We know that you are a Huckabee campaign implant. Just go away.

Huckabee campaign implant? Okay, I guess Romney’s fortune really paid off big for second place!

Does that make me a loyal ‘fredhead’ like you now?

In MI he will have the religious, military, AND economic issues to deal with. One of those he wont compete in (religion). Huck will continue to play religion politics and if Mitt continues to ignore the national security side of this because MI is in economic straits, he will not win NH AND he may even fall to third. Here are the latest polling numbers from RCP.

One other thing that may make a difference….the rest of the primaries are closed. You have to declare rep or dem, so the indies will not play the role they did in Iowa and NH. Who benefits?

Heck, I don’t know.

Romney may be saying the right things about the war on terror, but what really concerns me is that the lack of experience and knowledge means he can’t lead on such subjects. I have cited Iraq as a test case when he was looking at his shoes while McCain, who knew his stuff on the subject, was out front and vocal in supporting the surge when it was politically unpopular.

That’s how I see it.

Phil Byler on January 9, 2008 at 1:05 AM

What military experience did Ronald Reagan have besides making war movies and heading the Screen Actors Guild? Romney is a state Governor while McCain is a Senator with a vote on the issue.

Romney would be a President with civilian background like Roosevelt. He does take the hardest public position on terrorist jihadists. His position is so politically incorrect I have to assume he truly believes there is a movement to eliminate the West as we know it.

How real are his positions? We have to judge based on the way he honored campaign promises made to the voters of his state

Guiliani’s record on immigration(YOUR MORE THAN WELCOME IN NYC) and his current “excuses galore” reasoning makes it tough to go all out for him. Although Guiliani IS better than any democry canidate.

christophercube on January 8, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Clinton wouldn’t deport the illegals that Rudy sent to him!

Rudy was stuck with those illegals!

What would you have done? He did what he had to do to keep his city safe, by allowing illegals to report crimes against them.

Obviously, his policy was effective as it reduced crime dramatically, and in a place that was ROTTEN to the CORE caused by democrat negligence.

I really don’t see Romney as more conservative on domestic issues.

Romney more conservative on abortion? You mean the guy who has had to explain why he has changed from his strong advocacy of a pro-choice position when he was running for Governor in Massachusetts? In contrast, McCain has always been pro-life and argued the position to quite a number of pro-choice voters in New Hampshire in Town Hall meetings, and he is committed to nominating strict constructionist judges, which is key on this subject.

Romney more fiscally conservative? Not really. When Bush originally proposed the tax cuts, McCain called for domestic spending cuts along with the tax cuts at a time when we were needing to finance military expenditures; that was the fiscally responsible conservative position. How many times does this have to be pointed out? Going forward, we need to get out of control federal spending under control, don’t you think? McCain is a fiscal hawk for cutting federal spending and eliminating earmarks. McCain is for continuing the present tax cuts and points out that had he been listned to, maybe we could be talking about more tax cuts. What makes Romney better on this issue?

What makes Romney better on immigration? He simply did not have to take a vocal position on immigration when last summer’s bill was being proposd. Meanwhile, McCain has been saying for months that he got the message, that law enforcement comes first. I heard him say it back in September in New York City. Also, the immigration bill that McCain sought to pass was not amnesty on its face; what would have caused it to be amnesty is if the law enforcement provisions were not enforced. As McCain recognizes, the immigration bill signed by none other than President Reagan back in the 1980’s created an amnesty then because its law enforcement provisions were not enforced, creating the present problem. McCain says that while we need to address the underlying problem, we must first focus on law enforcement. McCain has an intellectual understanding of the problem, which is why it is not unforgiveable to me. I don’t detect the same level of understanding in Romney.

What makes Romney better on campaign finance reform? Like immigration, he simply did not have to deal with it when it was voted on by the Senate (conservative Fred Thompson voted for it). I do not regard campaign finance reform as unforgiveable. It did not kill free political speech; regulation of the electoral process is not by definition a First Amendment violation. What McCain was seeking to do, with the best of intentions, was to cut the influence of money on politics. There are problems with the law that lawyers like me understand and that have been occupying the U.S. Supreme Court; suffice it to say that this is not going to be an issue that will dominate the legislative agenda in the next four years.

In contrast, what will matter are military matters, national security and foreign affairs. Romney may be saying the right things about the war on terror, but what really concerns me is that the lack of experience and knowledge means he can’t lead on such subjects. I have cited Iraq as a test case when he was looking at his shoes while McCain, who knew his stuff on the subject, was out front and vocal in supporting the surge when it was politically unpopular.

That’s how I see it.

But would Clinton or Obama be better? In an imperfect world, I would take him any day. At least our enemies would be afraid.

Then like I say, we keep an eye on him and amnesty, etc. No lunches with Teddy!

I find Romney to be more conservative on social and internal matters including abortion, tax policy, immigration and the role of government. You can’t forgive Romney for that stupid comment he made about his sons, granted that was incredibly moronic. I can’t forgive McCain for what he did in supporting McCain-Feingold and for the amnesty bill. I think he’s less conservative in many of those areas then another politician I admire – joe lieberman. I think Romney will be solid and strong on the war on terror and the like with the solid conservative values in the domestic policy. MCCain will be strong externally and in foreign policy without question but its internal matters and his love of ‘compromise’ with the democrats which means they take 95% of what they want and we give up 95% of what we want, that concerns me immensely.

Always Right on January 8, 2008 at 10:09 PM

I fail to see how that says anything about Fred. I don’t get you people. It says what it’s always said about NH, even back in 2000. For goodness sake, Ron Paul isn’t even a conservative and is only Republican in name. He’s politics are Libertarian at best, and that says more about the Registered Repulican voters in NH than it will ever say about Fred Thompson. And if you aren’t savvy enough to know the electorate you’re deal with and you let Iowa and NH (a bunch of moderates, independents, and liberals) decide who the GOP candidate is for the True Reagan Type Conservatives, then I’ll just bow out gracefully and let you have the party. It’ll be the GOP but it won’t be the Party of Reagan, sort of like Teddy and the Progressives, or Whigs and Republicans. It’ll all shake out in the wash. But I’m not having the likes of Ron Paul supporters entering the GOP determining the Presidential Candidate I support. Sorry if you think they’re worth that much of your time and attention.

The wind from that butterfly’s flapping causes a whirlwind half the world away.

Why did the butterfly flap its’ wings in the first place?

Mitt Romney. That’s why.

/hewitt

In the interests of keeping Republicnas together, let me explain why, I am sorry to say, Romney leaves me really cold. I don’t think Romney can lead concerning military matters, national security and foreign affairs, which are critical parts of the President’s job. In this time of a war with the radical Islamic jihadists (and Democrat idiocy concerning the radical jihadists and natioanl security), we need the best Commander in Chief we can have in a candidate, and that is John McCain, certainly not Mitt Romney. Romney was looking at his shoes when the surge was instituted in Iraq. Just the opposite, McCain could and did lead on the Iraq because he knows his stuff on military matters. Romney also alientated me when he said that his sons were serving America by working on his campaign; in contrast, one of John McCain’s two sons is a U.S. Marine and the other is attending the Naval Academy. As I indicated in my 11:07 PM post, my older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant who has served with distinction as an infantry platoon leader in Iraq; my younger son will be commissioned a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant having already passed officer training at Quantico. Now, I ask you; why should I not be put off by Romney while seeing in the McCain family a kindred devotion to country?

The media have been on the side of both Huckabee and McCain. Just think of what that means. Think – Rich

Rich argues brilliantly that the media is pushing both, with love, to kill off the conservative wing of the GOP.

Believe me, they have not treated Huck like they normally treat flaming religies.

Conservatives like Reagan had to battle the press, while McCain gets a ride, and Huck gets a pass, almost as if the press likes the idea of Huck’s ‘Christian soldiers’. Right

This is why Rich warns people to stop. And Think.

Fred dead meat, sorry but he isn’t going to win in SC or anywhere else

John McCain is a pro-life fiscal conservative who has pledged to go after out-of-control federal spending while preserving the present tax cuts and to nominate strict constructionist judges to the federal bench.

More importantly, John McCain is clearly the most qualified of the candidates to be Commnader in Chief. He is heads above the rest in terms of experience and knowledge about military matters, national security and foreign affairs. That is why he has the endorsements of, among others, former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig and Lawrence Eagleburger, former national security officials R. James Woolsley, Robert Inman, Bud MacFarlane and Tom Keane, former Cabinet Secretaries Jack Kemp, Tom Ridge and Jack Schlesinger, and former Navy Secretaries John Lehman and William Ball. Consider Iraq as a test case: John McCain was right for years, first in criticism of the prior “light footprint” strategy that left too few troops and then in supporting the surge under Gneral Petraeus when it was not politically popular — when Democrats were declaring defeat and Republicans were either hedging their bets (like Senator Lugar) or looking at their shoes (like Romney). Not John McCain, who throughout supported the troops, visiting them often. I must give heartfelt thanks on this point. My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant with Ranger tab who last October finished a 15-moth tour of duty in Iraq as an infantry platoon leader earning a Bronze Star and Commendation Meal for Valor for actions under fire; and yes, I knew how lonely it was to support the troops a year ago and yes, I valued John McCain’s support of the troops.

Finally, John McCain, a combat naval aviator and the son and grandson of U.S. Navy Admirals, is a genuine war hero.

If McCain wins the nomination I won’t vote for him

jacobh on January 8, 2008 at 8:16 PM

I would beg you to reconsider.

Fred wasn’t expected to do well at all and Ron Paul was actually expected to come in 3rd so I fail to see how on earth anything you’re saying is the least bit valuable.

MrSteve on January 8, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Talk about being in denial. Ron effing Paul? Jesus. It’s bad enough being thoroughly drubbed by Huckadoodle.

Good job guys. A welcome change from scrolling past 300+ comments.