Skip to comments.Romney builds image as front-runner
Posted on 08/19/2007 8:35:07 PM PDT by restornu
click here to read article
Wow, a humble family man is “arrogant” and because he is misinformed about guns, he is “Constitution hating freak”. Need I say more?!
RE; Hunter’s message
I’ll give you the same answer the Mitt fans give me go look at his websites.
Saving your brain from replying to my post, the answer to your question, Romney's message is more conservative than Hunter's, no.
Truth; Romney did not win over the Massachusetts Liberals, he is a Massachusetts Liberal
When listening or reading what Mitt has said, remember these words, What, When, Where, Why, Who and How. Mitt never satisfies the How
Pick anyone of these visions and tell me what Mitt has said HOW he will make the vision, reality? IE What is the plan?
I’m still waiting to hear what Senator John Kerry’s “plan” was when he ran for President in ‘04! Senator Kerry would keep saying, “I’ve got a plan!”, and that’s it!
“What is Fred’s message?
Federalism. Return to basic Constitutional principles.
Illegal immigration, the emerging China threat, fair trade, war on terror”
That’s interesting — those are Romney’s messages too. The only difference is Romney’s more articulate and has a much more presidential presence.
“As when he named Battlefield Earth, by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, as his favorite book. Or in Virginia when, for reasons unclear, he answered a question about nuclear power by noting that Adolf Hitler had pioneered liquefied coal.”
I am not going to lie, these two things concern me and I am going to have to look into this a bit more.
People will trust various candidates based on their opinions of them. But the message, the platform, is there on every candidate's website.
Thompson is a Federalist. By default that means Romney's message is more socially conservative.
“So... we all agree that there’s obviously some hilarious and telling point to be made about Romney, based on his enjoyment of “Battlefield Earth,” but none of us can figure out exactly what that point is? I, for one, get suspicious when pundits agree to trash something. What is so threatening to everybody about “Battlefield Earth,” anyway?
Dickerson is honest enough to admit that he hasn’t actually read “Battlefield Earth,” and I strongly suspect that none of these other folks have, either. I, on the other hand, have read the whole thing. In 1983, when I was 15. Yes, it’s badly written, for the most part. But as post-apocalyptic science-fantasy novels go, it’s not the worst one I’ve ever read. (That honor goes to: the 1971 Roger Zelazny novel “Damnation Alley.” Or maybe Michael Crichton’s “Andromeda Strain.”) Romney’s high school English teacher should have turned him on to “On the Beach” or “A Canticle for Leibowitz,” maybe, but if enjoying schlock fiction means you’re crazy, I don’t want to be sane.
What does it mean that Romney likes “Battlefield Earth”? Here’s an answer: IMHO, people who enjoy post-apocalyptic novels have a reactionary and/or utopian streak running through them; they enjoy narratives about the collapse of Western civilization because they’re unhappy with the state of that civilization and would like (or imagine they’d like) to see the slate wiped clean. Once upon a time, James Fenimore Cooper novels thrilled educated Frenchmen for the same reason. Romney’s brand of idealism may be jejune, but he’s no more crazy than are the readers of other 1982 post-apocalyptic novels: “God’s Grace,” by Bernard Malamud; “The White Plague,” by Frank (”Dune”) Herbert; or the first installment of Alan Moore’s “V for Vendetta” comic book series. If this sort of thing holds absolutely no appeal for Tucker Carlson and Michael Dirda, perhaps it’s because they’re (worryingly) satisfied with the current state of affairs?
If Romney had named the Book of Revelations as his favorite apocalyptic fiction, then there might be reason to worry. But “Battlefield Earth” has a happy ending: Rugged, never-say-die humans from around the planet join forces, educate themselves, work hard, and finally restore democracy on Earth, and in the rest of the universe. That’s not so worrisome, is it? So cut the guy some slack about his taste in literature. Let’s get back to bashing him about his flip-flopping on abortion, shall we?”
Meh, I never read it or heard about it so I will pass on slamming him for it.
Romney is clearly the best of the moderate wing candidates. The conservative wing needs a candidate, however.
I left Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo, and Paul out.
In my opinion they aren't well-rounded enough candidates. Each is very strong on one or two issues but they seem to draw their strength from those issues rather than having inherent strength from which to apply to the issues. It might be the reason they aren't polling well...in addition to MSM bias.
I guess my question is, if the 'conservative' base of the Republican party is so large, why is Guiliani leading all the national polls? and why does McCain do better than Hunter, Tancredo, etc.? If MSM bias is blamed, it doesn't matter, that's a given quantity candidates have to deal with and can't be magically eliminated.
“The man must have no pores,” marveled one sodden journalist.
“He can’t be human.”
Dangit, don’t get the Paulistinaians started on the “space alien” conspiracy theories.
In a nutshell: Too many conservatives are allowing the enemedia to annoit the front runner because, like the polls showing Kerry could beat Bush in January 2004, polls show Rudy could beat Hillary.
Too many are also waiting for Fred Thompson to ride to the rescue. I'm just not convinced he would be any better than Romney. Slightly more conservative on the issues, probably, but a lot less willing to work his tail off from what I've seen so far.
You can leave Paul out, because he's a moonbat. Ditto for Brownback, because he's a weasel. I see a natural alliance between Tancredo and Hunter, because of their solid positions on a wide range of issues. Tancredo, right now, is on a mini-wave due to the immigration issue. He's really no better than Hunter here, who has actually got some of the fence built.
I Like it!
A) I love your tagline
B) I’m jealous I didn’t think of it first.
“Hes an arrogant Constitution hating freak.”
You got that from a movie? What is next from your bag of wisdom pearls, 60 foot ampibious reptile attacks Tokyo?
“America to be attack by space alien on “Independence day?”
Maybe a man dresses like a Bat and fights crime vigilante style?
It is more than a movie Grunthor it is a lesson about our Nation!
These are things that Romney holds dear seem more than you!
Your are uneducated in the state of a Union and your phony Ron Paul group
“These are things that Romney holds dear seem more than you!
Your are uneducated in the state of a Union and your phony Ron Paul group”
Once again please, this time in english?
Thanks for your objective impressions.
I like what I am hearing from Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney.
But I’m puzzled why Hunter seems so invisible.
I am concerned that Thompson doesn’t show more energy or urgency for the task ahead.
And I am concerned that so many are bent on destroying Romney with over-the-top exagerations about flip-flopping that he will be destoyed as a candidate, and we will not have the opportunity of using his skills to help solve America’s financial problems. On another of your points, if one looks at Romney’s background other than as a business man, I think one can see some support for a view of constitutional originalism. That is, Mormons belive that the original Constitution was inspired by God.
Romney admires Duncan Hunter. After the first GOP debate when asked about the other candidates he only mentioned Hunter and praised him. He said he learned from him.
Which is why, as a conservative, Romney is my favorite of the "moderate-wing" candidates. I think he would handle her royal highness far better in a debate than Rudi, who would be pilloried as a bully.
Romney seems to have the ability like the joke about a great diplomat-- he'll tell her to go to hell but have her looking forward to the trip.
He has addressed it quite extensively as one of the few candidates who actually understands how to manage a budget. Here is the short and sweet version.
Gov. Romney said he would increase the military budget, from 3.6 percent of our GNP to 4 percent. He said he would increase troop levels from 1.5 to 1.6 million people, an increase of 100,000, this is where his budget savings would go.
In MASS he raised tons of benefits for the National Guard. His focus on helpinghte military is consistent with his term as Governor.
Ron Paul sucks, what’s your point?
I can’t stand Rockefeller. If that were Romney’s vision, I wouldn’t be supporting him.
Yes, very much like Reagan.
“Or maybe it was the inundation of homosexual propaganda that filled the public schools of Massachusetts during Romney’s four years as Governor.”
That was going on long before Romney became Governor.
I'll give you the short and sweet of an analysis of the above statement.
Romney, says he would increase the military budget The budget, is more than payroll, equipment plus. Any action on the budget will have to approved by congress. This a Mitt wet dream.
Next even if he asked congress for a payroll increase, and it was approved, no guarantee he could increase the troop levels.
His reference to the GNP is used car salesmen speak. Most voters don't know what GNP stands for or how it is computed.
Thanks! I’ve asked EV that question several times and received no answer. Now I can see why. Alan Keyes - ROTFLMFAO!