I like Romney. I don’t think he should offer him even dog catcher

ConservativePartyNow on January 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM

He could make him squirrel-catcher. Squirrel-catcher-and-fryer.

An e that’s pronounced.

(As a schwa. Like “uh”.)

I want to say schadenfreud, but I cannot remember how to spell it.

csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM

It has an e at the end. An e that’s pronounced.

I’m with Mitt!

Again, you have no class.

He also has no clue.

As much as Huckabee has tried to exploit religious identity politics, he’s never managed to sway a majority of the evangelical vote in a primary. If he united anyone, it was the Mormons – against him.

What amazes me is the apparent animus McCain seems to harbour against Romney. His new improved “Honesty” campaign is just a refinement of the spitballs he’s been aiming at Romney in the debates, like his slimy, emblematic claim that he has spent decades serving this country for “patriotism not money.” McCain is just as bad as Bill Clinton when it comes to making everything personal.

Just because Romney’s run is being financed by the church of mormon doesn’t meant that he has a chance at winning..

Again, you have no class.

Schadenfreude.

baldilocks on January 22, 2008 at 12:05 PM

I only missed the “e”? Cool. I might just remember it now. Thanks!

The American people will overwhelmingly reject him.

He is our John Kerry….the ultimate flip flopper and liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQbeBC_fOI

If hucks out it helps mccain. These Evangelcals wont back a mormon

William Amos on January 22, 2008 at 1:33 PM

LOL, yep they’re all gonna switch to Rudy or McCain

you are clueless in your attempts at sabotage. Take a look at some exit poll data not that it will do any good. You might as well back McCain as you continue to post BS about Mitt and Rudy, the 2 remaining candidates that can beat him.

sour grapes made you whine?

These Evangelcals wont back a mormon

William Amos on January 22, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Which Evangelicals you talking about? I’m an “Evangelical” in the sense that I utterly reject the secular humanist agenda that constitutes mainstream religion. My church considers the LDS to be cultists. Yet…… I’d vote for Romney and would never vote for a fraud like Huckabee.

I’d suggest that you be very careful with how you label people. Evangelical isn’t a dirty word and it doesn’t exclusively refer to the kind of Christian that would vote for the Huckster and would reject Romney because of his faith. That crowd is far smaller than the brand of Evangelical that cares about the social issues.

Jack and Squat.

Exit question: What can Romney offer him to drop out? Anything?

Aren’t Huck and Romney brothers?

Seriously though, nothing.

We’ve had leads here when we didn’t have any reason to have leads here in Florida.

What can Romney offer him to drop out? Anything?

A nice, tasty plate of fried squirrel? With Krispy Kremes for dessert!

The religious divide was unexpected, and new, for me. Any sense of if/how this issue will be overcome in the future?
JiangxiDad on January 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM

I didn’t expect this level of religiosity to be part of the campaign, either. I’d like to say the way to prevent it in the future is to stop rewarding politicians like Huckabee with elected office. He’s run one of the most divisive political campaigns in recent memory, actively setting factions of the Republican coalition at one another. His popularity has been as surprising as it is disheartening. Up to this point, I had no idea identity politics and class warfare were so popular with GOP voters.

I want to say schadenfreud, but I cannot remember how to spell it.

csdeven on January 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Schadenfreude.

Excellent article. I think you all should probably read this:

Republican Voters vs. Establishment – David Brooks, New York Times

bnelson44 on January 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM

David Brooks isn’t a conservative. The toxic PC inanity prevalent at the NY Times has clearly infected him. Brooks persists in claiming Huckabee’s class warfare rhetoric has legs after we have had ample evidence that non-evangelicals voters have rejected it. Brooks has slandered Rush in almost all of his recent columns. I think the attacks on all the Republican candidates besides Fred has been counterproductive, but Brooks would have us abandon every tenent of conservativism in order to win the approval of his peers at the NY Times. That would be a disaster for all of us.

Romney never did anything to warrant Huckabee resorting to the whole class-warfare deal. I would guess that the antimosity Huck has for Mitt is manufactured, an act meant to stir ‘his’ evangelicals against ‘the rich Mormon’.

As far as I can remember, I don’t think Mitt did anything but savage Hucks record (rightly so), and if Hucks animosity and class-warfare grew from that, then he’s a crybaby because that’s fair game. If you don’t want anyone attacking your record don’t dick up your record next time!