Ramussen: Mitt has highest level of core opposition among all major candidates
posted at 3:09 pm on December 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Tied with Hillary, and Hillary’s core support is 11 points higher than his. Remember, this is the guy we’re counting on to stop the Huckernaut and carry us to the White House.
Second-look time for Huck?
But despite Huckabee’s best efforts – including a one-on-one conversation after his speech in which he asked her to take a second glance at his record – the generally undecided Miller was still unconvinced.
“The scripture says we’re supposed to obey the laws of the land,” Miller said. “As a Christian, that was my question. You know, how can you justify furthering – rewarding someone who has broken law upon law upon law.”
Here’s a fan video circulating on YouTube. I’m sold.
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
Dude…that pic of Mitt is kind of creepy.
*shivers*
MadisonConservative on December 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Unfortunately, they’re all conservative Republicans. ;)
someone on December 22, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Fred Thompson is at 34% core opposition…Hmmm, things that make you go Hmmmmm…
doriangrey on December 22, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Yea, McCain’s biggest hurdle is getting through the primaries.
If he gets going!
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Me thinks this video was not intended to convince atheists to vote for Huck. You think?
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Thanks for ruining the Battle Hymn for me.
Spirit of 1776 on December 22, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Ahhh…the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Big S on December 22, 2007 at 3:23 PM
The issue I have with Mitt is I don’t think he is electable in the general election. Too many evangelicals will stay home and too many gays and other activists will have incentive to vote against him (he has the same problem Huck has here). Huck has the additional problem in that atheists, from what I can tell, fear his presidency.
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:24 PM
I’ll admit. As an athiest watching this video, I would vote for Huckabee in a minute. He seems on his feet, has great answers for stupid questions etc. If I just didnt know his record and the fact that he stands for everything I stand against. Damn, guess I will have to keep looking.
muyoso on December 22, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Lol…
Now what were the letters that kept phasing in and out in the background? You never could fully read it.
CTDeLude on December 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Mormons, Jews, Episcopalians and probably Catholics and dogs too for sure have much more to fear from The High Reverend Huckster and his scary sons than do atheists.
MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I’d rest my case, but it’s too early to open it.
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
@ MB4 on December 22, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I fear his presidency, and I think most who aren’t evangelical or insane do as well.
muyoso on December 22, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I don’t know if I buy that. You know damn well 15-20% of those people are comprised of liberals who think he belongs to some freakish Christian cult.
TheGoblinKing on December 22, 2007 at 3:34 PM
The thing that continues to stick out to me about The Huckster is….he still hasn’t directly and honestly answered a question yet! He’s The Huckster!
DfDeportation on December 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Who is this Troy Kilzer and why should I care what he thinks about Huckabee?
Laura on December 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Blah blah…..it is his sthick…period. He isn’t going to go in the Oval Office and start passing out lightning bolts and brimstone. Sure he is a believer. It is still his sthick to get the nom. What bothers me is his record. Pardons, immigration, taxes, and his obvious lack of any kind of knowledge in 20th century history and international relations.
Limerick on December 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Puh-leeze. Have you seen his hair? He’s almost a shoe-in.
If Fred! had that hair, he’d be running for galactic Emperor. And winning.
If you think 70% of the electorate will notice anything other than that magnificent mane of Mitt’s … you ain’t paying attention.
25% of U.S. Americans, such as, can’t find the America on a map. Such as. But by God - they know good hair.
Mitt is overwhelmingly electable in the general. Or at least his hair is.
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Glory!
Jay on December 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Is Drudge campaigning for Mitt?
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM
I guess you missed it muyoso but in that Same Poll Ron Paul is actually has more people (48%) who say they wil never vote for paul than either Hillary or Huck or Mitt has
William Amos on December 22, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Oh - he’s a mailman:
Now that I know Huck’s got the coveted Kilzer endorsement, I’m definitely voting for him.
GO HUCKABEE!!!!1!11!eleventy!!1!!!
Laura on December 22, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Doesn’t look good for Romney:
As for core support, Clinton is also on top. Thirty percent (30%) will definitely vote for her and 29% will definitely vote for Obama. Edwards and Giuliani have core support from 23%, McCain from 22%, Thompson and Huckabee from 21%, and Romney from 19%.
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Rasmussen Reports also measured core support and opposition for Ron Paul and Michael Bloomberg. Ten percent (10%) of voters would definitely vote for Paul while 48% would definitely vote against. Bloomberg’s numbers are even weaker—5% definitely for and 49% definitely against.
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I have this vague, nagging tickle at the reptilian base of my brain that is whispering ‘this video was not produced by a fan of Huckabee’. (I’ll bet it was the music.)
But then my higher brain functions remind me that I do suffer from a touch of paranoia.
Still, I conclude that Huckabee is a creation of the news media, and will not get the party’s nomination.
rockhauler on December 22, 2007 at 3:50 PM
If Huck is our party candidate I won’t be voting Republican. IMO he’s the Bible-thumper the left thinks all Republicans are.
katiejane on December 22, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Well, now. If I’m ever looking for a candidate for High Reverend, he’s my pick. Huck’s great…until you actually look at his record and positions.
amerpundit on December 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM
You can count me out.
FloatingRock on December 22, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Here is the guy who posted the video talking about the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Remember these numbers are for all voters. Democrats and Republicans and independants. So the Core oppositions is reflected in those numbers
William Amos on December 22, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yet another flip-flop for Mitt, this time on campaign finance reform.
P. James Moriarty on December 22, 2007 at 4:02 PM
He may be YOUR GUY, Allah. He ain’t mine. I’ve said all along that folks DON’T LIKE MITT.
Ex-tex on December 22, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Looking at the screen credits at the end of the video, I’m wondering where is the
“I’m Mike Huckabee, and I approved this message” tag line?
Oh, wait, it was done by a fan who wants to be a journalist.
rockhauler on December 22, 2007 at 4:07 PM
I’ve posted this before, but to illistrate the point, this is not the person I would have carry any water for the conservatives:
Mitt’s positions:
Pro abortion:
From his own mouth, Video
Pro “morning after pill”:
Here and here.
Pro gay “rights”:
“Romney: I’ll be better than Ted for gay rights.”
Against Boy Scout ban on gay troop leaders:
Boston Globe article
Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual “marriages” when asked - or be fired!
Pro gun control:
“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website
Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, 8/1/1994
Pro Kennedy-style “Universal Health Care”
The main supporter and cheerleader of Romney’s health plan has been, interestingly, the Heritage Foundation. However, there would appear to be just a bit of a conflict of interest in that. According to news reports, Romney’s charitable foundation recently donated $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation. And Heritage Foundation helped Romney research and write his health plan.
- Boston Globe, 8/17//2006
Poor party leadership:
Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
The party’s slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four).
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
P. James Moriarty on December 22, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Sunday morning talking heads guests.
FOX: Petraeus
NBC: Ron Paul (yippie!)
CBS: Obama & Huckabee(they be pickin’ on me)
ABC: Giuliani
CNN: Re-runs
Limerick on December 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Old posting has some broken links in it. Sorry, some are still active.
P. James Moriarty on December 22, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Time for a Second Look at RUDY !!!
Always Right on December 22, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Huck offers olive branch to Rush, asks for him to get in touch — Mike Huckabee, taking questions from reporters after a town hall meeting here, responded to the torrent of criticism that Rush Limbaugh unleashed during his broadcast yesterday by turning the other cheek — and then heaping on the praise.
“I love Rush Limbaugh; I’ve always loved his show,” Huckabee assured. “I think he’s been great for the conservative movement.”
The former Arkansas governor conceded that he hadn’t sought Limbaugh out to set the record straight — but that he would like to.
“I don’t have his number,” Huckabee explained. “If you have it, Jonathan, why don’t you give it to me. I’d love to talk to him.”
“Maybe put it on the Web that if he’ll call me, I’d love to visit with him.”
bnelson44 on December 22, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Please stop already.
Mitt’s a plastic lib.
Valiant on December 22, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Who?
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Hey Huck, all you have to do is LISTEN to Rush’s show and he repeats his phone number and email at the start of EACH new segment over a span of 3 hours.
How the heck hard is that for the “future leader of the free world”???
Always Right on December 22, 2007 at 4:24 PM
With 48% against, how can The Only Man Who Can Save America…save America?
*sob*
eeyore on December 22, 2007 at 4:25 PM
FloatingRock on December 22, 2007 at 4:26 PM
They all are going to get in one car and drive to all the polls and vote.
Limerick on December 22, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Thanks for the reference. As I’m stuck on dial up, I only took a small sample, and will discard my suspicions about Travis TClevland’s motivation for producing this video.
rockhauler on December 22, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Rasmussen
In a general election match-up, both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney find themselves in a toss-up with Hillary Clinton. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone shows Giuliani with a statistically insignificant 45% to 44% advantage over Clinton. Romney enjoys the same margin, nominally leads Clinton 44% to 43%.
All the negative numbers in the world don’t matter as long as he can win in a matchup with the Dem nominee. Some bigots will always be opposed to him and some people who are at least a little more principled in their opposition (mainly due to personal attitude strength in favor of another candidate) willalso never come around. Some of those attitudes will change if he gets the nomination, but counting hm out due too negativity ratings when the same poll says he would win in a matchup with Hillary is playing a little loose with the data.
davenp35 on December 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM
This is what comes from having one serious contender that actually appears to be a legit conservative that squandered his opportunity to put a dent in this race much earlier on. Fred could have been the answer if he had shown conservatives he was serious about running a few months earlier.
Now you (I’m not a Republican as they aren’t conservatives) are stuck with choosing between Rudy, Huck and Mitt who all have heavily liberal sides to them in various areas.
The only way Republicans will win in ‘08 is if the Democrats are dumb enough to send us Hillary.
Benaiah on December 22, 2007 at 4:37 PM
If I am getting the jest of these comments, you people are saying that all our presidential hopefuls are liars and losers.
I doubt the democraps need our help in tearing our candidates apart, but your assistance I am sure, will be appreciated by them.
Why don’t we see if we can argue for our choices by adding up which candidate has the most pluses instead of faults?
leanright on December 22, 2007 at 4:39 PM
You know, the character Fred used to play on TV.
Big S on December 22, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Here’s a place where you can do just that. (It’s evident that the Paulnuts have been swarming there.)
flipflop on December 22, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Nice thought however at this stage in the race everyone (almost) has picked their horse and are making their play.
The entire forum has gone bonkers lately. Christmas and Campaigns seem to be a lethal cocktail.
Limerick on December 22, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Just saw the following:
Yet Another Romney Flip-Flop: Campaign Finance Reform
Connie on December 22, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Yeah Rush has been great for the Conservative movement, too bad you’re not part of it.
Speakup on December 22, 2007 at 4:52 PM
There needs to be a pastors poll.
If there’s enough church leaders who will vote for him it won’t make any difference.
Speakup on December 22, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Thank you. I thought I was the only one who felt that way.
and the craziness is apparent on other sites as well.
rockhauler on December 22, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I like how they list every GOP candidate except Hunter. I can’t find him represented in that poll. But you’ve got RONNNNNNNNNN PAUUUUULLLLLLLLLL there. Over at LGF, the “who would you vote against” poll shows Hunter as the least likely to be voted against.
Can the GOP pull their heads out of their asses by Mid-January?
Nethicus on December 22, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Oh. My. Goodness!
Connie on December 22, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I like Mitt and Huck because they have no difficulty pronouncing the letter S.
Buck Turgidson on December 22, 2007 at 5:18 PM
While we’re all bickering about Mitt’s imaginary history and Fred’s sour face and the proper semantic definition of the past-tense of the verb ‘to see’ … let’s not forget the stuff that actually matters.
This is a great story. And when you read it, you realize that most Americans do indeed remember what’s important:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS07/712200417/1009
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM
They’re not MY candidates. I’m not a liberal nanny stater and never will be.
FloatingRock on December 22, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Yep, Looks like that poll got Paulverized!
abinitioadinfinitum on December 22, 2007 at 5:35 PM
More proof that Allahpundit hates Fred Thompson.
Bill C on December 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM
You seriously need to learn how to spin better. They matter quite a bit, and here’s the obvious reason why:
In this theoretical matchup over 10 months before the election, we have:
Romney- 44%
Clinton- 43%
Total___ 87%
And the other 13%? Those are undecideds. If 47% are definitely against Mitt, that means that he has only 53% of those undecideds to draw from (6.89% of undecideds).
Assuming that he’d need at least 49% to win, he needs another 5% on top of his 44% he has now. That means he needs to win 72.6% of undecideds who aren’t already definitely against him.
So yeah- it does matter.
Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 5:42 PM
But his hair is awesome.
Why can’t you people focus?
Also, I heard he’s a lifelong hunter. And one helluva marcher. He’d march all the way to Cambodia by Christmas if it wouldn’t mess up his hair.
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM
There you go. You were close.
Professor Blather on December 22, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Hollowpoint
Why would you assume that those opposed to Mitt are evenly distributed accross all demographics and include undecideds. You have no evidence that this is the case. In fact most polls I have seen show that many Independents and undecideds lean more toward Romney than most other candidates. You also didn’t factor in the number of people who are adamently opposed to Hillary. Also, extrapolating the data out to a general election where people will have to (basically) decide between two candidates just doesn’t work statistically. Try this… http://www.ispp.org/jsc/junior_scholars.html
My last name is Davenport. Polling and surveys are among my areas of expertise. If you have any questions let me know.
davenp35 on December 22, 2007 at 5:58 PM
True, we can’t know how many of the undecideds are in the 47% who are against Romney. The point remains though- and as a polling “expert”, you should know this. Someone with the same (accounting for margin or error) matchup numbers and higher approval / lower disapproval ratings is going to fare better… and with Romney on the tail end of approval ratings, he doesn’t look so good even with the 1% edge because 13% are still undecided.
As it stands now with a 43% to 44% matchup, either one could have, say, 52% who definitely won’t vote for them, implying that they couldn’t win the election since the most they could get is 48%- typically not enough to win.
Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Thanks!
Mitt was pandering then, or he’s pandering now. We nominate Mitt, it’s a gamble.
Do you feel lucky? Well… do ya, punk!
Mitt will be a VERY weak alternative to Hillary or Obama. He does have the hair but we will completely lose the flip-flop allegation against Hillary because it will be used (and rightfully so) against US!
edgehead on December 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I understand your point and it’s obviously better to have lower numbers of those who say they will definitely not vote for you, but part of what you’re doing is comparing apples and oranges. If all Republican candidates were ranked the same, Romney would be in a bad position. That isn’t the case though. Depending on the poll that you look at Romney is nationally either #1, #2, or #3. Most of the negativity stats go out the window once the nominations are decided upon. I would rather go into the general with a candidate who now has high negativity numbers, but could run a strong national campaign, could pull all types of conservative, etc. than one who has a lower negativity rating, but isn’t as good a candidate (in a tactical sense).
davenp35 on December 22, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Heh. Don’t include me in the ‘we all’. I’m perfectly ready to concede all the candidates have problems.
Spirit of 1776 on December 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Only if those polls represent likely voters. I’m sure 2% of people would never vote for Barack because they’re white supremacists (100% showing among Ron Paul, too.), but it doesn’t matter if none of them vote.
BKennedy on December 22, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Perception:
the radical Islamic perception of either Romney or of Huckabee as the President of the United States–too flamboyant in the self-righteous category for the good of American diplomacy.
Spare us the additional baggage inflaming the holy war syndrome, as though things aren’t difficult enough as they are. Why throw oil on that insane wild fire?
Besides the divisive affect on our nation from candidates Romney and Huckabee, the war on terror will suffer with a religiosity overdose should either be elected; all hell breaks loose with more fervancy than ever.
Our President must not have the reputation of believing self manufactured blatant lies. There is no righeousness in that, only weakness and heavy ridicule.
America would suffer from a President claiming the Kingdom of God on the face of the earth, providing terrorists further sense of outrage.
How can electing an ultra-spiritual-dishonest candidate actually benefit a voter or our country?
Walk Tall
Vote Fred
maverick muse on December 22, 2007 at 7:05 PM
It represents voters, not the general population.
Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM
You mean the terrorists won’t be terrified of his l33t focus group derived five point plan Powerpoint presentation skilz? Imagine that.
Hollowpoint on December 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM
I take it from your verbiage that you are .. oh…. 16 years old?
sanantonian on December 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Allah. Dude.
I was seriously waiting for the Monty Python foot from God to come down and do some squashing. I’m really quite disappointed I actually watched that all the way through.
notta_dhimmi on December 22, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Mitts waffling stand on gun control may be some of the reason for his high negative marks. Link is from Pajamas Media with quotes from an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press this past Sunday.
P. James Moriarty on December 22, 2007 at 10:23 PM
You do know thats a Clint Eastwood quote right?
Gianni on December 22, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I think it’s more disturbing to hear Huck SAY all the right things but he didn’t DO the right thing when he had the chance as governor of Arkansas.
Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on December 22, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Thanks Gianni. I knew someone would get it.
Oh, and I’m 43.
edgehead on December 23, 2007 at 12:17 AM
P. James Moriarty on December 22, 2007 at 4:10 PM
…for whom the bell tolls
Mitt played savior to the SLC Olympics.
I am unclear as to what that means in record other than a publicity stunt created by the SLC powers that be to launch his proof pudding career. I do recall reading contemporary flashes of financial scandals in Utah. After the fact, suddenly Mitt was the savior, not just a hero, not just Hercules, but the man who saved the Olympics. Maybe. Maybe not. That would depend on what “saved” means. At least Mitt was there.
maverick muse on December 23, 2007 at 7:22 AM
Gianni on December 22, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Dirty Harry
MAKE MY DAY!
maverick muse on December 23, 2007 at 7:27 AM
I can imagine Fred Thompson doing what it takes to squash terrorists. Sean Connery’s line, “Just how far are you willing to go?” God knows that I would trust Thompson’s deliberate decision as my own against terrorists.
Whereas, why would I trust a mask parading as a savior, particularly a fabricated mask? A gas mask of doom and gloom looms over the Romney/Huckabee tickets. What we need they have not to give. They appeal to the faint at heart in America as we ALL convene under the tent hearing their promises polished with snake oil.
Why make it easy for the terrorists to succeed against us?
Walk Tall
Vote Fred
maverick muse on December 23, 2007 at 7:47 AM
Only if you’re interested in voting for a candidate who saw fit to give legal advice to the attorneys representing the Lockerbie bombers.
Big S on December 23, 2007 at 8:24 AM
HOW TO REINVENT only qualifies one as a propagandist.
Having reinvented the wheel and packaging the market with plastic PC hardly qualifies a man as the savior of anything, let alone as the President of the United States.
maverick muse on December 23, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Big S @8:24
Thompson need not REINVENT or fabricate his record. Thompson is recognized as a specialist in legal jurisdictions by the international community, a plus for our country’s president. Case in point, Thompson proved he is worth his salt in this battle against hysteria, terrorism and mob mentality. Thompson did his work honorably. His contribution to the legal process was not contrived or dishonorable as detractors would imply. Headlines don’t tell all. The Lockerbie question was where to hold court. Thompson’s participation was in providing legal clarity in choosing the proper location for trial, the Netherlands.
Thank you, Big S, for reminding me of that malarky. Having reviewed the record, I would indeed trust Fred as President to NOT SCREW THE OPERATION as occurs too frequently when politicians ignorantly appease the mob. Fred has the background experience dealing with terrorist legal issues to keep America in the right in accordance to our Constitution. If captive terrorists were infested with TB, fleas and lice, Fred has the gumption to take care of the problem legally and powerfully. The other candidates would screw the pooch under the gun.
Vote Fred!
maverick muse on December 23, 2007 at 10:05 AM
And who did Rudy give legal advice and lobby for?
Oh, that’s right- we don’t know because he refuses to disclose those things. But I’m sure his refusal to disclose in no way suggests he has something to hide…
Hollowpoint on December 23, 2007 at 10:46 AM
The only time Fred Thomspon awoke from his seemingly perpetual nap was to pimp out McCain-Feingold, his most notable success in the Senate. He let Clinton slide on impeachment too, guess he felt sympathetic to the womanizer.
I’m sure America’s enemies will be impressed by Fred’s ability to put strongly worded condemnations onto paper and then do nothing - pretty much was the UN does now, but only after a major terrorist attack hits a Euroweenie nation.
Lawyer, lobbyist, Senator, actor: All are big on talk and attract talkers. Fred’s a talker.
BKennedy on December 23, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Mitt is a losing proposition. We will have no defense when it comes to the accusations of flip flopping. There is no way we stand a chance in the general election with him. I have visions of 527 ads with John Kerry’s face fading in and out over Mitt’s in a flip flopper redux, 2008 style.
Terri on December 23, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Mitt is unelectable. The right may view religion with some respect, but the left doesn’t. They will make Mitt “the magic underwear cult guy” by the summer if he’s the candidate.
Huckabee is a policy nightmare, Fred is asleep. It’s Rudy, McCain, or hand the Dems the keys to the WH.
TallDave on December 23, 2007 at 5:45 PM
You’re buying into the MSM narrative on Fred. They did the same to Reagan. Go to Fred’s site if you want to know what he’s doing till the primary in Iowa. He’s a busy boy. You’re just rehashing the narrative that you’ve been given.
Mojave Mark on December 23, 2007 at 6:56 PM
I do believe Mitt means well. I also believe left to his abilities as a CEO, as a president he could possibly get the government on a direction towards a balanced budget and maybe even actually working. However unfortunite it is, a president has to work with a congress…
I’m voting for Fred.
Griz on December 24, 2007 at 12:26 AM