Posted on 06/12/2007 6:42:44 PM PDT by DieselHoplite
I expect it to be a Thompson vs. Romney race in the fall. When Rudy's "we need somebody who can beat Hillary" supporters finally get their heads out of the summer sun, they're going to find Thompson or Romney fits that criterion even better.
I do have to say, Mitt's game plan of getting recognition for Super Tuesday by winning Iowa and New Hampshire seems to be working for him so far.
Oh yeah, like when Bush beat Reagan. They were really proven wrong. McCain opted out against Bush in Iowa, and it did not hurt McCain. McCain won NH handily, and it wasn't until McCain started bashing Christian leaders did he fall apart. Iowa ain't all that.
Romney-Thompson 2008
Bttt!
Anyone who would let Matalin into their campaign strategic planning may as well be letting Carville sit in as well. Which means letting the DNC in. The mere fact that they are married tells me that they both regard politics as a high stakes cynical game. If they really believed what they profess to, they'd detest each other.
Yes, you can lose in one of the early two but you can’t lose in both of them. Or at least you couldn’t for the past 50 years or so. Some people say that the internet has changed everything but I don’t buy it. If a candidate sustains two defeats in a row he is dead.
Being married to the same woman for close to 40 years (and never divorced), having five sons all of whom are also married and 10 granchildren, it would seem Mr. Romney believes in marriage, children and family. That's good core beliefs and family values to me.
You should take a better look at his record. His only major change of position was on abortion. And even that is contested. Some people are accusing him now of being a pro life extremist. Take a look at this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1847509/posts
Other candidates have flipped on a plethora of issues but that doesn’t seem to be getting much attention, for now. We should look at who supported CFR and amnesty in the past and then contrast that to their current positions.
Fred sounds and looks awful - he stutters, mumbles and doesn’t look well. He wouldn’t come across very well in a debate no matter how conservative his beliefs are. So far, Mitt’s my man. I admire his values and his ‘presentation’ is great. He’s extremely intelligent and articulate - and God knows America needs a leader like that right now.
“Given that I would Guiliani over Romney because at least he is a good administrator.”
!?!?
Think otherwise. Romney became a multi-millionaire as a VC and led a company turnaround, then saved the SLC olympics. Romney has the best executive capability of the whole field.
Romney is more conservative than Rudy.
Romney or Thompson are both in my mind acceptable candidates, who will hold on fast to most conservative principles yet be appealling to the majority of voters.
Rudy is too liberal to be an acceptable GOP nominee.
“Being married to the same woman for close to 40 years (and never divorced), having five sons all of whom are also married and 10 granchildren, it would seem Mr. Romney believes in marriage, children and family. That’s good core beliefs and family values to me.”
Well said.
“McCain opted out against Bush in Iowa, and it did not hurt McCain.”
Yeah, McCain went on to win the primary (/sarc).
Agreed. I can see Rudi taking NY and NJ, and Romney a smattering of New England states and Utah, but outside these states it'll be Fred in a 40+ state romp. I doubt McPain will even win his home state.
Lol... Master plan? The man’s not even running yet, and you put 40 states on his side!
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is optimism!
He's so HOT!
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.