Audio: Mitt Romney conference call

posted at 12:57 pm on February 1, 2008 by Bryan

I linked up to a New Media conference call with Mitt Romney earlier today. It was his first as far as I know. The governor discussed the status of the race, making a good point that the GOP and Democrat races are in similar circumstances right now, with establishment front-runners who haven’t wrapped up there nominations yet, but the press is playing them very differently by casting the GOP race as all but over while casting the Dem race as up for grabs.

He also made an interesting point about the similarity to this year’s GOP race and the Republican race in 1976 (though Romney went out of his way not to claim to be Ronald Reagan reincarnate). He also highlighted the endorsements he has won from National Review, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and several conservative bloggers as evidence that conservatives are coming his way.

Captain Ed was on the call, and has a good summary. Jim Geraghty was as well and has highlights. Here’s a recording of the call. It starts with Gov. Romney’s opening remarks and includes all of the blogger Q&A.

I was too slow on the touchtone draw to get a question in, unfortunately. I would either have asked about McCain’s “led for patriotism, not for profit” line or about Juan Hernandez’s presence in the McCain campaign and what that says about McCain’s attention to border security. The Romney camp has picked up Kris Kobach as its immigration adviser. Kobach is the opposite of Juan Hernandez. If personnel is policy, and it is, Kobach is a very good pickup for the Romney campaign.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

unfortunately the conservative in the 1976 republican race lost.

Even reagan when he won in 1980 reached out to ford to win Moderates to his side. This time a moderate has a good chance to win he really needs to reach out to our side.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM

If Mitt doesn’t do well on Tuesday, I don’t see how he can continue.

bnelson44 on February 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM

btw. Bryan, weren’t you going to have a post on “the Romney Paradox” today?

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I am going to see that Mitt does as well as possible on Tuesday.

Tim Pancoast on February 1, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Thanks for putting up this audio, Byran.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM

I miss Fred

Connie on February 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM

If Mitt doesn’t do well on Tuesday, I don’t see how he can continue.

bnelson44 on February 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM

It doesnt even matter if he does. If Mitt were to start winning then HUCK would re emerge. Huck is a creation of Mitt.

Its like I warned months ago Mitt was a dead end choice his mormonism is a killer in the south and elsewhere.

I will give an example. My brother is in the airforce and a Iraq war vet, He is backing Mitt. He told his wife who is an evangelical with a PHD and a successful career that he was voting for Mitt and her FIRST responce was “Why he a Mormon ?”

Thats it in a nutshell. Too many evangelicals (not all) see mormons as a sort of cult. There is hundreds of years of distrust there. It cant be overcone in a few weeks.

Mitt cant unite the party. I warned that was the case months ago. And its still true today. We backed the wrong horse and its costing us.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM

The Romney camp has picked up Kris Kobach as its immigration adviser. Kobach is the opposite of Juan Hernandez. If personnel is policy, and it is, Kobach is a very good pickup for the Romney campaign.

Thank goodness. People don’t realize what is at stake or what the agenda of some illegal aliens actually is. This is about waaaay more than just coming to work.

We say, “No to occupation!”

We say, “This is still our continent!”
We say, “Europeans are the illegals–since 1492!”

NTWR on February 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Audio: Mitt Romney conference call pander fest

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Thats it in a nutshell. Too many evangelicals (not all) see mormons as a sort of cult. There is hundreds of years of distrust there. It cant be overcone in a few weeks.

If Romney does become the nominee, I think the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency might be enough to make many rethink their opposition to his religion. Plus, he’s good when focused on shared values.

I’ve seen evidence of that in my church. A lot of people were impressed by his religion in America speech.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM

If Romney does become the nominee, I think the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency might be enough to make many rethink their opposition to his religion. Plus, he’s good when focused on shared values.

If he gets that far. Right now its killing him in the republican primaries.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:13 PM

If Romney does become the nominee, I think the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency might be enough to make many rethink their opposition to his religion.

I agree. I think that is why Huck is staying in. Without Huck a lot of those concerns would fade. Especially in the general, partially in the primary.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM

If he gets that far. Right now its killing him in the republican primaries.

Yeah. It’s a shame, in my opinion.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM

I agree. I think that is why Huck is staying in. Without Huck a lot of those concerns would fade.

Heh. Big time, considering that Huckabee is fanning the flames. His religion-baiting was pretty low.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM

He’s absolutely correct about the media analysis of the two races. The Democrats is “wide open”, ours is a “done deal”. Just because the media wishes it were so, doesn’t make it so.

TX Mom on February 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM

If he gets that far. Right now its killing him in the republican primaries.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Famous Amos…more like Doubting Amos.

I don’t see how his Mormonism will be an issue. I know our party has a few bigots (Chakra, Harald)…but I can’t possibly believe that there will be an Anti-Mormon turnout among primary voters.

CABE on February 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM

I agree. I think that is why Huck is staying in. Without Huck a lot of those concerns would fade. Especially in the general, partially in the primary.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Huck surged because of Mitt. The more successful Mitt became the higher hucks numbers went. Now that Mit is fading so is Huck. The evangelicals jumped behind Huck as an anti Mitt candidate. Now that Mitt is losing they dont have to back huck and are turning to McCain. If Mitt were to win on Super Tuesday they might go back to Mitt or turn to McCain as an stop-Mitt vote

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM

if Mitt’s Mormonism is a negative, that’s indeed a very sad commentary on American’s tolerance of religion.

Are we really still that bigoted…?

CliffHanger on February 1, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Huckabee is more conservative than Mitt. I’ve never heard Huckabee OR McCain say they would fight to protect a womans right to have an abortion. It’s amazing how ignorant some “principled” conservatives can be. If McCain wins and turns out to be the next Reagan, I don’t plan to let you chumps forget this.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Not so. Huck surged because Iowa played well for him.

Your theory, such as it is, is flawed of course because Mitt’s number prefaced any Huck movement. And Mitt surged in Florida from 10 down to almost beat McCain – would have I think save for Crist. You see this through the prism of religion. You’re welcome to do so of course, but you are wasting your time with me when you extrapolate a minor point into a driving force.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Not so. Huck surged because Iowa played well for him.

Your theory, such as it is, is flawed of course because Mitt’s number prefaced any Huck movement. And Mitt surged in Florida from 10 down to almost beat McCain – would have I think save for Crist. You see this through the prism of religion. You’re welcome to do so of course, but you are wasting your time with me when you extrapolate a minor point into a driving force.

Check the polls at the time McCain was dead in the water, Fred was stuck in 4th and Mitt lead in New Hampshire and Iowa. Mitt was winning and Huck an unknow till them.

As for the late florida surge to Mitt that was more the Fred falling out factor more than anything to do with what we are talking about.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Romney is so much more impressive when he’s not on script. He needs new speech writers that actually listen to him and write speeches for him instead of sloganeers and ad copy writers. If I have to listen to him talk about “real change” one more time, I’ll liquefy.

spmat on February 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Heh. Big time, considering that Huckabee is fanning the flames. His religion-baiting was pretty low.

You know what gets me about that Slu, is that it is more important to him then conservatism. It’s abundantly obvious to anyone looking at the situation that he pulls conservative votes. That splits the conservative vote to allow McCain to win on the backs of moderates and independents. It’s either religious bigotry or his political future (VP perhaps?) which are more important to him then the conservative cause. No wonder he and McCain respect each other so much.

If McCain wins and turns out to be the next Reagan, I don’t plan to let you chumps forget this.

I’m more worried about McCain being the next Carter. McCain only understands two things: wot and reaching across the aisle. Constitution, not so much; economy, not so much.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM

If McCain wins and turns out to be the next Reagan, I don’t plan to let you chumps forget this.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM

I won’t lose any sleep about this one…

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Check the polls at the time McCain was dead in the water, Fred was stuck in 4th and Mitt lead in New Hampshire and Iowa. Mitt was winning and Huck an unknow till them.

You prove my point. Mitt rose and Huck didn’t rise with him. You would do better to argue that Huck rose as Brownback fell. But I’ll leave those ruminations to you.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM

First things first, I am a mormon and yes it’s kinda cool to have a mormon run for president. But I really feel inspired by Mitt Romney. He gets it. He gets immigration, he gets radical islam, he gets the economy.

I really hope he can win this. His business expertise really seems to be what this economy could use.

I just can’t vote McCain. I figured I would be saying “I just can’t vote Rudy” but things can and do change.

Utah Boy on February 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Look if McCain picks a deceint VP and maybe takes Ted Olson as AG and has good conservative people around him I have hope. The problem with McCain is that he has been in the Senate too long and got buddy buddy with the dems there. He was and still is getting bad advice from his staff who I really believe is the problem. Put some good conservatives around him and I think he would be OK as a president.

However he could just as easily not do that and that is the problem. I hope some at CPAC push him to surround himself with Conservatives and to drop the ones who are advising him now.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM

I will give an example. My brother is in the airforce and a Iraq war vet, He is backing Mitt. He told his wife who is an evangelical with a PHD and a successful career that he was voting for Mitt and her FIRST responce was “Why he a Mormon ?”

That’s a load of crap – right there.

My father and 2 of my uncles are BAPTIST MINISTERS and they are all Romney supporters. They see Huck as a phoney and McCain as a Democrat. They don’t think Romney is totally trustworthy as a Conservative but they like his moral values and business knowledge and experience.

That is NOT a load of crap.

stenwin77 on February 1, 2008 at 1:35 PM

You prove my point. Mitt rose and Huck didn’t rise with him. You would do better to argue that Huck rose as Brownback fell. But I’ll leave those ruminations to you.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM

That isnt accurate. Huck surged and Mitt sank to where he lost Iowa to Huck and New Hampshire to McCain. That made Mitt look like less of a threat to become President.

Then Mitt rebounded in michigan and on to South Carolina we went. By the McCain was surging and Mitt stablizied but finished 4th in South Carolina to a McCain win.

Now McCain was the front runner and Huck started to fade. Mitt is still in the picture as is Huck. If Mitt were to surge again against McCain the Huck people would back an anti mitt campaign and go behind McCain

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Everytime I hear Dean Barnett speak, I’m shocked by his accent. I like to read his writing, but I think his accent hits me like Fred’s Cracker Barrel sound used to hit Allahpundit. Good thing Mitt’s isn’t that strong or who knows who’d I be voting for! (I kid, I kid.)

TX Mom on February 1, 2008 at 1:38 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM

I will vote for McCain if he does this…but only if I have to. :)

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:38 PM

That’s a load of crap – right there.

My father and 2 of my uncles are BAPTIST MINISTERS and they are all Romney supporters. They see Huck as a phoney and McCain as a Democrat. They don’t think Romney is totally trustworthy as a Conservative but they like his moral values and business knowledge and experience.

That is NOT a load of crap.

stenwin77 on February 1, 2008 at 1:35 PM

I didnt say all evangelicals just some. Enough to keep Mitt from winning.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:38 PM

I’ve seen evidence of that in my church. A lot of people were impressed by his religion in America speech.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Yeah, but then there’s the non-religious, moderate Republicans and independents who don’t think that “freedom requires religion.” Mitt’s issue is that he pimped his generic “faith”, but when people figured out the specifics, they turned against him. He managed to lose the trust of both the religious evangelical and non-religious primary voters, and the same dynamic will play out in the general if he gets the nomination.

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Heh. Big time, considering that Huckabee is fanning the flames. His religion-baiting was pretty low.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM

There is also a long term downside to that for any future evangelical candidates. Huckster is tarring them all with his passive aggresive baiting wrapped in a religious envelope. I suspect it will be remembered(fairly or not) and dealt with accordingly, down the road.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Look if Mormonism isnt the cause of Mitt’s problems what is ? By all rights Mitt should be crushing McCain in the polls IF people dont care about Mitt’s religeon and more about his stances.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Look. I’ll explain it simply. Huck and Brownback split votes. When those coalesced they surged to win Iowa. Your theory is based on religious discrimination (not yours, the presumption of others’) but only has a foundation because Mitt was the frontrunner in Iowa.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM

By all rights Mitt should be crushing McCain in the polls IF people dont care about Mitt’s religeon and more about his stances.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM

It may surprise you how many Republicans like McCain’s stances on the various issues this race is being run on. We’re in a bit of an echo chamber here.

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 1:45 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM

I’m actually worried that there is an anti-Morman bias out there, like I believe there might be an anti-black bias still out there. It’d be nice if we could grow up about that stuff.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Look if Mormonism isnt the cause of Mitt’s problems what is ?

Honestly, I think it’s trust. Some conservatives are a bit put off by the whole flip-flop criticism. I’m not entirely comfortable with his changed positions on at least one issue, but am increasingly impressed with what I’ve seen as the primary goes on.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Look if Mormonism isnt the cause of Mitt’s problems what is ? By all rights Mitt should be crushing McCain in the polls IF people dont care about Mitt’s religeon and more about his stances.

People don’t know him.

People don’t trust him.

And people, like yourself, distort his stances (on Iraq for ex).

He literally seems too perfect. As Miller says, too slick by half. Unless that’s Miller code for ‘I don’t like Mormons.’ And lets just say Miller usually speaks his mind.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Look if McCain picks a decent VP….

You didn’t see Leno last night, did you?

I got the distinct impression that that decision has been made.

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Didn’t 65% of people identifying themselves as Republicans vote against McCain in Florida?

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM

I got the distinct impression that that decision has been made.

I didn’t see Leno. What did he say?

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:50 PM

ditto—what did he day? Guliani or Graham?

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Didn’t 65% of people identifying themselves as Republicans vote against McCain in Florida?

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM

And 70% voted against Romney. Your point?

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:50 PM

When asked about his VP choices, he got up and introduced Rudy to the stage. They didn’t admit/anounce anything but it was pretty weird.

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM

I spent last years Amnesty summer with my Dad, who is a Vietnam Veteran, he’s a hardcore Republican and we were both chewing our nails during the whole Amnesty thing. He’s totally against amnesty as well. I talked to him the other day and he said he’s going with McCain over Romney in Idaho. He said it without an explanation as if the whole reason was because he’s a Veteran. He said, “I just have to vote for him. I have to.”

Geronimo on February 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM

When asked about his VP choices, he got up and introduced Rudy to the stage. They didn’t admit/anounce anything but it was pretty weird.

That is a little strange.

I blame the writer’s strike.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM

But how did that 5% identify themselves? Not as Republicans. My point is that self-identified Republicans voted for someone other than McCain.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:54 PM

It may surprise you how many Republicans like McCain’s stances on the various issues this race is being run on. We’re in a bit of an echo chamber here.

Big S on February 1, 2008 at 1:45 PM

True his Iraqi war stance is helping him big time. But the comparison wasnt between McCain and Mitt but between Mitt and Huck. If Huck had stayed high we would be considering him as the front runner. He was leading for a good time.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Even my wife (who could care less about politics) said something like “looks that decision has been made”.

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Honestly, I think it’s trust. Some conservatives are a bit put off by the whole flip-flop criticism. I’m not entirely comfortable with his changed positions on at least one issue, but am increasingly impressed with what I’ve seen as the primary goes on.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 1:46 PM

I’ve seen no evidence his position changes are not sincere. I also notice most folks were more than willing to forgive Fred for his initial support of McCain-Feingold and his involvement with the Libyan Pan Am legal issue. Likewise, it would be much easier to support McCain, if he would admit McCain-Kennedy was a mistake. I wouldn’t call that a flip flop. I’d call it growth and learning from mistakes.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM

I do think McCain would pick someone who is a stanch backer of the Military and the IRaqi war. That does narrow the feild some.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:57 PM

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Wish I could be surprised. WilliamAmos, this doesn’t help me vote for him, per my comment upthread…

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:57 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:57 PM

But McCains military and WOT support are his strongest suit. He needs to balance out the ticket, not overload it on one side!

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM

But McCains military and WOT support are his strongest suit. He needs to balance out the ticket, not overload it on one side!

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Really ? You see McCain picking someone that dislikes the Miltary and against the war ? he has enough problems.

McCain will need to regain conservatives. I hope he picks a strong one rather than a weak one.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Wish I could be surprised.

Agree.
If you think about it, they are a perfect fit for the new & improved Republican Party.

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Bill Handel said this morning that Mitt Romney will be on the John & Ken radio show, KFI 640 AM, today – one million listenership.

All others have an invitation, and none said yes. J & K are tough interviewers, but they don’t like McCain, and are always on a mission, not always to the liking of conservatives/liberals. They’re independents.

Entelechy on February 1, 2008 at 2:03 PM

But McCains military and WOT support are his strongest suit. He needs to balance out the ticket, not overload it on one side!

dish on February 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM

If true,it seems pretty plain McCain doesn’t think he needs traditional conservatives. If he goes into the general with Rudy as VP, the only way conservative voices will be heard is by silence at the booth.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 2:03 PM

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Sorry, wasn’t clear. I meant stong on other conservative values, since many here, including myself, find many of his ‘conservative values’ suspect.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 2:03 PM

find many of his ‘conservative values’ suspect

his=McCain

geesh

dish on February 1, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Sorry, wasn’t clear. I meant stong on other conservative values, since many here, including myself, find many of his ‘conservative values’ suspect.

dish on February 1, 2008 at 2:03 PM

True he needs a good conservative who is strong where he is weak.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM

ChrisM on February 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM

I think that would be a mistake on his part. It would definitely be walking away from the conservative wing of the party. Although I have no idea who he might put on his ticket that would help him tack right or shore up his weak issues (economy, immigration, etc).

TX Mom on February 1, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Thats it in a nutshell. Too many evangelicals (not all) see mormons as a sort of cult. There is hundreds of years of distrust there. It cant be overcone in a few weeks.

Mitt cant unite the party. I warned that was the case months ago. And its still true today. We backed the wrong horse and its costing us.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I wish I could disagree. But I can’t. Apparently this is the way it is going.

I’ve said it before, and will say it again.

If Mormonism is the only reason why some people are not voting for Mitt, then we deserve to lose. And lose big. (No disrespect to your wife, I just really think it’s lame for that to be a deal breaker issue.) The only religion that would give me pause for considering a presidential candidate is Islam, because it is not just a religion. As we know, in the eyes of the Qu’ran, its law supersedes any man made laws, and such laws are heresy. As such, it views our Constitution and all of our laws to be null and void. No other religion posits itself this way. The Bible and Judeo-Christian values serve as the basis for our Constitution and our laws (no matter how much the ACLU wants to deny it), but they do not say that we are heretics in the eyes of God if we write our own laws. No other religion has anything to do whatsoever with how a man or woman has governed or will governed. It is their personal practice of faith, no more and no less. This is the way it should be. But apparently it isn’t.

If this is the way of it, then we deserve to lose. And this party needs to put a mirror in front of itself, and figure out just what the hell it stands for anymore. If a man who spits on just about all of our “cherished” conservative values is our candidate, because we can’t get past religious squabbles that the Framers intended to solve with the First Amendment, then we simply do not deserve to win. And we deserve to be governed by the Dems, and their vision of the country.

Hawkins1701 on February 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM

True he needs a good conservative who is strong where he is weak.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM

ie: every issue besides the military and the GWOT…

brtex on February 1, 2008 at 2:12 PM

McCain only understands two things: wot and reaching across the aisle.

Ill give you the “reaching across the isle” (even though he does it to slap a conservative) but the wot…NOT! I think he supports the war effort and the troops but he is weak on the wot if he is for open borders!

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Hawkins1701 on February 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM

+1. If we get McCain in the general due to religious prejudice, we should wear the results and enjoy Obama’s wealth redistribution policy as it takes effect.

a capella on February 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Romney makes terrific points here. He is going to be one of the best US presidents we’ve ever had.

joncoltonis on February 1, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Romney gets a pass for his pro abortion stance, and he gets a pass for saying that the kids of illegals can stay and finish school. Not a peep from the far right on his debate answer to the immigration question the other night.
It’s not that McCain is anti-conservative, it’s that he is not anti-liberal enough. I don’t have a problem with anyone in congress trying to work with democrats to get things done for the country. Better to get a moderate in moderates clothes, than a liberal trying to act conservative, that’s far more dangerous, IMO.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Ill give you the “reaching across the isle” (even though he does it to slap a conservative) but the wot…NOT! I think he supports the war effort and the troops but he is weak on the wot if he is for open borders!

Point taken.

Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Away with you, Huckatroll.

Go back to your lefty populist two-faced demagoging minister.

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM

From the AP news

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-qualities

Spend as they may, candidates find public opinion hard to change
By ALAN FRAM and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) — For all the millions the presidential campaigns have spent, it still comes down to this: Ask people what they think of Hillary Rodham Clinton and they say female and feminist. For Barack Obama, it’s inexperience. Mitt Romney is known as a Mormon, John McCain for his military service.

And oh, yes, he’s old.

According to an Associated Press-Yahoo News survey released Friday, McCain is widely seen as experienced, strong, honest and decisive. He has even shown improvements from two groups he has struggled to win over: conservatives and white evangelical Christians.

Nearly half of those polled could not say anything when asked to describe McCain’s chief rival, Mitt Romney, including more than a third of Republicans—surprisingly large numbers this late in a campaign on which the former Massachusetts governor has spent $40 million of his own money to get his name and message before the voters.

Even Democrats had little bad to say about McCain. Given an open-ended chance to describe him, members of both parties most often mentioned his military service and captivity in Vietnam, with the 71-year-old’s age close behind.

“He’s a very good man,” said Robert Glynn Jr., 37, a Democrat from Milbury, Mass. “But he’s too old. If anything happened, where do we go from there?”

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM

You can have several reasons not to support a candidate.
You can not support Mitt for his changes of policy
You can not support Mitt for his dis-honesty
You can not support Mitt for not supporting other Republicans
You can not support Mitt for not telling the truth on his Vietnam lack of service
You can not support Mitt because he follows a religion that is out of the mainstream
You can not support Mitt because his public service is suspect
You can not support Mitt because he doesn’t connect with the people
You can not support Mitt because he turned his back on Reagan
You can not support Mitt because of the favors he bestowed on Bechtel, as they were raping Mass in the Big Dig
You can not support Mitt because he doesn’t understand the military
You can not support Mitt because he believes someday he will be a God
You can not support Mitt because he doesn’t believe in gun control, or does he now?
You can not support Mitt because you feel he is trying to buy an election
or
You can not support him because you feel he just can’t win
Probably more…see you can not support someone for a number of reasons, you just don’t need one. And if one is not “rationale” than two or three are.

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Actually I’m a Fredhead, but thanks for showing your true colors you mind numbed robot.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 3:05 PM

You can not support Mitt because he follows a religion that is out of the mainstream
You can not support Mitt because he believes someday he will be a God
right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Wow.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM

I’m sorry – Mitt just seems like a decent, intelligient person.

Color me SMitten.

sleepy-beans on February 1, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Wow.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Thanks, I knew someone would extrapolate two items out of 15 and only focus on those.
Wow…Mitt could be a person who lies about his policies (I said could), lie about his corporate cronies, and if those are brought up, with something you don’t agree with…you throw everything out the window.
Wow…
I gave reasons why some (not everyone) is not supporting him. Why do you think people aren’t supporting him?
Like I said, thanks, I guess bias comes in many forms. Some more obvious then others…which is more harmful? The ones that are obvious, or yours…

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Huckabee is more conservative than Mitt. I’ve never heard Huckabee OR McCain say they would fight to protect a womans right to have an abortion. It’s amazing how ignorant some “principled” conservatives can be. If McCain wins and turns out to be the next Reagan, I don’t plan to let you chumps forget this.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Sorry, as obnoxious as the Fredheads got, none of them were this idiotically dense.

Away with you, Huckatroll.

BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM

I know it’s primary season, but the sheer mean-ness from all camps just on this side of the aisle is disheartening.

It’s just ugly. I feel like I’m on digg or the DU boards.

Kai on February 1, 2008 at 3:45 PM

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM

No, I was just surprised that you considered those two reasons as equally legitimate as the rest.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Mitt can’t unite the party. I warned that was the case months ago. And its still true today. We backed the wrong horse and its costing us.

William Amos on February 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM

To continue the analogy…

As for Fred, you can lead a horse to water, but you cn’t make him drink.

slp on February 1, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Thanks, I knew someone would extrapolate two items out of 15 and only focus on those…

…gave reasons why some (not everyone) is not supporting him.

…I guess bias comes in many forms.
right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Don’t pretend that you don’t ascribe to those views and that you’re just innocently telling us what other people think. You are also the only person I know who takes this idiotic position (something you have been called out on numerous times but continue to peddle nevertheless):

You can not support Mitt because of the favors he bestowed on Bechtel, as they were raping Mass in the Big Dig

Those are your opinions r2b, don’t try and run away from them, and the have the unmitigated gall to imply that it is because of our “bias”.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 4:02 PM

I don’t have a problem with anyone in congress trying to work with democrats to get things done for the country. Better to get a moderate in moderates clothes, than a liberal trying to act conservative, that’s far more dangerous, IMO.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 2:22 PM

McCenndy has been very good at reaching across the isle and slapping the republican party yr after yr…top 2 McCain/Feingold, 1st amendment rights weakened…Illegal immigration McCain/Kennedy. You going to say he has flipped when he says he learned what americans want…liar. He just said last week he’d sign the bill if he was president.

oldernslower on February 1, 2008 at 4:06 PM

oldernslower on February 1, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Maybe McCain is more of a mainstream conservative than many would like to admit. He managed to keep his seat (representing a border state no less) in the senate, while many admittedly more conservative politicians, lost theirs. I believe McCain is a good Republican and I hope he picks a strong conservative for vice president.

McCain/Kennedy was about border security too, just not enough emphasis on it. With the border secured, you will find that most americans will be able to tolerate some type of amnesty arrangement. McCain/Feingold is not even a real bill, it failed, but you should not have to be a multi-millionaire pander bear to compete for this job. Mac is strong on pro-life issues where Mitt ran for Gov. of Massachusetts as pro-choice. And as far as immigration, Mitt will deport illegals (after they finish school and get their “affairs in order” of course) unless they’re here to mow his lawn.

Though JM is clearly not my first choice, I believe his heart is in the right place and he puts the country ahead of his political affiliations. I remember when most on our side did the same. What happened?

I do appreciate your civility though. I’ll vote for Romney in the unlikely event he gets the nomination, but I’m not phoney enough to act as if it would be a choice made out of pure conservative principle.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM

No, I was just surprised that you considered those two reasons as equally legitimate as the rest.

Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Once again, you proved a point. Who said equally? Starting to get it now? I purposely “buried” them, but you moved them to the top, or imagined that they are all equal. Like I said, bias comes in many forms…
*
They are points, put them in any order you want, or any priority you want, I just listed 15 reasons why some won’t support him. And you picked out 2 of the 15, so I guess the other 13 are legitimate…those are the ones I would worry about if I was a Mitt supporter.

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Oh shut up, you don’t get my point.
To the others, it is the Mitt-wits (whom you see quoted here) pretend to be offended by references to his religion (although most attack Christians at will). Here let me give you an example:
A black young man beats someone up for no reason. Someone says, “what do you expect from a ghetto black”, not a proper thing to say. So everyone now attacks the “quoter” and ignores the crime. Marches ensue, statements fly back and forth, and the person who commits the real crime, is pushed to the background.
I list 15 items, and what gets picked out, the items two Mitt lovers can shout at, to ignore the other 13.
Thanks, buydanish, for proving my point, bias comes in many forms…you just wrap yours in faux indignation…and Mitt loses because his supporters only fight the two items.

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Um, no, right2bright: once again you are shilling your anti-mormonism.

Don’t try to hide it, either. You may well be right that some ill-informed people who listen to types like you who peddle falsities will believe you.

But you know better. You are intentionally intellectually dishonest.

Vanceone on February 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM

Third party, anyone? I will NOT vote for McCain.

He can not win against Obama or Hillary.

Shame on our Republican Party … they have left (literally) me.

stenwin77 on February 1, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Thanks, buydanish, for proving my point, bias comes in many forms…you just wrap yours in faux indignation…and Mitt loses because his supporters only fight the two items.

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 5:06 PM

It’s not “faux-indignation”. In addition to your lengthy manifestos about Mormonism, your claim about Mitt and the Big Dig is patently false and numerous people have explained that to you.

If your incoherent hypothetical example is meant to explain what is meant by shooting the messenger,, I am not impressed by your example. You do not just deliver the messages, you write them and present them for our consumption. You own them and only a fool would think that you are just reporting what other people think.

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 5:18 PM

stenwin77 on February 1, 2008 at 5:13 PM

GoodBye and Good riddance, maybe we will win the house and senate back.

myamphibian on February 1, 2008 at 5:27 PM

He also highlighted the endorsements he has won from National Review, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and several conservative bloggers…

As opposed to McCain’s endorsements by the likes of NYT and the Governator.

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 5:18 PM

And the fines to Bechtel were…?
You are one of fanatics that drive people from Mitt.
I am not surprised you did not understand my example…it wasn’t meant for you…if I was writing to you, I would have typed a lot slower and used little bitty words.
You love Mitt, and I understand that, if anyone gets in the way of your love, you throw all you weight behind your argument.
But what you didn’t get, but all the others did, is that someone can have what you perceive as wrong opinion, but that does not make all of the opinions wrong. His running away from Reagan in the heat of a battle is one example, and that is enough for many conservatives to see that he is really no different then McCain in his conservative views. He just hides it better. He never fined Bechtel any real money–as one insightful poster said, he brought Bechtel to justice, he fined them and prosecuted them, $1,000 fine from the court (that’s what a women’s life is worth Bechtel) he raised taxes (and many fees), he almost balanced a budget…oops, he almost balanced a proposed budget, and cut spending, oops, he cut spending that he over projected, and then claimed he cut it because his estimates were off a little, just a couple of Billion or so.
But you know all that, and love is blind…he has no faults, his hair, those dashing good looks, the way he looks at you, you know what I mean…I mean, he is practically a God to some, and will be to others one day. Your future could be sealed by his fate.

right2bright on February 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM

We say, “No to occupation!”
We say, “This is still our continent!”
We say, “Europeans are the illegals–since 1492!”

Except there is some debate on whom was actually the first people in the Americas and stone tools found in Pennsylvania might point to the Solutrean neolithic (Stone Age) culture from southwest France.

Mojack420 on February 1, 2008 at 7:39 PM