Posted on 11/06/2007 9:56:25 AM PST by jaybeegee
It is more Mayberry RFD than Boston.
So is Iowa.
So is Fred.
Your first post on this thread: “Stocks in pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis, who manufactures the powerful Ambien prescription sleep aid, have dropped significantly in reaction to this news. Iowa Department of Heath officials have warned residents to avoid using heavy machinery or operating a vehicle during or immediately after viewing any of the Fred Thompson advertisements.”
Your second post on this thread: “Yes. I’m afraid that you, and those like you, are incapable of engaging in debate about the candidates and their respective campaigns without a bunch of idiotic and juvenile namecalling of your fellow FReepers.”
You can post provocative slams like your first post, or you can mount an appeal for constructive debate. You can’t credibly do both — neither candidates nor FReepers can have it both ways without being called on it.
Spif, you have nothing to debate... You support a RINO.
Because Mitt has sunk a small fortune in Iowa.....and has almost no chance of winning the South.
” Because Mitt has sunk a small fortune in Iowa.....and has almost no chance of winning the South.”
Yes he does. RCP poll average has him even in SC with Fred and Rudy.
And Romney’s cash on hand is as much as Fred’s these days.
It’s not just about money, its about hustle - working day and night to get to voters let them ask you themselves and find out about you. Mitt did 450 events this year. Fred’s done 60 as of last week.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921824/posts
Well, if Sir Willard Mitty did 450 events to Fred’s 60, it sure sounds like Mitt isn’t coming across very well with voters, does it? Not getting much of a payoff from all of those stops.
Mitt better go back to the drawing board and change his image again......;-)
“Well, if Sir Willard Mitty did 450 events to Fred’s 60, it sure sounds like Mitt isn’t coming across very well with voters, does it?”
Mitt Romney leads in Iowa and NH. That’s what he’s got from his hard campaigning. Check the history of GOP primaries and tell me the last time we had truly contested primaries where one candidate won both.
“Not getting much of a payoff from all of those stops.”
He either wins the nomination or he doesnt. So far he’s gone from middle-of-pack to having best odds of anyone else except Rudy. He leads in IA, NH, SC, and several other early states.
He may have a Dean scream and collapse ... or he may be our nominee. All I can say is that he wont have gotten there by being lazy.
What I appreciate about Romney is knowing that he will put 110% and will have the most effective campaign strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton.
You can’t spend more than a decade convincing the voters of Massachusetts that you’re a reliable liberal, turn on a dime and win the Republican presidential nomination as a conservative two years later. It would be like a transsexual getting off the plane after surgery in Sweden and winning the Miss America contest.
The meaningful part of the primary campaign hasn’t started yet; any poll numbers right now mean nothing. Look for Romney to lose Iowa and disappear like morning mist on a sunny day shortly thereafter.
“It was an attempt at witty commentary”
Don’t give up your day job...
Where do you come up with this utter junk?
“You can’t spend more than a decade convincing the voters of Massachusetts that you’re a reliable liberal” - he never ran as a liberal, he never governed as a liberal, he never was a liberal.
Mitt Romney is a pretty strong candidate to be taking all these hits and still lead in multiple early states.
Conservative endorsement:
As he travels across the country, Governor Romney has outlined a blueprint to build a stronger America rooted in our common conservative principles. With a clear conservative vision to move America forward, he will strengthen our economy, our military and our families. More importantly, he already has an exceptional record of putting conservative values to work. Because of his experience, vision and values, I am proud to support Governor Romney,” said Paul Weyrich.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/263924.aspx
Romney leads in NH:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html
Romney leads in IA:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Romney is slightly ahead even in SC:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_primary-233.html
Romney leads in Michigan:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_republican_primary-237.html
And in the national polls? The story is Rudy’s big lead. Thompson, McCain, Romney and Huckabee are in the 11-16% range.
the conclusion is simple:
- Either Romney’s early state wins will shake up the race and give him the momentum that leads to victory ...
- Or it won’t, in which case Rudy wins.
Looking at the race and the polls 8 weeks out from the first primary, it is difficult to see a scenario where Fred Thompson (or for that matter Huckabee or McCain) actually wins. They might score enough of an upset to make Romney stumble, but the net result would only be a victory for Rudy.
‘You can’t spend more than a decade convincing the voters of Massachusetts that you’re a reliable liberal, turn on a dime and win the Republican presidential nomination as a conservative two years later. It would be like a transsexual getting off the plane after surgery in Sweden and winning the Miss America contest.”
OK. So the conservative Republican voters will give the victory to the pro-abortion, gun-grabbing, gay-pride-march-walking, thrice-married-deadbeat-Dad, sanctuary-city, ex-NewYork mayor Rudy Guiliani. who once said that Clinton’s domestic policies were pretty much his policies.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Neither Romney nor Rudy is a plausible Republican candidate. The conclusion is simple, someone else will win. The GOP isn’t going to nominate a Northeastern liberal, which is what both men undoubtedly are.
If you truly believe that Romney didn’t run or govern as a liberal you need to do some homework. Check out the video of the debates from 1994 and 2002. The moment in ‘94 when Mitt disavowed any connection with the Reagan legacy is more than enough to prove my point. Romney ran for office in the most liberal state in the union promising not to rock the boat. For the most part he delivered.
Polls will mean nothing for another six weeks. If you want to know how each candidate is likely to do you need to consider the fundamentals. Who are these guys and how will voters likely react to them when they start paying attention. Romney’s fundamentals are extremely weak.
Any fair evaluation of Romney’s political career leads to the conclusion that he values no principle as highly as he values his own ambition. Watch that ‘94 debate and ponder his answer when asked about his faults. Mitt’s self-absorption and self-satisfaction are frightening. Maimonides famously asked “if I am only for myself, what am I?” At last we have the definitive answer — Mitt Romney.
Massive self-absorption doesn’t sell. Romney hasn’t mastered Clinton’s trick of disguising it. In sum, he can’t win any primaries outside his own backyard, let alone a general election.
You want scenarios, here’s one. Fred wins Iowa and rides the bounce to NH where he finishes with surprising strength. Then he wins South Carolina and Florida. Game over. After he loses Iowa Mitt’s candidacy deflates like a popped balloon and before Michigan votes he’s out of the picture. Before Giuliani gets to any primary where he can be competitive the race is already over.
Snuggle up to those polls but don’t kid yourself that they mean Romney is a strong candidate. He isn’t. You had better start considering your fallback positions.
You are ingoring and tilting facts to the point of confusion and utter wishful thinking. You are missing the #1 fundamental regarding Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani - they are leaders with executive experience and successful track records.
You know 911 and NYC Rudy. Now here’s SLC-saver Romney:
http://www.greatdreams.com/2008/mitt_romney.htm
Romney first gained national attention when he served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999 the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis. “There are contingency plans in place already in case we could not meet our revenue goals that we would scale back the budget accordingly and keep these Games on budget,” said United States Olympic Committee Executive Director Dick Schultz at the time. The Games were also rocked by scandal as damaging allegations of bribery were made against top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.[9]
The 2002 Winter Games were on the verge of becoming a national disaster and a global embarrassment. The event needed new leadership, and the SLOC launched a search for a new Olympic chief. “The candidate I’m looking for,” SLOC chairman Bob Garff said at the time, “is the white knight who is universally loved.”[10]
On February 11, 1999 the committee named Romney the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake City Games. He was charged with restoring faith in the beleaguered event, and rescuing the Olympics from failure.[10] Romney revamped the organization’s leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[11] Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million.
“Romney and his group here, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, did one of the great organizing jobs of all time,” said NBC Sports Chairman Dick Ebersol.[12] Following the conclusion of the Games, then-US Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta congratulated the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, “who under Mitt Romney’s leadership, hosted perhaps the best Winter Olympic Games ever.”[13] President George Bush also praised Romney’s management of the Games. “Mitt, you did a fabulous job,” said the President at a White House ceremony recognizing the Salt Lake City Olympics.[14]
Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated all three years of the salary he earned as President and CEO ($275,000 per year) to charity.[15] He wrote a book about his experience called Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.
He has the right strategy and right message in these. I think it will get lots of people talking.
Fred bump
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.