Posted on 01/16/2008 2:17:59 AM PST by Romneyfor President2008
MITT ROMNEY HAD A light home field advantage in the Michigan primary since he grew up in Detroit and his dad was a three-term governor. But that's not why he won. Romney defeated John McCain because the economy is emerging as the overriding issue in the 2008 presidential race, and Romney's message on the subject is stronger than McCain's. And Romney is far more comfortable and persuasive in talking about the economy.
So McCain needs to make an adjustment in his campaign. His strength is still national security and the idea that he could step in as "commander in chief on day one." But he can't expect to win the Republican nomination if he treats the economic issue as a marginal concern.
There's plenty he can focus on. McCain has proposed to repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT). He wants to make it easier for individuals and families to buy health insurance and get a $5,000 (families) or $2,500 (individuals) tax credit for doing so. And he wants to cut taxes for research and development, plus make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
But McCain has two problems in discussing economic issues. One, he keeps insisting his votes in 2001 and 2003 against Bush tax cuts were not a mistake. When he says that, it drives conservatives crazy and it's their votes he needs. Two, he now says he's for a bipartisan commission to deal with Social Security solvency. Conservatives regard the commission option as a way to force Republicans to raise taxes.
The most alarming thing for McCain in Michigan is that Romney beat him handily among Republicans. (McCain won independents.) One reason is his tendency, which McCain refuses to curb, to mention Democratic-sounding positions favorably, like opposition to oil drilling in ANWR and unease over global warming.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Fed Barnes is a watch-fobbed, top-hat and tails Republican who would be just peachy with ManiacMcCain. He’s so out of touch with the soul of his party it’s laughable.
Fred Barnes, one of the “Beltway Boys”, has opinions that are too close to Washington. He’s definitely a DC wonk.
1) Romney
2) Huckabee
3) McCain
4) Thompson
5) Hunter
and
with NO DELEGATES, tied for 6th: Giuliani and Paul.
In case you hadn't noticed, the media loathes Romney and likes McCain. Reporters think Romney is a stiff and a phony. They give McCain credit for straight talk, though not as much credit as they gave him in 2000.Obviously Barnes is one of those in the media who likes McCain. Much the worse for him.
And by the way, Mr. Barnes, the reason you and your fellow Troskyists like McCain is not because of his "straight talk" but because of his lousy positions on the issues. What's your personal favorite, Mr. Barnes, the bill of rights for terrorists, or the clamping down on free speech of Americans?
You make it sound like he was a dictator, not a governor. Every governor and president who has ever run a county or state where the dems control the congress or state house, has had to cave in on several bill to be able to get some of their own things passed. Overall, Massachusetts is better off because he was the governor and would be in even worse shape if someone from the democrat's side had been there during his stay.
Not a pretty vision.
GO FRED!!!
Mitt forgot the veto, lacks leadership, and supports the liberal agenda. His replacement "Coupe Deval" is not any worse.
Living in NH, we see Mitt's continued socialistic actions in Massachusetts.
hat’s true, McCain is the best candidate.
And so is Her Heinous are which is why the Clintonistas instructed their MSM minions to focus on the economy now. As more than one person in these parts has predicted, the worst economy since Herbert Hoover page of the Klintoon playbook will be read from quite soon.
I’ll be voting for Republican who wins the nomination no matter who it is. If it happens to be McCain, standing in line on voting day will be one of the most depressing times of my life, but I will stick it out and vote against the Democrats.
Fred’s supporters were pulling for Romney in Michigan to open up the race and eliminate any feeling that McCain’s nomination was inevitable.
Now Romney’s supporters are hoping that Fred finishes in 4th behind Romney. If he does, then a large percentage of Fred supporters will probably begrudingly vote for Romney believing that Fred cannot possibly win the nomination.
If Fred finishes second, behind McCain, then who knows what will happen?
I’m a Romney supporter, and I hope Thompson wins in South Carolina. I realize Romney won’t win there, so I want the best choice out of the rest of the field to win, and take out a couple of the poor choices.
‘Romney defeated John McCain because the economy is emerging as the overriding issue in the 2008 presidential race, and Romney’s message on the subject is stronger than McCain’s. And Romney is far more comfortable and persuasive in talking about the economy.’
Just another example of Fred Barnes being a Beltway creature. Just as he completely misread the McCain/Kennedy AMNESTY BILL, he’s misreading the results here.
Its not so much the ‘economy’ as it is REPUBLICANS rejected McCain once again last night.
McCain can’t win a GOP primary without DEMOCRATS voting for him, folks.
Think about it. Then consider just how many pieces of legislation Conseravatives HATE that McCain has co sponsored with DEMOCRATS.
Same here.
Fred Barnes is pro-illegal immigration, and supported the McKennedy Amnesty sell-out. He is supposed to be the “conservative” half of the Beltway Boys, but his positions aren’t usually much different than Kondrake’s.
The MSM prefers McLame to Mitt, the MSM prefers liberals.
Fred Barnes’ backing of that terrible amnesty bill was a bad, bad, midjudgement by him.
Lol, If those Troskyites hate him, he's a friend of mine!
He has nearly twice as many delegates as the two democrats running as republicans. He’s polling in at least second place in almost every state coming up. It’s ridiculous.
I had a coffee this morning, grabbed the paper and took a Fred Barnes.
“lacks leadership”
Ok, you’ve lost all credibility, seriously.
“McCain is the best candidate” for a trip to Bellvue.
Both of them, no doubt, consider themselves "common sense moderates".
McCain has never won a plurality of Republicans in a presidential primary. Not in 2008. Not in 2000.
And I'm guessing that record is going to go unbroken throughout the 2008 process.
John McCain will not be the GOP nominee for President in 2008. Or ever.
Exactly.
Mitt PING!
Not to worry, it will be a very short line.
NH is a joke. Are you guys convinced yet that your primary matters not?
You've hit on one of my biggest problems with McStrain. He would project a stong military posture, but continue to tie the hands of our military and clap them in irons for doing their jobs.
.
How can they say Mitt isn't the front Runner?
Mitt leads in delegates, won 2 out of 4 states, finished in top 2 in every contest, has the most popular votes, is chosen by more Republicans, and yet he is still not the front runner? Yeah, the MSM hates Mitt
The mathematics say Romney retains the lead up to Feb 5th PROVIDED there are no changes to the current Florida rules for delegate award that says they are NOT statewide WTA.
If they change, then the winner will jump into the lead. If they do not change, odds are extremely high that Romney will retain the lead up to Feb 5th.
ROFLAMO!!!!!!
Thank you!
See post #37. Your numbers are somewhat dated.
Well I don’t hate Governor Romney but he won’t be getting my vote.
Being less ‘moderate’ than Senator McCain is like being the most virtuous whore in the room - it’s not hard to do and I wouldn’t brag about it.
Conservative don’t want government run, managed, or mandated health care.
Conservative don’t think the Boy Scouts of America should be forced to let in leaders who don’t meet their moral criteria.
Conservatives don’t sit on popular consensus as a reason to fight for the status quo on anything, especially RTL. Conservatives articulate ideas and lead!
Conservatives don’t think the AWB is a good idea.
Conservatives don’t attend Planned Parenthood fundraisers.
Conservatives stand up and fight for strong judges instead of nominating ‘moderates’ who are easier to get through the approval process.
Conservatives don’t hide tax increases as fees.
Mitt had over 800 vetoes in MASS. If Bush had done the same we wouldn't have lost in 06. Methinks you don't know too much about your neighbor Mitt. So is it ignorance, notwthstanding your "geographic proximity", or are you just intentionally lying?
McCain might as well be a democrat. I believe you are a liberal and vote democrat anyways.
After reading his article, I’ve concluded that Barnes is an idiot. My 18 year old autistic son would have formed more substantive views.
Have you ever met Mitt? Sat down & had a discussion w/ him? Do you really know who he is & what he stands for, or have you just read what’s been written in the MSM, & made your conclusions from that?
There have been MANY bastions of conservatism that have met w/ Mitt & then either supported or endorsed him, or openly called him a conservative. Now, who are we to believe? Those who have studied his record, met w/ him personally, & then concluded his conservative credentials, or believe some here who have never even met the man & just repeat what’s been reported in the conservative annals such as the Boston Globe?/sarc.
If you’re thinking about a retort that would include his perceived record in Ma., please also include your feelings & evidence of Reagan’s record in Ca. as Governor. Reagan raised taxes by 1 billion as Governor. Hardly conservative by most standards. Would that mean that Reagan wasn’t a conservative? NO! Reagan came from one of the most liberal states in the union & was an actor to boot! He did a lot of compromising in Cali. just as he did as POTUS. But yet, Reagan is often considered the standard bearer of conservatism, & rightly so.
Many had to meet w/ Reagan personally after his Governorship in Ca. before they were converted to his commitment to the cause. Many have had to do likewise w/ Romney, & have come away converted in like manner.
Now, I’m NOT calling Romney a Reagan. But many whom I trust to carry the conservative banner have said he is conservative. Forgive me, but I trust them more than the armchair qb’s here. They’ve actually met the man! The flips don’t ever bother me as much as flops. Many of my views have evolved over the years as my perspective has changed. Mitt has stated likewise. I admire a man more who is willing to admit mistakes & change, than a man who realizes his mistakes but won’t change due to pride or political expediency.
I hope to meet Mitt upon his next visit here. Until then I will trust those who have a better perspective of the man than I do after having met w/ him, those whom I’ve trusted over the years. Makes more sense to me than the MSM attitude that is often so pervasive here. I’m disappointed Fred isn’t doing more in this election cycle, so a lot of my eggs are in the Romney basket at this point. I hope both kick butt in SC. This nation can ill afford McCain or Huckabee.
I think Mitt is going to focus on Nevada rather than South Carolina where he can't win. In that case a strong showing from Fred would be good for both campaigns and good for the party. McCain or Huckabee are both disasters.
Apparently, the FL GOP made rule changes in August. See this article. However, I have not found an official site that quotes the rule, just several news articles referring to it. The rule change was referred to as "Article M".
Thank you I guess the list I looked at was not updated!
Florida already says the winner takes all according to RealPolitics. 2nd place gets nothing in Florida.
See, this kind of stuff is for unfunded candidates. A proper organization can fight in all 50 states and win delegates in all of them. Weak organizations try to grab all the delegates in a few states and become President of Florida instead of the US.
We’ll see. Wikipedia makes changes like that quickly. They still show it as non statewide WTA so . . . there were stories of Michigan and SC being WTA too, but the wiki said no and was right.
Okay I have just checked the articles referenced above.
They say the all or nothing scenario COULD unfold. They do not say it has already been decided.
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.