Posted on 11/21/2007 3:19:17 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
I’d really like to see take Fla. But I’m afraid he messed that up by fooling with SS reform.
AARP doesn’t like that sort of thing.
So, He needs to get busy in Iowa
Rudy should endorse Fred now while his endorsement still means something. Pretty soon, Rudy will back in his love nest with Bernie and this campaign will be just an ugly memory.
“well this is good. but how does it translate to primaries: some are winner take all, some aren’t”
What we may see is what is likely to be the same scenario with billary: lose Iowa but win New Hampshire and so on ontil Super Tuesday in February..This will test the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates as they are ‘pinged’ between the states primaries. Hard to say what will happen- this poll gives a good read on the fav/unfav of the candidates. could be neck and neck between FT and RG and MR, looks like RP and MH may be goners sooner or later; hard to tell what will happen to JMc, may depend on the weather, solar flareups and the price of tea in India/s...
"In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a [Contract With America] like what was organized by the Republican Party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things which the party said, 'These are the thing's we're going to do.' I think that's a mistake." - Source
"Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." - Source
“I remember in my earliest political experience my father fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican Party. He walked out of the Republican National Convention in 1964, when Barry Goldwater said, ‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.’ Because he saw that as a tacit approval of the effort the John Birch Society was making to influence the Republican Party. I think that extremists who would force their views on the party and try to shape the party are making a mistake." - Source
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them. I believe they help protect us and provide for our safety." - Source
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." - Source
"I don't think [The Brady Bill's mandated waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect." - Source
"I don't line up with the NRA." - Source
"I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." - Source
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have, since the time when my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." - Source
"I think it would be a positive thing to have women have the choice of taking morning-after pills….I would favor having it available." - Source
"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." - Source
"All people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." - Source
Great news for Fred and for those of us who support him as we break for Thanksgiving. I really am not surprised.
Let’s remember to donate, as we can, some dollars for those ads [which seem to be working].
Go Fred!
Is somebody ~paying~ you to act like the orchestra on the Titanic?
Is someone paying you to be the iceberg?
Sweet!
And I could see that he was seriously thinking about re-thinking his first words about Thompson: "Ah, he's a phony ...." Romney's campaign lit sure isn't going to mention RomneyCare or the penalties individuals and businesses in MA are paying for NOT being able to go to nanny government with proof that they've been good little children and found health insurance. Huck's campaign lit sure isn't going to talk about his penchant for smoking bans in public and private places.
I just visited the website of Hugh Hewitt, who many (I'm one) have come to consider a Romney shill, and saw a post (I think our FRiend spacekicker hangs there occasionally, so he might have seen it too) about CFR and Romney. This one really got me -- the poster said that Romney not only supported the CFR concept in Massachusetts in I believe it was 1992, but he wanted to take it even further and regulate campaign expenditures as well!
Sentiments like "We Republicans should be focusing on Hillary, not tearing each other down!" sound noble, but in the primary season, they are actually words of chicken-hearted weakness. Right now, we must have the courage to do the dirty work hashing things out in pursuit of the best guy to represent the Republican party in the race against the Democrat presidential candidate, which may or may not be Hillary.
That necessarily entails "tearing down" Republicans who will be either too weak or too liberal. It's not pleasant, but somebody's got to do it and pretending otherwise is just that -- pretend.
It's time to get aggressive about enlightening fellow primary voters about the many faults of Romney as well as the true conservative record (not campaign promises, but record) of Thompson. None of the candidates is perfect, including Thompson. But he's obviously the closest to it especially when compared to the deeply flawed Giuliani and Romney.
The eye on the ball now: educate Republican primary voters about the THREE main guys: Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani, with a special focus on Romney because unlike either Rudy or Thompson, he is the most disingenuous in how he represents his past; uninformed people are gullible people, so the best way to get people beyond being gulled by the Ladies' Candidate Mitt is by informing them about Mitt's record. The RomneyCare thing alone should do it -- nationalized health care would be a guaranteed nightmare no matter whether it came from Republicans or Democrats. But if it's not enough, Romney's past is a target-rich environment on the 2nd amendment, normalizing homosexuality, tax-funded abortion for the poor (the primary consequence of retaining Roe V Wade), and even CFR, if Romney did indeed support a CFR-type move in MA.
Democrats should be of little concern during Republican primaries. The biggest concern should be revealing and comparing the flaws in the primary Republican candidates. Vote-splitting and pluralities are as much at work in the primaries as they are in a Presidential race with a third-party candidates, and must be considered accordingly.
SoCon, please see my post #29. And THANKS for your post 24 and for posting those sourced quotes as often as you do. It is helpful I’m sure to a lot of people, not just me, in providing real information to help disillusion people about the real Mitt Romney. He would be a lousy presidential candidate.
That was a good one.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
And to you, as well.
The only payment I get is knowing how crazy FDT is drving all the “experts”.
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!! SAVE THAT ONE FOR REUSE!!!!
This poll, if it means anything at all at this point in the process, only adds weight to my argument that Giuliani can’t win the south in the general election, and without the south the Republicans can’t win the presidency. I read and hear some people say that they don’t want Rudy for president but will vote for him in the primary anyway because he’s the only Repub who can beat Hillary. IMHO he’s the only leading Repub candidate who CAN’T beat Hillary, because a Repub can’t win a national election nowadays without carrying practically all of the south and I don’t believe Rudy can do that.
lgwdnbdgr wrote: “With all due respect, Fred will need the support of ALL Republicans in order to get elected in November. Insulting other Republican voters is not a good way to get there.”
with all due respect, those “Republicans” have been insulting Fred and his supporters on a daily basis here for months now. Some of the Duncanistas have said that they wouldn’t vote for Fred under any circumstances.
If they can’t take it, they shouldn’t be flinging it.
You have no evidence whatsoever that Fred would/could win FL, and certainly not NY, NJ, CT, RI, CA, IL, and many other Super Tuesday states.
“You have no evidence whatsoever that Fred would/could win FL, and certainly not NY, NJ, CT, RI, CA, IL, and many other Super Tuesday states.”
I have this evidence. Fred Thompson has never lost an actual election in which votes have been cast. Fred Thompson started out 20 points down to an incumbent 5 term Congressman and son of a former governor. Fred Thompson won back Al Gore’s seat from the Democrats. Fred Thompson won twice (by 22 points) in a state that was carried twice during the same time by Bill Clinton. In this same state, Tennessee, your electoral powerhouse, Giuliani, is dead even with Clinton, while Romney actually trails her by a point.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/tennessee/tennessee_2008_presidential_election
In a poll back in late September, Clinton led both Romney and Giuliani.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/tennessee/tennessee_thompson_leads_clinton_but_clinton_leads_giuliani_romney
So the evidence you produce is polls 2 months in advance before the vast majority of people are paying attention. The evidence I produce is a candidate, Fred Thompson, a proven vote winner who has never lost an election in a swing state in which your two papier mache electoral powerhouses are either trailing, or dead even with, Hillary. And you say I haven’t produced the proof that Fred can win these primaries? Give me a proven vote winner any day over an ARG poll.
Good anaylsis, Finny. Both Huckabee and Romney have to run their campaigns using the Democrat tactic of hiding their records from the public. Their campaigns are necessarily based upon deception and thus doomed to failure, as long as the message is spread that Romney and Huckabee are big nanny staters, weak on Immigration, bad on Right to Life(Romney: $50 abortions), ethically challenged (Huckabee), and high taxers. So keep spreading the word.
Giuliani is running as what he is (a liberal) but relying on a split in the conservative vote and the fake “electability” argument to win it for him. As voters in Iowa focus on Huckabee’s checkered past and Romney’s socialized health care plan with mandatory $50 abortions, they are both going to fade. In the age of the internet, deceptions are much harder to perpetrate. When this happens, Giuliani will recede. His electability argument has already been exposed as a sham, when you consider the likely third party challenge he will face as well as the fact that he cannot count on the South, as I point out in post 39.
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.