skewed to Huckabee.
And how is that Huckabee’s 1600 online votes are all the more pure than Mitt’s?
Sebastian on October 20, 2007 at 5:28 PM
No, it was just another meaningless online poll. The Romney campaign pulled a Ron Paul and encouraged his supporters to vote online.
Among those actually there, the top results were:
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 5:33 PM
I’m not a social con but I like Huckabee. No particular reason. I just think he comes off as intelligent and affable.
MikeZero on October 20, 2007 at 5:33 PM
I liked Huckabee until he shared his immigration plan. He loves them all. He thinks that the 20 million invaders should stay.
Duncan Hunter has it all but he just hasn’t made the top tier. He is smarter than all the rest and he’s a true conservative on all issues while the others are RINOS. What a shame!
sinsing on October 20, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Those actually there could vote online avoiding the long voting line. So that measurement is not valid until FRC sorts out from the online voting who was there in person.
if you combine “online” and “in person” you get;
Huckabee 31%
Romney 25%
Paul 13%
Thompson 10%
Undecided 5%
Brownback 5%
Tancredo 3%
Hunter 3%
Rudy 2%
McCain 2%
Not Voting 2%
everyone else 1% or less
Sebastian on October 20, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I’m impressed by Huckabee every time I hear him speak. He seems very honest and genuine, and I think he’d make a great VP pick.
BadgerHawk on October 20, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Mike Huckabee? The same Huckabee who said Iraq was “broke” but something that needed to be “fixed”? The same Huckabee who in last week’s debate sounded exactly like John Edwards in several of his economic responses? Is he really what’s considered “conservative” these days?
Patriot33 on October 20, 2007 at 5:47 PM
I think that ticket could definately slay the Hilldabeast.
BadgerHawk on October 20, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Those who weren’t there could also vote online. To suggest that one candidate’s supporters who were there voted online just doesn’t jive with the numbers- 488 of those voting for Huckabee waited in line, but I’m supposed to believe Mitt’s supporters didn’t? Unlikely.
The Romney campaign sent e-mails to supporters asking them to vote online, and they did. He must’ve read the Ron Paul Campaign Handbook.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 5:50 PM
And to anyone who actually believes that, please let me know because I have a friend in Nigeria that needs help with a large financial transaction.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 5:53 PM
So we both know Charles! Well my fax machine does anyway.
Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Well I am a Frudy Fan! Rudy/Fred!
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 6:01 PM
The chances that Rudy, Fred, or McCain would take a VP slot are slim and none… and Slim is on his way out of town. I’ve no idea if Mitt would consider it.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM
That is the worst, most pro Illegal/Tysons Foods/Plantation Serf Masters ticket I could imagine and I would not only not vote for it, I would tear up my Republican registration, register as a democrat and vote for the HildaBeast™ and give money to her campaign!
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I don’t like his immigration and big government nanny statism so I would rather not see him be President (I thought he was OK until I learned a bit more about him), but I’d agree that he’d make a good VP- both to put the social con voter at ease, and because the office of the VP is mostly that of a goodwill ambassador.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Really this is strange and I never imagined it possible. I have never heard this a reason for not voting for someone. Wasn’t that a question at the debate where all the candidates raised their hands as believers in Creation? Don’t our ‘rights’ come to us as ‘endowed by our Creator’?
I think you are alone on that single issue vote rocky. I don’t like his concept of sanctuary for illegals. Him and Rudy together with a democratic congress assures us of amnesty nearly immediately.
Bottom line is that all of these candidates are the same. A third party candidate is all but certain under these circumstances. Just be ready for it when it happens because the 3rd party candidate will be in it to win it - and they just might.
How about JC Watt from Oklahoma for third party? I bet he’d win. Or the guy from TN Harold Ford Jr. Both of those guys are impressive and they’d probably get 20% of the vote as 3rd party candidates.
ThackerAgency on October 20, 2007 at 6:32 PM
They’re not going to be 3rd party guys for the same reason L. Graham will get reelected.
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2007 at 6:34 PM
How about the same reason that Lieberman is now Independent?
ThackerAgency on October 20, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Completely different dynamic. Liebs was already in power and had a position of advantage. No Rep or Dem is going to run 3rd party if he wants any future in politics. The RNC and DNC would make sure of that.
The most likely 3rd party guys are independently fabulously wealthy guys and typical libertarian and green party guys, guys like Perot, Paul, & Nader in other words.
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2007 at 7:04 PM
FEAR THE FRAUD!
Mike Huckabee is a former minister IIRC, so that explains his spectacular numbers. That and pro-life and family values are basically Huckabees stomping ground.
Fraud!heads are hilarious here, suggesting Romney out-Ron Pauled Ron Paul. They just can’t accept the reality that no one buys into Fraud! Thompson’s manufactured image. Their emperor has no clothes!
BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 7:35 PM
I yield to no one here in my moderate view of Hillary, but I think you are going too far about Rudy. Rudy has observed the political fallout from Shamnesty. Rudy wants to be an effective leader and not anger his base over an issue that he doesn’t think is that important. He’s not about to pull a Bush on this issue, and I think the odds are good he’ll try to enforce the laws much better than Bush has. Rudy is after all a law and order kind of guy. Hillary will be much worse on this issue. Let’s be reasonable if we face a Rudy/Hillary matchup and vote for a candidate who’s much more sympathetic towards your views.
If my last paragraph didn’t work MB4, let me just say “$5000 bond per child”.
thuja on October 20, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Apparently you missed the story that Romney was in fact e-mailing supporters about the online poll. When you consider that, combined with the discrepancy between the results of those attending and those voting online, it should be obvious to anyone with an above average IQ that Romney’s supporters Paul’ed the poll.
But your mindless, namecalling posts demonstrate that you don’t fit in the above-average IQ club.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Only members of the political arm of the Family Research Council could vote.
It appears that not just anyone could vote. I wonder who Romney emailed? And if he only emailed members, who gives a rats patootie?
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Hey Hollow Points, I said I found you guys hilarious. Such a horrible name! Totally, totally worse than “don’t fit into the above-average IQ club.”
Might I suggest that the next time you castigate someone for supposedly insulting you by insinuating about their intelligence, you not insult them in the same breath.
You guys are beyond parody.
BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I hope not. Especially after Cheney.
Troy Rasmussen on October 20, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Missed the story? What story? All I’ve seen is an undocumented accusation from you. If there is a story, then post a link, Man! Come on!
Troy Rasmussen on October 20, 2007 at 8:26 PM
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Bradky on October 20, 2007 at 8:35 PM
…but no ways are you as big as tommylotto…
Entelechy on October 20, 2007 at 8:39 PM
MB4, those possibilities are so remote that it’s not even worth space/emotion. However, you go for the Glacier, something icy is coming your way, electronically, of course.
Entelechy on October 20, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Must I do all the heavy lifting around here? Here it is.
So yes, one had to be a member to vote. What does it take to be a member? A dollar and an Initernet connection.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 8:46 PM
And yet Ron Paul was unable to find this exploit with his elite team of 1337 |-|4X0|2Z? Please Hollowpoint, stop deluding yourself.
BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 8:49 PM
take heart. He is miles ahead of everyone else for friends on Jeri’s myspace account.
Bradky on October 20, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Sorry, but I didn’t have a lot of time to piddle around on the internet today.
Troy Rasmussen on October 20, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Last year’s FRC had an in person attendance of 1800. I’m guessing this year’s was bigger. That means less than 50% of those attending voted in person this year. Huckabee received 25% of the vote of those attending voting in person.
We don’t really know how many voted online who attended. And we don’t know how many joined in the last week so they could vote online. There’s also dynamics of Romney speaking late Friday night and Hucakabee speaking before lunch soon before voting closes. The 500 votes Huckabee did receive could be all those who attended his speech. Perhaps Romney’s went home to their families and voted online.
I don’t know what the Romney campaign did or didn’t do, but EvangelicalsForMitt was asking people to buy a membership for $1 and vote. Romney’s votes may be ginned up online, but they look really low in person. Of course everyone’s but Huckabee looks low for in person.
So the whole vote is meaningless to really make any sense of. Maybe FRC could sort it all out. They could, they know who attended and who voted online and they know when people joined.
But instead of doing any of that, they put out the press release that Mitt won with Huckabee a close second. Maybe in some way that suits their agenda.
Sebastian on October 20, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Blather on. The results are undeniable and ANTONE who says these polls don’t matter are truly engaged in sour grapes politics. We all know that those who support Rudy, McCain, Huck, and McCain wanted to WIN this poll. Now that they have lost they act like it didn’t matter. SOUR GRAPES!
IE: The Iowa straw poll……
Everyone of you sour grapes whiners WISH your guy was the winner.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!!
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Did the Paul campaign send out an e-mail asking them to spam the poll as did Romney? I don’t know; however this one was different in that it took a little more effort than most online polls they spam.
It doesn’t see a Mensa member to see that something ain’t right when you look at the numbers- but go ahead and do play the Ron Paul delusionary game and convince yourself that Romney won because of a silly online poll.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 9:25 PM
What exactly does that alpha/numeric group of symbols refer to?
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Mitt’s my man!
davenp35 on October 20, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Seems tommylotto and I need to settle just who is the best at joking around yet getting the most vile vitriolic insults thrown at us. I think I’m the best, but he might be making a move to take over first place.
This looks real good for Huck. But considering his open borders policy doesn’t seem to be known yet, I think it’s indicative of the absolute dissatisfaction with the field. I think Fred has been a big disappointment when he was supposed to be the guy. I think most people are holding their noses for Mitt and waiting, no PRAYING, that a solid conservative will emerge. The problem is that I do not think one exists. I think the country, over the last 20 years since Reagan left, have moved to a more socially liberal attitude. But only in the sense that you don’t have to be a rabid anti-abortion type for the majority of main stream American voters to support you. So, the party moves that way. The people who say the party has left them have a point. But it just may be that they are holding onto their buggy whip stock a little too tightly.
csdeven on October 20, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Why not give the little ones $5000? It will just go on our national credit card anyway like pretty much everything else to be inherited by them. Let them live it up for a while.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Goracle the Oracle will save me with his global warming machine.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Speeches are here:
http://www.afa.net/twb2007/archive.html
bnelson44 on October 20, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Ah, being young I am fairly fluent in 1337speak.
It says “Leet Haxorz,” or elite hackers.
And I find it laughable: if there is an article of Romney’s opponent’s criticizing him for the move, doesn’t that imply they knew about it as well? This is really entertaining, but you’re killing me Hollowpoint.
BKennedy on October 20, 2007 at 10:45 PM
That’s “LEET HAXORZ” or “elite hackers”.
Gamespeak, man. Get with it!
MikeZero on October 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
On second thought maybe you’re right. Illegal immigration is a huge issue for me and Huckabee is nowhere near the right side of that argument. I do like just about everything else about him though, especially his honesty. That’s a big draw for me with Rudy too. He sticks to his guns even when he’s taking flak from both sides, and that makes it easier for me to deal with some of his positions.
Maybe Rudy/Hunter is the way to go…
BadgerHawk on October 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Whoops. That’s twice today I’m too slow.
Grrr.
MikeZero on October 20, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Such blasphemy.
The Goracle doesn’t need a machine to change the weather - he can do it with the goodness of his heart.
Slublog on October 20, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Who do you think propelled Clinton to the governorship of Arkansas?
TYSON.
Who’s money got Billary into the Whitehouse the first time?
TYSON’S
Who OWNED the Clintons before the Chinese and Soros bought them?
TYSON.
Who still has a ‘third mortgage on the Clintons?
Tyson.
Look, I have been solidly boycotting Tyson’s since 1993, (which is hard work considering I like chicken), but it is just foolish to want to see Hillary elected because Tyson has invested in a conservative Republican too.
LegendHasIt on October 20, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Conservative beliefs is what gets conservatives elected. Once they leave those beliefs to move more centrist like csdevon indicates above, then the more they will not be elected. Look at the 2006 elections. Conservative candidates moved more toward the left and center (maybe because they thought that is what we wanted?) and the conservative right did not vote. Once they come back to their values and move more toward the right, the more conservatives will vote for them. Conservatism always wins for Republicans. Always. It is when we ignore our conservative base that we lose. Always.
Neocon Peg on October 20, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Obviously they knew about it. So what?
I’m not suggesting that what Romney did was unethical, but it does cast some light on the results of the poll as it relates to the online votes. I does smell a bit desperate though.
There’s no evidence I’m aware of that other campaigns e-mailed supporters to encourage them to donate a dollar so they could vote in the online poll. With Romney’s history of buying straw poll results, it’s not a stretch to believe that he’d encourage his supporters to do the same for him here.
Hollowpoint on October 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Women do not have a monopoly on doing things out of spite.
If the Republicans were to have a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket, I would go berserk!
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:23 PM
OK, here we go again. Just exactly WHO is the conservative that you think should be supported? Hunter? Huck? “What’s a dollar?”?
The party has to move the direction that people move or else it ceases to exist. And you could argue that has already happened with the republican party. The party of RR is gone. The country has moved to the center and there is no room for a party that holds the right. And IF there was such a huge need for that type of party it would appear to fill the void left by the departure of the reps very quickly. But, if there was such a need, the republican party would not have moved away from those former positions in the first place.
I blame the war in Iraq. The party has been so distracted defending the war, that it can’t take a breath long enough to focus on those social issues. Mitt is trying to shift that focus. He has ran several ad’s about the ocean of filth our children are swimming in. But it got slammed pretty hard as being bland and ineffective. Yet when he goes after the jihadists, that ad got lots of praise. Why? Because most people have the war against islamofascists as a priority, not internet porn etc.
So, the country drives the message the candidates focus on. And until this war is under control, the rest will take a back seat.
If anyone is having trouble with this concept, just do a google search on “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs”.
csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 12:21 AM
It’s not going to happen - if it does, I’ll counsel you.
Entelechy on October 21, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Maybe Mitts ads were not effective because they were so obviously phony. He isn’t a conservative, yet he wants to become one so bad that he makes those “JFK” moment ads. He has spent something like 25 million for no real gain. To say that there is no “right” is just wrong. The most popular pundits on TV and Radio (which is driving the news now) are all conservative to the right, who is their audience? The problem is hacks like Mitt who, when under pressure, buckle and run from being a conservative. Reagan entered when there was no “right”, the same thing was said about him (and Gingrich with the contract). Saying that there has been a shift is just parroting what the NYT or LYT and rest have been bleating about for the past decade (and letting Mitt off the hook). Weak minded people give in, that’s what the left counts on. What the conservatives get confused with is socially we have shifted to the middle, but politically and economically people still want to be conservative. The Republican party can’t make that distinction, or define it very well. That is why Rudy is so successful, people don’t find him socially inhibiting. Mitt just doesn’t know where he fits (but we know he likes to tax and increase budgets), he will say anything to any group to get their vote. Reagan was pretty liberal in his social policy, that is what many forget.
Mitt would truly be the worst choice, he would never have the huevos to stand up to a democrat lead congress (he couldn’t stand up to Kennedy), let alone a violent irrational dictator. His leadership background in business may be strong (and that is suspect), but his leadership politically is weak. He couldn’t even say no to his buddies at Bechtel after they botched the big dig…he let them literally get away with murder, and still took their campaign money.
right2bright on October 21, 2007 at 1:02 AM
You think Mitt doesn’t believe in cleaning up the ocean of filth in this country? He has raised his family in spite of that environment and it is a very large focus in his faith. You can try to argue that Mitt is a recent convert to a few issues of conservatism, but accusing him of faking his concern for strong families is just not understanding the facts.
As far as the rest of that tripe goes, well, you just are refusing to see how he fought the liberals in the MA congress etc. And you are just straight up full of crap on the big dig issue. Mitt is the one that cleaned it up.
But that kind of lying comes naturally to you don’t it? What’s next? You gonna start in with another bigoted rant on mormonism?
Jeeze!
csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 1:39 AM
What other result did you expect? Huckabee is a preacher. Short of him denying the faith the average Christian would vote for him in such a setting.
davod on October 21, 2007 at 7:51 AM
PS:
I should also say that even then he could not get a majority of the Christians?
davod on October 21, 2007 at 7:51 AM
Huckabee is, policy-wise, the second coming of GWB. The guy is a big-government, pro-amnesty, social conservative. While he is a much better speaker than GWB, I don’t think that particular combination of policies has served the GOP very well the last 8 years. If 2008 is going to be a true “vote for change” election, then someone who is so similar to GWB (and even comes from a neighboring state) is going to have a hard time making that case.
Dudley Smith on October 21, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Brilliant
tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 5:02 PM
We have a two party system. A two party system forces both parties to constantly change always moving towards moderation. There is an imaginary sliver-thin line separating the two parties somewhere in the middle. Each party needs to seize the center. In 2006, the Dems ran some blue dogs and seized the center. The Reps have found themselves too far right and out of power. If they do not moderate before 2008, they will find themselves out of the white house too.
It’s just the primary process that allows the kook fringes to think they are relevant.
tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM
So very wrong. The Republicans lost this last time out because they weren’t conservative enough. Reagan won by being an unabashed conservative. When the case is well made, conservatism wins every time. You should listen to Rush more. He expains this very well on his show.
Mojave Mark on October 21, 2007 at 5:58 PM
1994
DEM ———–|————- REP
2006
DEM ————–|———- REP
Rush is an advocate trying to move where dividing line is. But the fact remains whoever appeals to the folks in the center wins. If you can convince the center to move to the right great, but if recent events have moved them to the left, you better moderate or bye bye birdie.
tommylotto on October 21, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Do inform Hillary of this glorious move to the middle, she seems to have forgotten this in favor of skewing hard, HARD left in favor of socialism.
BKennedy on October 21, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I believe we lost in 06 because of fiscal irresponsibility and morality issues. Had we held fast to those conservative values, the war would not have turned it over to the dems.
csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 7:59 PM
We lost in 2006 because enough conservative commentators convinced enough voters that Republicans did not deserve to be in power. This moronic (yes moronic, not moralistic) advice gave us a Democratic Congress and Senate.
davod on October 22, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Up yours csdeven, your stupid bigot card is getting old. I can think Mitt is the wrong man without being a bigot. You foolish, foolish little man. Anytime someone uses the bigot card, you know they have run out of facts. You are so hung up on being a Mormon victim, you remind me of Sharpton or Jackson. Anytime any debate is raised you pull out the Mormon card. The fact is, Mitt is a weak leader, regardless of his religious affiliation, and no matter how you try to change the fabric of Mitt…he is a family man who is a weak leader. Any man who takes a “tax pledge” then goes about raising “fees” and thinks that the public can’t see through that ploy is not worthy of being anything but a consultant.
He can be a great family man, but that does not make him president material. Covering up and defending a man who was in charge of the safety at the “big dig” after his lack of safety killed a women shows what kind of man Mitt is. He will stand by his donors even if they are incompetent…then take Bechtel’s money for his campaign. Never firing Bechtel, a little slap on the wrist for a loss of life.
His ads smack of “JFK” on the beach ads, that is what I said, and most of us can see through that…you can’t, you’re in love.
Lining up wealthy donors to bail out the Olympics (and many are now involved in his campaign…pay back?), and having a great family (kids are campaigning and on his payroll now), does not make a great leader…raising taxes (yes I know he called them “government fees”) does not make a great leader, increasing budget does not make a great leader, buckling to Kennedy in debates does not a make a great leader, flip flopping during an election does not make a great leader, saying your a conservative, but not fighting for it does not help, surrounding yourself with your business cronies does not make a good leader, ducking for cover in France during the Vietnam war doesn’t make you a good leader, being sincere and good looking doesn’t make you a good leader, being from a influential political family doesn’t make you a good leader (helps in the consulting business), taking money from a company (or at least their owners) who bungled the “big dig” doesn’t make you a good leader (gives you money for campaigning). Mitt’s history is not of a leader, but he is a giver…a giver to his loyal business cronies. The Marriot’s, Bechtel’s, Monster.com, etc. have their candidate, now I want mine…I just don’t have the money to buy one.
I would support Joe Lieberman for President before Mitt. I know what Joe stands for and he stands strong. I have no idea who Mitt is, he keeps re-defining himself. Darn, I can’t support Joe, I’m a bigot and he’s a Jooooowe. I would choose Steele before Mitt, but then Steele is a black man and I’m a bigot.
Hey I know, I will call you a bigot for not supporting any of the Christian candidates. That will win the debate…you, you, you Christian bigot. There the argument is finished.
right2bright on October 22, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I did receive an email, probably because I had previously donated to Romney’s campaign.
I didn’t vote, but I didn’t find it a scandalous request.
sulla on October 22, 2007 at 4:27 PM