Many [commentators](http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/23/pollmania-surge-towards-romney-in-florida/) have been noting the random nature of the polls in the GOP primary. Some polls have Romney leading McCain by 5 points and others McCain ahead of Romne…

Mitt – After sincere investigation, you simply can’t take seriously anyone who claims to be a “leader” in Joseph Smith’s wacko church. If Mitt is the nominee, LDS theology will become a focal point of the campaign and it is totally indefensible.

Rank bigotry here. Many, many Mormons have sincerely investigated it and stayed, many non-mormons have and joined anyway and it’s growing.

This is the old “you can’t be a Mormon unless you are stupid, delusional, or willingly deceitful” Which is of course false. The faith claims of the Catholic church are equally unjustifiable, no one (other than hardcore atheists) throw dispersions on them.

It is as justified as the contention that Jews are greedy, and it’s the subtext of all this “Mitt is insincere” crap. If you called a Jewish candidate “stingy” the ADL would bust a gasket. Creepy, insincere, inauthentic, they are all just code words for “Mormon” because that’s the stereotype, I mean, no one could seriously believe this could they? It MUST be a sham, and you are either in on it, or a sucker. Hence this meme.

Don’t believe me? Check out the any Tony Hillerman novel. Every Mormon is a con man.

Aside from that, I think your analysis is right. MONTHS ago, Dan Bartlett, former Whitehouse communications director, said that they would type Romney a flip-flopper, but that would be code for “Mormon”

I think Romney is going to lose, which is why, even as a Mormon, I was initially a supporter of Rudy too, but Rudy’s not been so great lately, so I switched to Fred, now to Mitt, cuz he’s the only viable conservative left.

J.C. Watts would be an ideal running mate.

T J Green on January 24, 2008 at 4:33 AM

I like Michael Steele more, but J.C. would be ok.

Quite frankly, either of them are truly more conservative than any of the candidates now.

Paul – Dangerously naive about many adult topics.
McCain – Burned the base bridge long, long ago.
Huck – Soft hearted and funny but not gonna be my nanny.
Mitt – After sincere investigation, you simply can’t take seriously anyone who claims to be a “leader” in Joseph Smith’s wacko church. If Mitt is the nominee, LDS theology will become a focal point of the campaign and it is totally indefensible.

That leaves the guy with the difficult-to-spell last name: Mr. Giuliani. Two things are true – He did for New Yorkers what he said he would do; Rudy handled 9/11 in a fashion that impressed the whole country. No, he’s not “perfect” but, once again, Jesus the Christ isn’t on the ballot.

Rudy is the rare “what you see is what you get” kind of guy, and he’s not afraid of a back alley knife fight… which is exactly what Team Clinton has planned.

Guiliani should name a VP now and take the lead in leading the country forward. J.C. Watts would be an ideal running mate.

Here is a clue. Reagan would never have given an award to Farrakhan, not NOR attend a church that did so.

entagor on January 24, 2008 at 3:45 AM

Barack understands that the real appeal of Reagan was that he inspired Americans with a determination to win the Cold War and to revive the economy. Contrary to what many here think, Reagan is fondly remembered for those things, not his social conservatism.
Big S on January 23, 2008 at 7:20 PM

You must not have been born then. As a talking point that statement works only for those who did not live during Reagan; you should test market it with the generation who witnessed Reagan to retain credibility. Just a suggestion to the Barackians: there are some eye witness to the history being distorted

I do not remember Reagan fighting a war to save the economy. He fought a war to convince Americans their nation was still great and good, and he also fought a war to promote the idea that communism was evil and cruel.

Reagan inspired Americans with his optimism about America and his denouncing big government. He never missed a chance to tie in any event to the evils of big government. He fired all the air traffic controllers for striking and never re hired them. He repeatedly denounced communism because of his social conservatism. Communism was evil because it was a government that operated without the will of the people.

The press hated Reagan with a passion. There was a puppet show on tv that mocked him weekly as a senile fool who thought communism was evil, when the pundits knew that communism was the only system that kept the rich from having all the walth and gave medical care to all. The press mocked him for his speech to ‘tear down that wall’.

His arms build up and Star Wars helped deplete the soviets, but his speeches reached within those nations to give hope and ultimately it was those people who refused to obey.

Here is a clue. Reagan would never have given an award to Farrakhan, not attend a church that did so.

…I really think the Huckster would be the perfect choice as Mitt’s VP. It might solve the irrational evangelical problem.

Haldol on January 23, 2008 at 6:57 PM

You don’t pick a guy, in order to get in, who’ll be (to use a biblical image) a millstone round your neck once you’ve gotten in.

Key finding: “The key to Romney’s lead is the immigration issue. 15% of the state’s GOP voters listed immigration as their biggest concern and within that group, 50% support Romney compared to just 14% for McCain.

Don’t you just love it???

Sanity in an electorate, at last!

Mitt: Hit McCain over his lettucehead with this issue. Please.

Our shores aren’t the borders that need protection. IT’S THE LAND BORDERS, STUPID!

What a weasel. “Supporting our troops” by encouraging foreign invaders to take over their hometown neighborhoods while they are overseas fighting the terrorists.

I will vote for anyone who takes a blood oath to veto any form of rewards, benefits, special consideration, etc. for illegal aliens.

And I’ll donate an extra $1000 to the candidate who runs and governs according to these clear wishes of the American people.

It looks like Romney is our last chance to (hopefully) veto Shamnesty ‘09.

I don’t forsee Romney doing any cheesy tank stunts.

BKennedy on January 23, 2008 at 11:26 PM

I don’t see Romney doing anything stupid, which should rule out any tank stunts. But cheesy. Oh, yeah. We can fully expect to see cheesy until November.

Barack understands that the real appeal of Reagan was that he inspired Americans with a determination to win the Cold War and to revive the economy. Contrary to what many here think, Reagan is fondly remembered for those things, not his social conservatism.
Big S on January 23, 2008 at 7:20 PM

All due respect, but I think you’re projecting your own reasons for liking Reagan here. Even though Reagan was heroic on these two issues, I’m betting most of the people who remember him fondly liked everything about him.

I agree with those who say Mitt will need to consistently get under McCain’s skin which, at some point will cause Mr. StraightTalk to say something stupid in a manner not unlike one’s inappropriately gruff grandpa.

We’re going to nominate our own Michael Dukakis.

I hate being right about this. But I am. In two years that will be obvious. The only question is whether it will be bad … or very, very bad.

Good luck, kids.

Professor Blather on January 23, 2008 at 11:15 PM

Any reasoning behind this Blather, or have you drunk the MSM attack kool-aid vis-a-vis Romney.

I don’t forsee Romney doing any cheesy tank stunts.

We’re going to nominate our own Michael Dukakis.

I hate being right about this. But I am. In two years that will be obvious. The only question is whether it will be bad … or very, very bad.

Good luck, kids.

Duncan Hunter on Willard Romney’s chinese connections

“Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a “clear statement” to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM.

Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.

“I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney’s company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner,” stated Hunter. “Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible.”

A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; “The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States .” A copy of this resolution is provided.

Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, “…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.

“Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation’s connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, “a strategic partner” in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.

“This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do.”

McShamnesty is trending down and Mitt is trending up. And that vile disgusting bigot HuckaShumck is way down.

I went to Mitt’s site again recently and looked things over a bit more, and I have to say some of the stuff there is on the Plan for Linlithgow’s Presidency ™. Such as:

reform entitlements (Lin sez… get rid of ‘em! but that’s just me)

review of budget for waste/duplication

explore ANWR

punish sanctuary cities, no amnesty

encourage nuclear power adoption

There’s going to be a lot of pressure on Mitt if he wins to keep things that he outlined so specifically, so I believe he’ll stick to them.

In a Linlithgow presidency however, I would add:

reform intelligence services

move towards a more Federalist system; push more power/responsibility to the states

push for changes in Unions. Being part of a Union now means you aren’t to be held responsible for negligent acts, and companies are held at Union knifepoint, which has killed our auto industry. Teachers can strike and deny children an education, etc etc. Unions are good in some ways, but anti-competion/anti-capitalist in others

shrink the number of govt employees by (for example) disbanding the TSA and contracting out to private enterprise for jobs

“There’s no one better to protect our shores.”

Um, I just read how speedboats are dumping loads of illegals on our shores. If Juan McMacarena wants me to believe his statement…….PROVE IT!!!!

stenwin77 on January 23, 2008 at 9:14 PM

It is a very smart thing for Fredheads to vote for Mitt because I have more than a gentle feeling Mitt will ask Fred to be his VP after a Florida win but BEFORE stupor Tuesday.

Mitt’s main strategy guy is the guy who helped get Fred elected twice to the senate.

There is some there there.

I get the sense that a lot of Fred supporters are doing the same. I feel that Mitt will win Florida and by quite a bit.

I truly don’t believe that McCain will win a closed primary, on the other hand, we have a lot of military in FL wwho might go the McCain road.

Anyone think the debate Thursday night is key to FL?

bnelson44 on January 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM

No, because I think Republicans can think and aren’t easily swayed by emotion (as compared to liberals). McCain has an amnesty and anti-conservative problem, Rudy an abortion problem. If Huckabee weren’t a smooth talking Pastor he’d have no base. Thanks to an American hero named Gen David Petraeus, we’ve figured the war out. This election will be about the economy. People are moving to the guy they are least offended by, and is a damn good bidness man.

Mitt Romney.

Slightly off topic…Rudy’s tax plan to be introduced as legislation in the House.

Gotta admit that the man has a plan. If Romney goes after McCain on taxes, expect Rudy to gain some of his support.

Big S on January 23, 2008 at 6:29 PM

By two loud Giuliani Supporters. Yeah, no politics or bias THERE.