Skip to comments.Romney is the winner in Kansas, if not D.C.
Posted on 05/05/2007 4:12:43 PM PDT by Unmarked Package
America is not purple. It is very red and it is very blue.
For those of us who have been arguing that there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats, last night was a reminder of the stark differences that still divide our country. The GOP contenders were so much more conservative in tone and content than last weeks Democratic pack that we should all expect another divisive general election.
Republicans were so much more hawkish on matters of war and peace. Last week, Hillary Clinton got praised from pundits for promising retaliation against any power that nukes two American cities. Last night, John McCain promised to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell while Mitt Romney simply said, He will die.
Thats a far cry from Obamas promise to face terrorist attacks by focusing on first responders and studying the lessons of Hurricane relief.
Republicans also struck a tougher tone against illegal immigrants, abortion and foreign types running for president. The Democratic field all defended the practice of partial birth abortion, while Republicans were overwhelmingly pro-life. That may be why Rudy Giulianis worst moment for Republican voters was when he said overturning Roe v. Wade would be okay.
Okay? Good Lord, man. Get yourself a pithy two minute abortion answer and repeat it in front of the mirror a hundred times.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Last nights debate also showed a huge gulf between the reporters who cover such events and Republican voters who follow campaigns. I hope it is not a shock to anyone that most journalists covering D.C. politics relate to Democratic world views much more than those held by Republicans. My peers do a great job of putting their biases in check (myself included, I hope) but many are tone deaf when figuring out why Republican primary voters would embrace a guy like Mitt Romney who is now pro-life, pro-family and pro-everything-that-evangelical-voters-could-want-him-to-be.
During the debate I was flooded by e-mails from Republican activists and voters who told me Romney was dominating the debate. Meanwhile, my friends from D.C., Manhattan and L.A. were calling him creepy, fake and scary as hell.
By that reaction alone, Mitt Romney carried the mantle of Reagan off the stage last night. Like Romney, the 40th president was derided as a jingoistic right-wing nut. The greatest Reagan moment for the former Massachusetts governor came when he was asked what he hated most about America.
You could almost hear the Gippers laughs rising from his grave outside the auditorium.
Clueless, he would chuckle. After all these years and all those Republican victories, the press still doesnt get it.
But Mitt Romney did, and he delivered an answer that would have made most angst-ridden reporters (and Democratic candidates) wince. It was an unapologetically delivered sermon on American Exceptionalism. The sort of speech that made media elites roll their eyes at Ronald Reagan while American voters were electing him in landslide margins.
And while most media commentators missed Romneys victory, they also underplayed John McCains stumbles. Thats probably because McCain still scares reporters less than the Sam Brownbacks of the world. Regardless, this first debate was not good for John McCain, a politician for whom I have great respect and admiration. Reporters gave his uneven performance a free pass. GOP voters may not be so forgiving.
Im not saying that Romney is Reagan anymore than Im predicting the collapse of John McCains campaign. But there were clear winners and losers in last nights contest. Among those Red State Republicans (who will elect their partys next nominee), Mitt Romney won while McCain and Giuliani failed to meet expectations.
That may not be how it looks in Georgetown or the Upper West Side, but thats how it is playing in Kansas. And whats the matter with Kansas? Not a damn thing.
I’m a Kansan and I’m most definitely not for Romney.
There’s no doubt that Romney gained the most from the debate and was very polished and assured. Can he keep up the momentum?
Fred! Will take Kansas
Red & Blue is crap and we all know it.
Calling the red states blue, and the blue states red is simply more evidence that the media is determined to regularly redefine words, ideas, connotations, and just about everything else.
I am honestly confounded and frustrated by the fact that the next President of our Nation is going to come somehow out of this motley crew.
The only one that I have any respect for at all is Romney, and that man sold his soul to the Devil some while ago.
Too bad for me that moving to the South Pacific is simply not an option.
I suppose that I’ll have to work harder in order to give myself more options.
That’s the best analysis of the debate so far.
“Mitt Romney carried the mantle of Reagan off the stage last night. Like Romney, the 40th president was derided as a jingoistic right-wing nut.
The greatest Reagan moment for the former Massachusetts governor came when he was asked what he hated most about America. You could almost hear the Gippers laughs rising from his grave outside the auditorium.”
He nailed it.
Don’t bet your home on that one!!!
I really liked his comments about cloning/stem-cell research. I hope a lot of Americans were listening.
Romney cannot be trusted. Any Republican who wins election in a state that has not had one single county vote Republican in a Presidential election since 1988 is no Republican.
Romney is nothing more than a prevaricating actor (the reason he looked so polished during the debate was because he rehearsed his fake answers through the whole thing) that wouldn’t even be a realistic choice if it wasn’t for the media deliberately hyping him up. Romney’s candidacy is a ploy by the media to plant their own candidate as the Republican nominee so that if it comes to between Clinton or Obama and the Republican, they win either way. Romney is no more deserving of hype than any other governor like Huckabee or Gilmore, but he gets top billing while the latter two get has-been status.
And they say there’s no liberal agenda in the press.
That's his strong suit, organization and planning, which equals momentum.
There is always repentance, and forgiveness and redemption.
No matter what you have done, Christ can get your soul back from Satan if you repent and believe.
While not a full-fledged supporter, I can get behind a Romney for President campaign. Romney has the business experience, he is pro-family and pro-life, and he's very sharp. People will say he's too "polished" or "just like Clinton" but I disagree. He's a very smart person who can think on his feet.
I agree. Someone we all know and respect put it perfectly:
Does anyone believe that Ronald Reagan would have been as successful without his actors good looks, smart attire, self-deprecating humor, and grandfatherly charm? Mitt Romney has the intelligence, verbal communication skill, wit and handsome countenance to be the best ambassador and salesman for conservatism in a generation and I include Ronald Reagan in that comparison. ~~UP
"Any Republican who wins election in a state that has not had one single county vote Republican in a Presidential election since 1988 is no Republican."Mitt Romney's record of fiscal and social conservatism in Massachusetts working with an 85% Dem Legislature (see my tagline) is more impressive by far than the record of Republican Gov. Rick Perry in my home state of Texas with a Republican Legislature. That's why Romney is such a remarkable figure in U.S. politics.
"...(the reason he looked so polished during the debate was because he rehearsed his fake answers through the whole thing)..."Romney has a history of excelling in debates where the format is unscripted and adversarial. The format of last week's MSNBC/Politico GOP debate, with so many candidates on stage and little time to respond, is actually a setting where Romney is least likely to stand out. This is a man who can hold his own very well with 40 Senior Fellows at the Hoover Institution in a 90-minute exchange on Middle East foreign policy.
Talk radio host Hugh Hewitt interviewed professor of military history and noted author Victor Davis Hanson who observed Mitt Romney's ability to discuss Middle East foreign policy at length with experts at the Hoover Institution:For another example, FReeper Obilisk18 provided this research regarding Romney in debates:Hugh Hewitt: What I like is that hes a voracious reader, not only your books, but things like The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, Mark Steyns America Alone. I think this is pretty rare these days, to find curiosity at that level, and at that sort of voracious appetite for information. What do you talk about with him?
Victor Davis Hanson: Well, we talk about history just like you and I talk about. We talk about foreign policy, he talked about the plan or the effort to democratize the Middle East, the shortfalls, the problems, the liabilities, and you know what? He came to the Hoover Institution and got in front of 40 senior fellows. And in that room there were Nobel Prize winners, a lot of egos, too. And he held court with them, and there were a lot of hostile questions, and he went for an hour and a half, head to head, with these people. When he walked out of that room, I think everybody was impressed with him. He didnt pull any punches, and he could argue and was as logical as any Hoover fellow, and I was more impressed with him than I was with my colleagues.
(The Hugh Hewitt Show, March 13, 2007)
"Indeed. I've been searching Lexis Nexus a bit recently, and I ran into some information that supports this wholeheartedly. Some key quotes from a Herald article on the final 2002 debate between Romney and Shannon O'Brien (a fine debater): Nearly 44 percent of likely voters said they watched the debate. Among that group, Romney holds a 7-point lead over OBrien, while voters who didnt see the televised clash back OBrien by a 5-point margin. And then most illuminating this: Among independent voters who viewed the debate, Romney holds a whopping 63-19 percent lead. Romneys lead among independent voters who said they didnt watch the debate is at 10 points, the same level as five days ago. Thats a 34 point swing. 34 points. In one night. There are barely words to describe the depth of that shift. Get Romney before the American people, against a Democratic opponent, and youll be weeping with joy."
You have got to be happy after this debate!
“Any Republican who wins election in a state that has not had one single county vote Republican in a Presidential election since 1988 is no Republican.”
That only covers the clinton and bush years. Hardly enough time to draw such stark conclusions. Plus, Romney also lost an election during this period so you gotta give him credit for that.
No respect for Hunter?
What the hell does how massachusetts voted have to do with anything? Bob Dole was from Kansas, which, like ND, SD, NE, OK, ID, WY, UT, and AK has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964.
That didn’t mean a damn thing when the votes were cast.
The truth is, other than some FRee Republic stuff, I simply have no idea who the man is.
What I do know for certain is that I ain't ever voting for a Democrat, and that includes McCain, and Giuliani.
I want to vote for someone who is proved to be consistent, and not a compromiser or BS Artist.
In the end though, I'll vote for the Republican candidate, as long as it ain't Rudy or "Mad McCain".
I think the biggest difference between the Democrat and Republican debates has gone largely unreported. In the Republican debate, all of the candidates recognized the reality that we are at war. At the Democrat debate, half of their candidates denied the War On Terror’s existence and of those who said they do recognize it, two of them agreed only after seeing Hillary and Obama raise their hands. Talk about being out of touch with reality. That is the biggest lesson I took from the two debates.
"Indeed. I've been searching Lexis Nexus a bit recently, and I ran into some information that supports this wholeheartedly. Some key quotes from a Herald article on the final 2002 debate between Romney and Shannon O'Brien (a fine debater): Nearly 44 percent of likely voters said they watched the debate. Among that group, Romney holds a 7-point lead over OBrien, while voters who didnt see the televised clash back OBrien by a 5-point margin. And then most illuminating this: Among independent voters who viewed the debate, Romney holds a whopping 63-19 percent lead. Romneys lead among independent voters who said they didnt watch the debate is at 10 points, the same level as five days ago. Thats a 34 point swing. 34 points. In one night. There are barely words to describe the depth of that shift. Get Romney before the American people, against a Democratic opponent, and youll be weeping with joy."That is a remarkable account, one that should be considered more widely.
Romney’s the kind of guy who could match wits with [Bill] Clinton - even beat him - in a debate (he’s destroy Hillary), and that’s what the country needs or we’ll have 4-8 years of the press and liberal cultural establishment steamrolling another poorly communicating Republican president.
‘Polished’ and ‘smooth’ are only negatives if one lacks substance. When one has substance these qualities amplify, if not follow from, substance.
Interestingly, the only person who seems to have given Hunter any praise outside of FR has been....Romney.
When asked who else he thought had done well, Romney said he thought Hunter had spoken very well on some key issues.
That is indeed true.
We’ll see what comes of this in the coming months.
Hey, I want Hunter around. He absolutely has the right idea on illegal immigration. And when it comes to national defense, he’s head and shoulders above anyone else.
I’m pulling for Romney, but I want to hear more from Hunter. And even if he doesn’t take the Oval Office, he’d make a very good VP.
How nice of Scarborough to say something positive about the Republicans. (Sarc.)
After hearing about Romney’s praise for Hunter, I immediately thought of a Romney/Hunter ticket.
I’d prefer Hunter to be in the main hot seat, but I wouldn’t mind him as VP or Sec. of Defense. I mean, he turns 60 next year; he’s surprisingly young (relatively speaking, compared to McCain or Giuliani). If this year doesn’t work, I could see him trying again next time.
That's interesting. Republicans in the Liberalist of areas dislike Romney. That can only mean one thing...Romney is *gasp* TOO conservative for them.
Joe Scarborough, former Republican CongressCritter from Florida, should have hosted the debate. He would have been more fair than Matthews or Politico.com, both big liberals. The quality of questions was antagonistic and/or just plain stupid.
Now we know at least there are some big differences between the parties. I see that as giving voters a choice not as a way to divide one against the other. Do you want your president to be for partial birth abortion oor not? For sticking with the plan of the military surge or no? Now the voter can choose.
Why aren`t you supporting Mitt? If he gets the nomination, will you vote for him?
I aggree with you, Romney is very sharp and sincere. I believe he is the man that we need and alot of junk is being projected onto him because he is good. Happens to all good people to some degree. I remember how Reagan was made out to be dumb and not a hard worker. Yet he was very sharp too, and always witty.
You just don`t get it——we need stupid nominees from states like Wyoming (nice place but)to defeat the Rats and their pals in the MSM. Romney is to smart, to capable, and he doesn`t even own a M-60!I`ve heard he likes tacos and once read a whole book that didn`t even have pictures.
“Im a Kansan and Im most definitely not for Romney.”
I’m a Mormon and I’m not for Romney. Although I like him a bet better than Harry Reid.
We are decided who is going to be responsible for running the country for the next four years. That person will be in charge of our foreign policy, the military, and the war plus
all of the Federal Government. Now, you are concerned about rabbits?
I am not necessarily disputing this, but just wondering where you get this from? I have not noticed any evidence of this. I find it interesting and smart and surprising.
While President George W. Bush and Laura will not publicly endorse any candidate, Laura has made some supportive comments in a filmed interview about Romney's qualifications and their friendship with Mitt and Ann and statements about Romney's religion not being an issue for them. Similar statements from Barbara Bush and former President George H.W. Bush were made in a recent filmed interview I've seen.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has steered several of his allies and former staff members to Mitt Romney. Another of the president's brothers, Neil, and his sister, Dorothy, have helped Romney raise money.
The Romney campaign gained the support of the influential Lindner family in Ohio. For the past 20 years, the Lindners have helped fund the campaigns of President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush. The head of the family, Carl H. Lindner Jr., will serve as the honorary co-chairman of the Ohio finance committee and the co-chairman of the national finance committee. S. Craig Lindner is co-chairman of Romney's Ohio fund-raising effort.
The Texas Statewide Finance Committee for Romney includes the following people among several others:
Five Bush Pioneers raised more than $100,000 each for Bush-Cheney
Louis Beecherl, Jr. North Texas Finance Chair for Bush-Cheney 2004
David Jones Member of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation Advisory Council
Logan Walters Former Assistant to George W. Bush
Jim McGrath staff writer and editor for the White House in the Executive Office of President George H. W. Bush, Deputy Press Secretary for George W. Bushs re-election campaign for Governor of Texas in 1998 and current speechwriter for George H. W. Bush
Even though people don’t like to admit it, the more attractive candidate has the best chance of winning in the general.
Because I don't trust him.
If he gets the nomination, will you vote for him?
If that happens neither party will have provided me with a candidate who can represent me. So I will still vote, but for president I will write in Judge Roy Moore just for the sake of making a statement. I don't care what anybody thinks of that. It's my vote. I don't trust Romney any more than I trust the Democrats. It really won't matter to me which side wins in that case. No, I would really rather have the Democrats win with a liberal than have the Republicans win with a liberal or an opportunist. I won't help them do it, but neither will I try to stop it. It's not my fault none of the top contenders support the Republican platform, or have supported it prior to becoming a presidential candidate. I want a Republican who has a history of supporting the party platform.
iT IS A LONG WAY TO THE ELECTION, YOU ARE RIGHT.......JUST DON`T MAKE A HABIT OF BEING RIGHT............WE WILL BE WATCHING YOU
Heh-heh. I’m not in much danger of forming a nasty habit of being right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.