National Review endorses Romney
posted at 5:08 pm on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
They stand athwart the Huckabee surge yelling “stop.” I’m tempted to question the timing and wonder if they rushed it out to try to stanch the bleeding in the polls, but let’s face it: How much sway does any political journal have with caucus-goers, or most rank-and-file conservatives generally? As Ace says, if the race is going to change it’ll have to be talk radio that does it. Do Rush and Hannity want to get on the wrong side of evangelicals by campaigning hard against Huckabee? If he wins the nomination anyway they lose face and potentially provide the left with some choice soundbites in the general. They also potentially jeopardize their White House access in the unlikely event that he wins the election, especially given his reputation for being thin-skinned. Plus, they’d have to push the same candidate; many non-evangelical social cons seem to prefer Fred on the merits, but at this point it’s an open question if he could capitalize even with the talk titans pushing him. Mitt is the only viable social con alternative to Huck, really, which is probably why NR settled on him:
Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country…
Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.
Exit question: Will talk radio take this as an invitation to line up behind Romney and beat back the Hucka-hordes? And if so, do they do it now, before Huck gains any more ground, or do they wait until after Iowa? Mitt’s still ahead in New Hampshire so there’s no need to panic, but if McCain pulls off the upset there we could be left with a choice between him and Huck as frontrunners going into South Carolina. God help us.
Update: Reader Cory D. e-mails to warn that evangelicals should expect a mighty backlash from non-religious conservatives if they push Huck through and he ends up slaughtered in the general. I said something like that myself a few weeks ago, but where are we going to go? If Huck wins the nomination despite being suspect on pretty much every issue that isn’t a social con hot button, it’ll be proof that they own the party. Where are the libertarian or libertarian-ish votes going to come from, per this supposed backlash, to take the party back?
Update: I imported the comments to the headline item into this post.
Update (Bryan): Was the Romney endorsement at least in part a reaction to the Huckabee surge? Probably, to some extent, if you go by the timing of yesterday’s slam on Huckabee’s foreign policy acumen and then today’s endorsement. Fwiw, the Huckabee/foreign policy article is dead on, imho.
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
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
You mean K-Lo supports Mitt. She’s almost as bad as Hugh. Almost.
Shtetl G on December 11, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Mittmentum?
Momittmum?
Frozen Tex on December 11, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Hollowpoint, EricPWJohnson, and r2b go berserk in 5…4…3…2…
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 4:35 PM
This comes as no surprise. Derb was a surprise to me, this isn’t.
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Shocka.
amerpundit on December 11, 2007 at 4:36 PM
I’ve only seen that coming since, like, 2005.
see-dubya on December 11, 2007 at 4:36 PM
This is an important point, if fiscal conservatives and social conservatives aren’t bluffing when they say they won’t vote for Mike or Rudy, Mitt is the only choice. Fred failed. And McCain’s past transgressions against conservatives are to great. I’m still not convinced that Mitt can win in the general but who knows.
Complete7 on December 11, 2007 at 4:37 PM
A SOLID B+.
Slublog on December 11, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Hee hee hee hee
see-dubya on December 11, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Not a moment too soon.
Vizzini on December 11, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Agreed. Would you agree with this?
I would, although I’m not sure about the federal activism and overspending.
peski on December 11, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I wonder if they rushed it
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Huck is closer to Bush than Romney is. If you want another Bush that is.
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 4:52 PM
I’d support a Romney/Hunter ticket in a heartbeat.
And their combined credentials will beat Obama and/or Hillary next Fall.
fred5678 on December 11, 2007 at 4:52 PM
In some ways sounds like they are saying “we would consider endorsing Fred, but he can’t get his sh*t together on the campaign trail.”
That being said, Mitt is an acceptable alternative for me.
My own exit question: Does the timing of this endorsement have anything to do with the Huck surge?
thirteen28 on December 11, 2007 at 4:53 PM
It seems a little soon, but they probably are trying to stop the Huckernaut, as MKH put it. Will this be enough to at least slow Mike down? And possibly close the widening gap in Iowa. Time will tell.
Complete7 on December 11, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Yes. They’re not fans of the Huck.
CP on December 11, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Part of winning the presidency is running a campaign. Fred seems to be either aloof or incompetent.
As far as the timing, The first primary is in 3 weeks, if not now, when?
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Iowa Caucus is 24 days from now.
RushBaby on December 11, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Yeesh. K-Lo is one editor (the online editor) of many. The endorsement was written for the print edition which means, presumably, it has the support of all the editors (including Rich Lowry) and possibly the publisher as well.
I think any clear-thinking conservative would acknowledge that Romney is the person they had to endorse, as a conservative magazine. And there is no question that they are scared of Huckabee, as am I.
I think there is s reasonable case to be made for Giuliani and a principled case to be made for others, like Thompson, but those others just aren’t realistic.
Nessuno on December 11, 2007 at 5:02 PM
It’s far too early to endorse anyone yet. National Review has jumped the gun.
packsoldier on December 11, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Thanks, Hugh!
see-dubya on December 11, 2007 at 5:06 PM
At least some conservatives have some common sense! From the endorsment…
“Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.”
Maybe some other people will wake up now. What top tier candidate has the best combination of conservatism and electability? Read the entire endorsment before you reply.
davenp35 on December 11, 2007 at 5:06 PM
K-Lo’s had a Mitt-on since Day 1.
Premittture endorsulation.
saint kansas on December 11, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I just think that it would be good to release a few days before the Iowa caucus. So it won’t get lost in the news cycle. Just look at the Pat Robertson endorsement of Rudy. It was arguably a bigger surprise then this, and its already forgotten.
Complete7 on December 11, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Arrrggg, is no one safe from Hewitt’s silver tongue???
Alex K on December 11, 2007 at 5:09 PM
I doubt it. National Review is an inside the beltway kinda magazine.
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 5:10 PM
God is laughing hysterically methinks. I have personal evidence of his sense of humor, and I am sure He is finding this all so amusing.
bbz123 on December 11, 2007 at 5:11 PM
No quibbles…but the campaigns are going to have to give the voters a break for the holidays. Politicians bugging voters on Christmas Eve will be greated with as much enthusiasm as a lump of coal in a stocking. December 23 is really the deadline for all the campaigns to get their ducks in a row.
RushBaby on December 11, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Premitture endorsulation.
saint kansas on December 11, 2007 at 5:13 PM
OH MY GOD!!!!!
MY MAN IS MITT TOO!!!!
Mitt ‘08 MF!!
Jared_MA on December 11, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Too bad the hayseed fundies run our party, and not National Review.
Patriot33 on December 11, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Cute, but stupid.
I’m saying the magazine had no choice given the ideological position of the magazine. As they note themselves, he covers all the positions that the magazine espouses.
I did not say he is the only choice for conservatives in general. In fact, I said the opposite.
I just discovered that people who don’t read whole posts are worse than posters who don’t read the links. Thanks for proving a new level of stupid to me see-dub.
Nessuno on December 11, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Meh, this isn’t news. They’ve been endorsing him for at least 3/4 of a year already (at least K-Lo and some of the other editors have).
askheaves on December 11, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Allah’s getting desperate or nervous, and I sympathize wholly with him. God help us if its Huck.
Bad Candy on December 11, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Wow. What a shocker. K-Lo has only been gaga over Mitt since before he announced.
Not that I’m opposed to Mitt. Just sayin’…
Sue on December 11, 2007 at 5:23 PM
If Huck grabs it, and gets beat into Dukakispulp, the Rep party will split. There will be no ‘taking back’.
Limerick on December 11, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Posted this on another thread:
That is an extraordinary endorsement of Romney by the editors at NRO– not because I disagree with their assessment of the man, as far as it went, but because they make no mention of the primary issues facing our country, namely our security, and Romney’s qualifications to deal with them. What about Iraq/Iran, al-Qaeda, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, etc. Reading that endorsement it seemed as if 9-11 didn’t happen. What Twin Towers?
Why didn’t they address Romney’s ability to be commander-in-chief, and chief SOB when needed? I’ve got supplies stored in the basement. Why? They must be crazy over at NRO.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 5:17 PM
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I’m an evangelical and I am anybody-but-Huck in the primary. Of course, I don’t see any real good alternatives, either. My guy’s not running.
Editor on December 11, 2007 at 5:26 PM
They shoulda stayed out of it. Unless they were hoping the NR “curse” would torpedo him.
I just can’t see Huck beating Obama or Hillary. He’ll never get a hearing in the press. Not that any Republican will.
Iblis on December 11, 2007 at 5:26 PM
This is all so much silliness. It is way too early to endorse or give meaning to endorsements. The constant polling, too, is just distraction at this point. The only polling that means anything at this point is that done by the candidates themselves– those polls will be used to effect change in message delivery.
thegreatbeast on December 11, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Another important question has to be addressed now, in wake of NRO endorsing Hewitt’s candidacy: Does Hugh work the pole?
thirteen28 on December 11, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Romney ‘08!
davenp35 on December 11, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I have to admit, I am leaning Mitt myself. He is a damn yankee, but out of the field that is emerging now he may just be my damn yankee.
About as close to a real conservative as we are going to get I am afraid. And someone who can beat Hillary.
Don’t pencil me in as a Mitt guy yet, but it is getting close.
conservnut on December 11, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Well, I guess we’ve established that Mitt is the “establishment” candidate.
Once again, Republicans aren’t learning from past mistakes-
In 2004, the Dems nominated Kerry as an “anybody but Bush” candidate and lost.
In 2008, some prominent Republicans want to nominate Kerry’s political twin brother as an “anybody but Hillary” candidate.
Anybody know of any third party candidates worth voting for?
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 5:37 PM
MITT’S MY MAN!
madmonkphotog on December 11, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I’m an evangelical also and as much as I like Huck, I don’t want him as leader of the free world. Leader of my church - great. Leader of my state - no problem. Commander in Chief -no way.
Rod on December 11, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I’m in the Fred/Hunter camp, but on the fence about Mitt. He doesn’t seem like such a bad alternative to me, especially compared to Mike “Jimmah” Huckabee. You couldn’t get behind Mitt?
peski on December 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Rush has said repeatedly that he will not endorse anyone, but if someone does or says something important, like Mitt’s speech, he will give his opinion about it.
As for whether or not Rush would worry about alienating Evangelicals, Rush is who he is and I just can’t imagine that he would be swayed by pressure groups. That is just so not him.
I don’t know enough about Hannity to predict with certainty what he would do, but I’m guessing he may endorse someone, but like Rush, he won’t worry about what the Evangelicals or anyone else thinks.
Buy Danish on December 11, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Ron Paul ‘08!
Ralph Nader
The Goracle
Or, perhaps your favorite, whoever the current president of the NRA is.
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM
And Mitt is?
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Very depressing.
With Mitt, we have to trust that he will change. We have to trust that the things he’s said and done in the past were just done and said for political expediancy. We have to hope that he is not saying what he’s saying now simply for political expediancy.
I’m depressed that we’ve so clintonized the race for President that a slick, articulate candidate who looks GREAT on camera and in whom we think we have “a winner” is our automatic choice.
News flash National Review: Mitt is not a conservative and has never been one. He has NEVER been strong on national security or the border before he declared for Prez.
Whether he uses the term “compassionate conservative” or not he WILL be a conservative apologist, and once he gets the nomination, look for him to drift leftward in an attempt to woo the middle and left.
Mitt’s better than Huck but only by a little bit.
edgehead on December 11, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Still with Fred!
Fred will come in 2nd in Iowa and win NC.
AZCON on December 11, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Every conservative has daydreamed of having an expert CEO to straighten out this country’s economic, trade, regulation, taxation and bureaucracy problems. So maybe Mitt.
I got to know Jim Talent a few years ago editing his tv commercials. You’d be hard pressed to find a better man than he in politics. Jim is on Mitt’s team. That says a lot to me. Maybe not so much to you.
Republicans better unite behind someone or it’s jimmah Huckabee it will be. And that’s not a pleasant thought.
Griz on December 11, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Fred’s the closest thing to an electable Newt.
And most of you young whippersnappers have bailed on him.
Oh I forgot, he has all of the good looks of a Lincoln with the slow deliberative delivery of Eisenhower.
If we are looking for a rock star, at least Fred has a hot wife!
Look at Fred’s record and listen to his radio addresses. No other Republican running can compare.
edgehead on December 11, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Rudy, Fred, Mitt all work for me, especially if paired with Hunter as VP. I’m beginning to wonder if he isn’t the most important component in this whole deal. But, even Hunter can’t neutralize/resolve the Huck effect, if they try to go that route.
a capella on December 11, 2007 at 5:57 PM
What is National Review?
/snark
BJ* on December 11, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Question:
As the primaries approach, do y’all anticipate making a Hot Air endorsement?
see-dubya on December 11, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Other big question:
Huck gets on a ticket in the VP slot. Is that a deal killer?
see-dubya on December 11, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I admit I was a bit skeptical of him considering his RINO record, but I gave him- and all the candidates- an honest listen early on when the debates first started. He immediately blew it by coming out as a big government guy (in favor of the ultra-expensive Medicare reform bill, among many other initiatives) and another federal gun ban (constitutional conservative he ain’t).
Rudy blew it by refusing to give an opinion on whether Roe v Wade- one of the most activist decisions of recent times- should be overturned.
McCain blew it on illegal immigration.
Ron Paul simply blew.
Since then, Mitt has continued to “triangulate”, taking all three sides of every issue while particularly strong on none of them. If we were fooled by Bush, who ran as a fiscal (but “compassionate”) conservative, I’m not going to be fooled again by a slickster with nice hair.
Should Mitt win the general election and prove himself worthy, I’ll vote for him in 2012. I’ll even admit I was wrong about him. As it stands now? There’s just no “there” there. Rudy has NYC and 9/11. Fred has Federalism. Huckabee has God. Mitt has… a single, unremarkable term as a RINO governor, nice hair and lots of money.
His record has given us no reason to believe he’s the conservative he claims to be, and his pandering and flip-flopping hasn’t convinced me that he has any solid political principles other than simply getting elected.
So no- I’ll not get behind him. Believe it or not, he did have a chance (though perhaps not a strong chance) at earning my vote early on, but he failed to exceed expectations.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Holy crap that was long.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Careful there how you criticize See-Dubya, he’s supposed this significant blogger you know.
Bryan used to blog over there as well before he came here, so they’re cool buds you know….
[snicker]
Mcguyver on December 11, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I know which side I’d go with.
Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 6:12 PM
(Economics and foreign policy.)
Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 6:12 PM
long but right on the money.
edgehead on December 11, 2007 at 6:13 PM
I’m not making any endorsement. I think it’s kind of goofy and presumptuous, honestly, although I can understand doing it if, like NR, you may have some actual influence.
I assume MM and Bryan will do theirs individually if they’re so inclined.
Allahpundit on December 11, 2007 at 6:14 PM
No. But the top of the ticket better be in damn good health.
brak on December 11, 2007 at 6:14 PM
That makes him fit in with the NRO crowd, but certainly not a great candidate. Good post.
brak on December 11, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I’m rather confused here…. The big (policy) knock on Romney is his alleged social liberalism. The fear is that deep within his soul, Romney is a liberal.
But does that make sense? Notwithstanding Harry Reid, Romney is a member of a church that, where it is the most dominant, is the most red state in the Union. Culturally speaking, Mormons are practically the epitome of conservatism. What’s more likely–that a man who won’t give up his Mormon faith to win the evangelical votes would gleefully abandon all the cultural trappings of said faith?
Look at it this way: Romney’s candidacy has thrust the LDS faith into the spotlight. If he then turns and abandons most of it politically, like Reid has, that will not go over well.
Romney may have tacked left in Mass., but it seems to be slightly incredulous that he is really a leftist hiding out as a Conservative, rather than his experience in Mass. being the outlier.
Don’t forget, Romney went to BYU; he has roots in Utah just as much if not more as Mass. The guy is clearly brilliant (Valedictorian at BYU and also Harvard Law); everything he has touched has turned around and worked. He’s incredibly capable, pragmatic, and looks for what works. Does social liberalism work? Not at all–why on earth would Romney go for that?
Vanceone on December 11, 2007 at 6:16 PM
As far as anyone can tell none of the candidates R or D have even begun to grasp the tenets of jihad and their implications for the world.
Fitzgerald: Jefferson, the Adamses, and making sense
Is it too much to expect politicians (US President or otherwise) to meet the basic scholarly standard of Jefferson and Adams? No, of course not. Robert Spencer has laid it all out in a such a neat way that you can grasp the basic principles in a short amount of time.
How long does it take to read The Law of War and Peace in Islam by Majid Khadduri? Not long. Yet the endless succession of peaces processes, Oslo, Camp David, Annapolis, continue unabated. Sigh.
aengus on December 11, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Yeah, who are these people in Idaho, or Iowa, or wherever these Huckheads are?
Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Well said.
Griz on December 11, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Nice attitude…
He comes off slick, that’s why he’s not getting traction. Its a bit difficult to support someone who comes off slick when you’ve hammered Bill Clinton for slickness for a decade.
Bad Candy on December 11, 2007 at 6:25 PM
And yet he’s done it once before, and he was a Mormon then too.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Beyond that, I just don’t trust the guy, I think Romneycare would be a disaster, the perfect foundation to be seized by socialists when they impose socialized health care. Plus his support of gun bans, even politically savvy Democrats are backing away from from gun control.
Bad Candy on December 11, 2007 at 6:29 PM
McCain isn’t viable? Really?
RW Wacko on December 11, 2007 at 6:31 PM
How about Steele’s name tacked on in the VP slot? (Unless he has done something stupid lately that I wasn’t paying attention to.)
Mitt/Steele…? That could be attractive.
TwoCents on December 11, 2007 at 6:35 PM
I don’t know how to put this…I’m kind of a big deal. People know me. I’m very important. I have many leather-bound books, and my blog smells of rich mahogany.
see-dubya on December 11, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Look, I’m not saying Romney’s perfect. But of all the choices, and NR went over them, Romney’s the best. He’s got social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and security that all seem good. Rudy, Huck, McCain don’t have all of those, only some. Thompson has no executive experience, nor do I trust him to have such–he’s run his campaign disastrously. Romney has the executive experience that McCain and Thompson don’t have (and Hunter and Tancredo too); and he has all three legs of the conservative stool that Huck and Rudy don’t have.
I wish he had Huck’s ability to speak. If he did, he’d be a shoo-in. McCain’s heroism would be nice.
But he gave the Swimmer his toughest campaign ever. He saved several companies, the Olympics, and did a great job in Mass, given the circumstances. He’s not perfect, but he’s a darn sight better than anyone else (unless Thompson figured out how to run something).
Vanceone on December 11, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Romney’s my number two choice, I’m still holding out for Fred. I’m not a fan of Mitt, but I think it has to be him or Fred, or the coalition may crack apart.
Bad Candy on December 11, 2007 at 6:56 PM
I guess this isn’t a surprise. But it feels completely wrong. Thompson could have been their man if he actually gave a crap about his campaign (sidebar: I just saw my first Fred sticker the other day! That makes for a total of: 1 Fred, 1 Huck, 2 Mitt, 5 McCain, 10 Giuliani, and 58 Ron Paul stickers). Even though Giuliani isn’t right by Fundies and Huckabee isn’t right by, well, everyone else, it just seems like settling. Mitt isn’t a real conservative. He has calculated conservative positions. We saw with Dubya how quickly conservative principles can be tossed aside. Romney has already flipped once. He’s a known unknown. NR would have done better to withhold judgement.
Yeah, but so does Dennis Kucinich.
Mark Jaquith on December 11, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Fred/Hunter 08…I wish :(
df4jc on December 11, 2007 at 7:02 PM
I just heard a clip on Fox where Huckabee complains about Mitt’s
negativecomparison ad that he’s running in Iowa by saying that Mitt sounds like a third grade tattletale, and nobody likes a tattletale.That is the single most pathetic thing I’ve heard from Huck (or possibly any candidate) yet. I have been trying to be objective and see some positive things in him, but that comment did it for me. Anyone But Huck.
Buy Danish on December 11, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Sounds good to me!
davenp35 on December 11, 2007 at 7:15 PM
If we are looking for a rock star, at least Fred has a hot wife!
Yeah, but so does Dennis Kucinich.
Mark Jaquith on December 11, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Best looking wife: Elizabeth Edwards
Snottiest, pettiest, thinnest-skinned wife: Elizabeth Edwards
(And I’ve got to give it to Kucinich’s woman for living by her beliefs, even if I don’t share them all…)
Tzetzes on December 11, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Don’t forget about me!!!
I am not a social conservative, although I am not the opposite either.
And I am not an economic conservative, not a W$J type anyway and i am not a foreign policy conservative either, not what has come to represent that anyway, e.g. neocons.
And both of them have alienated me!
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 7:23 PM
You damn fools.
I have sent you Tom Tancredo, and you have forsaken him.
I have sent you Duncan Hunter, and you have forsaken him.
I know that they say that God protects fools, drunks and Americans, but my patience is wearing very thin.
- God
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I think this election process this time around is exciting.
Imagine. A floor fight. It would be delicious!
Rightwingsparkle on December 11, 2007 at 7:47 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/11/america/Huckabee-Mormons.php
This should be good. Subtle!
a capella on December 11, 2007 at 7:54 PM
It makes no sense at all when you look at what actually happened in MA. It is inexplicable to me that supposed consevatives follow the narrative laid out by the MSM about Romney. He is a legitimate conservative who is so effective that the Boston Globe resorts to printing negative stories which are barely even passable as being associated with him - which they got by stalking his lawn care company for 2 months. The globe spent his whole term as governor complaining about how he was a right wing wacko. Now for the Republican primary they are suddenly publishing stories about how he is actually not conservative compared to other Republicans. Figure it out! Liberals are terrified of Romney and concervatives should not buy the line of the MSM.
For those who dont know the Boston Globe = New York Times, same company.
Resolute on December 11, 2007 at 7:54 PM
The evangelicals just might get that 3rd party candidate afterall…just not in the way they envisioned.
SouthernGent on December 11, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I can’t disagree with their reasoning considering I’ve been making the same point the past few weeks, but although I find Romney acceptable I still prefer Fred. In the end, though, either one is fine with me, so I’ll probably vote for whichever of the two has the best chance.
FloatingRock on December 11, 2007 at 8:08 PM
…Or if Rudy or Huck already has it in the bag, I’ll vote for Tancredo on principle.
FloatingRock on December 11, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Warning…the following comments have been composed by a resident of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts!
ok now, here are a couple irrefutable facts: (dowt)
1) Demoncrats do not want to see Mitt or Rudy nominated.
2) MSM will continue to be nothing more than tawdry whores for the Demoncrats.
That said, Mitt’s strenght is his track record, he is a very
carasmatic, succesful and capable leader. He can (and has) appeal to a diverse spectrum of voters covering most reasonable adults that have to work for a living. Mitts ability to be elected governer in the home state of Ted “the swimmer” Kennedy and John “if I only had a brain” Kerry can not be trivialised or dismissed. His biggest hurdle will be US. Continued conservative attacks on his religon, realistic position adjustments on weathervane issues and upholding the Reagan standard will sink us all. Least we forget that “electability” is all that matters when confronting the Hill-a-beast or whatever incarnation of socialism the Demoncrats offer America!
dmann on December 11, 2007 at 8:17 PM
RUDY/MITT for the General. Good ticket.
James on December 11, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I’m still voting for Fred.
Rose on December 11, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I said the same in another thread today - haven’t had one in a while and indeed it w/b good/fun.
Entelechy on December 11, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Mitt’s a phony, Fred is not.
Obviously, the folks at National Review didn’t live through the liberal Mitt during his stay as governor in MASS.
Tell me, how could someone allegedly as smart as Mitt maintain a pro choice position after having five children of his own? And, at his age.
K-Lo should be ashamed of herself, being the pro lifer that she is.
Captain America on December 11, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »