Comments on: Romney 2012? Update: Romney 2008 = Reagan 1976?

By: Ludwig

Ludwig — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:06:17 +0000

2012!

By: Auspundits

Auspundits — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:47:30 +0000

GOP Nomination – A Super Tuesday (Wednesday) Update…

A couple of brief thoughts about or coming from Super Tuesday results: * we now know that approximately 20%-30% of GOP voters are rock-ribbed evangelicals who [may also be bigots](http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2M2Y2RkZTk1NmU3NTc4NDk1NjRlNGY…

By: Neocon News » Massive Monday Link Dump

Neocon News » Massive Monday Link Dump — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:32:28 +0000

[...] Hot Air » Blog Archive » Romney 2012? Update: Romney 2008 = Reagan 1976? [...]

By: Spanglemaker

Spanglemaker — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:49:25 +0000

Jesus. Save the defeatist BS for the day AFTER McCain gets the nod, IF that happens. Before then, you’re only helping McAmnesty by depressing the base.

By: Bradky

Bradky — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:03:25 +0000

BadBrad on February 4, 2008 at 7:20 AM

Bradky is a little more mature about politics than the cliff jumpers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

By: BadBrad

BadBrad — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:20:28 +0000

I hate this. I feel much like I did after Bush won the nom in 2000. (when I used to like McCain.) I hate having to choose the lesser of two evils. Look where voting against Gore and Kerry got us…. Bush! Bradky may be able to “deal with it”… but I’m not ready to embrace someone who’s “spit in my face” repeatedly like McCain has.

By: Bradky

Bradky — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:25:47 +0000

InstaGlenn e-mails to say he’s wondering whether Mitt’s run this year isn’t a modern analog to Reagan’s failed run in 1976 against Ford.

Great! Another Fred “waiting in the weeds” strategy….

By: Tim Pancoast

Tim Pancoast — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:08:37 +0000

I have been with Mitt since last January.

He is the Conservative that we need.

He is doing far better in polls than I had hoped. To me he is no longer barely staying in the race. He is staying competive and he hasn’t had to run negative ads to do it. That is a big plus.

Mitt is not a quiter. He is a fighter that chooses his battles and this is the battle he has chosen.

Mitt 08! then again in 2012!

By: uptight

uptight — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:10:18 +0000

Is Romney that much of a Conservative? Sure – next to McCain he looks Conservative….but then anyone would….but isn’t McCain one of the big reasons we want him to win now?

How many of us were rooting for Romney from day 1? Like most people here, I wanted Fred to win at first.

Next time around, maybe John Bolton will stand!

By: Buzzy

Buzzy — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 03:39:58 +0000

What are we doing talking about the GOP in 2012 for? If McCain wins the nomination there won’t be a GOP in 2012. All these McCain supporters will go back to the DEM party and the conservatives will have left in disgust. Those Republicans who would vote for Satan just to have a President with an R behind his name (including a lot of media pundits) will see the awful truth once it is too late. There will be a conservative (a real conservative) running in 2012 but he / she will not be a member of the GOP.

By: arizonateacher

arizonateacher — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 03:36:09 +0000

Romney and Reagan should not be in the same sentence…PLEASE! In the last couple of years we have been lucky to have the release of many of Reagan’s letters, diary entries, and speeches. Also there have been some terrific books recently on his early years including “The Right Moment” by Dallek, “Governor Reagan” by Cannon, and even “Reagan’s War” and all of these books and writings show how Reagan had evolving views but at the same time very consistent views on many of the issues…especially communism. I do not read Reagan being a liberal Republican for one election and a conservative Republican in another. Before anyone compares Reagan 76 and 80 to Romney 08 and 2012 I hope they would actually read about Reagan.

By: dawgyear

dawgyear — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:37:02 +0000

I know that some people will scoff at this but I think that this year’s primary does have some similarities to the ‘76 primary. It appears (unless there is huge change in the polls) that a moderate will gain the Republican nomination over a conservative. This is exactly what happened in 1976 with Ford taking the nomination over Reagan. I will never forget the disappointment of that primary. However, this did set up Reagan for his successful run in 1980 and all of the great successes of his presidency. I am not in any way saying that Romney is the next Reagan but thinking about this is one way that I keep the depression of possibly having to make a choice between McCain and Clinton at bay.

dawgyear on February 1, 2008 at 9:31 PM

I feel pretty good for writing this the day before this piece comes out:)

By: MarkJudge

MarkJudge — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:11:39 +0000

Mitt needs to get ensconced at AEI or Heritage, become a conservative Iron Man for 2012.

By: Mitt Romney Update

Mitt Romney Update — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:04:52 +0000

[...] Some are beginning to speculate on Romney in 2012. The answer is likely to be no. If Romney fails to win 2008, for all intents and purposes, his career is over. He began the primary process by blowing three crucial states he expected to win and spent significant money in: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Yet, in Iowa he was fell by David’s slingshot and in New Hampshire, his campaign was run over by John McCain’s bus. [...]

By: thuja

thuja — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:01:25 +0000

Could it be that Romney decided that after McCain’s victory in FL, that there would be no time to get word out about the issues with McCain? Further, the Right Intelligentsia already had exerted itself to derail Hucklebee–which lead to message fatigue among the normal guy Republican voters. It’s best for Romney to prepare for 2012.

By: Hammertime

Hammertime — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:16:25 +0000

Leaving aside the ideological questions about the “Romney 2008 = Reagan 1976″ comparison….Reagan had a daily radio commentary that kept him in the national political conversation from 1976 until he declared late in 1979. Being out of office, how will Mitt stay visible?

By: Bradky

Bradky — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:15:42 +0000

TexasJew on February 3, 2008 at 8:02 PM

I always get a chuckle at the myopic groupies for self professed conservative women. Does your wife know?

By: TexasJew

TexasJew — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:02:45 +0000

Debbie has called out terrorist fundraisers and Jihadi groupies and wannabes for what they are. If that’s racism, sign me up!

And if McCain ever wins a simple majority in any Republican Primary, please let me know. He’s crap, and over 75% of conservatives know it.

By: Bradky

Bradky — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:08:11 +0000

TexasJew on February 3, 2008 at 7:03 PM

race baiting and fear mongering are what “hitting the nail on the head” mean in regards to Schlussel’s tripe.

Just because you like her doesn’t make her the queen of all that is right, good and true with the world.

So sorry you don’t like the results of the primary process. Guess you are not as thickskinned as you profess. More want McCain than not – deal with it cowboy.

By: TexasJew

TexasJew — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:03:23 +0000

Hold on there, mi hijo!
I love Debbie Schlussel; like me, she’s a hard-assed conservative Jewish Republican (you’ve GOT to be tough and thickskinned to be one of us – cue Mark Levin!) and we both detest that crazy lying senile fart who thinks he is so wonderful that we should all annoint him as President.

“Detracting from serious discussions” is just a code word for “hitting the nail on the head”. This is a national election, not some damn debating society. And the Republican party is about to name its biggest Quisling in recent history as its Presidential candidate.

By: Bradky

Bradky — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:46:50 +0000

Buy Danish on February 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM

I agree with you 100% about Debbie. She is poison in many ways and detracts from serious discussions on issues.

By: Cold Steel

Cold Steel — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:35:41 +0000

What I haven’t seen in this thread is vetting. If McCain thinks he’s been vetted for the nomination, he’s nuts. Just because you line up the endorsements within the MSM, doesn’t mean they aren’t sharpening the knives for the general. Bush left the keys in the car that hit you Johnny. Hillary and the boys are going to pummel you. Now with that in mind, what’s the comparison? Ted Kennedy lives and digs in dirt. Mitt ran against him. Ted could not assassinate the character. Mitt also ran and won the governorship in MA. All the Dems will have is the anti-corporation-we-hate-profit vomit. Real good thinking RNC. Give up a sacrificial lamb to the Billary Monarchy.

By: Buy Danish

Buy Danish — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:24:19 +0000

Spirit of 1776 on February 3, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Here's the thread where I had my latest contretemps with the Debster (and George Albert). It began here and went on to include the bilge I cited above...

By: funky chicken

funky chicken — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:17:20 +0000

The best thing Romney could do for the country would be to defeat John Kerry in 2010. He would be a great US Senator from Massachusetts. And by then, Deval Patrick will have screwed up so many times that Romney will be extremely popular and tough for Kerry to beat.

By: Spirit of 1776

Spirit of 1776 — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:05:49 +0000

Buy Danish on February 3, 2008 at 5:44 PM

He is also someone who falsely claimed that Mitt said that he “admired Hezbollah” quote/unquote.
Ugh. I don’t read all the threads now (just because they are so much larger after the latest registration), so I miss some things. Thanks for informing me.

However, when she began to post here I soon became cognizant of how much she pushes the envelope of reasonable discourse, and as I recall it became crystal clear when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated and she added her thoughts on the matter.
Indeed. My opinion on her is informed by conversations I’ve had with her here. I’m not a fan.