Posted on 01/30/2008 10:02:49 AM PST by jdm
In the wake of the loss in Florida yesterday, Mitt Romney needs to focus on tonight's debate to break out as the conservative choice for the nomination. John McCain has taken leads in significant Super Tuesday states, and tonight will be the last national audience for all of the remaining candidates before 21 states go to the polls or the caucuses. Romney has to ignite conservatives and make this a binary race across a clear ideological line.
Some feel that the moment has already passed. Writers at The Corner and Dick Morris have resigned themselves to a Romney loss before more than 10% of the necessary delegates have been won. Others, like my friend and indefatigable Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt, argue that the numbers show that no one can win next week. The truth lies in between, as Hugh has the numbers correct but avoids acknowledging the role momentum plays.
Romney has one big advantage, but it will only be an advantage this week. He has better organizational strength and more resources. He can be more places at the same time as John McCain, which makes a difference when 21 states hold their contests on the same day. He can get his message across to more people simultaneously after this debate, and do it more often. After February 5th, that becomes far less necessary as we go back to a series of one- or two-state primary dates that stretches into April, when Pennsylvania goes to the polls.
If Romney wants to build momentum and define the race in binary conservative vs moderate terms, he has to start tonight and get aggressively positive about his credentials. He has only a few days in which he can crowd McCain out of the messaging. If he can't do that tonight and for the next five days, he will have little chance of prevailing, especially if McCain takes a big delegate lead next week.
What does McCain need to do? He needs to reach out to conservatives. He started last night with a gracious victory speech, but he needs to address the real and honest concerns on policy that conservatives still have with McCain. They need to see McCain promise to go after the Democrats with the same fervor that he went after Republicans over the years, and he has to convince them that he won't go back on his word on border security and tax cuts. After this debate, he has to make a significant outreach effort, and CPAC would be the best place to do this.
Huckabee is a heck of a nice guy, a fabulous man of God, and a fabulous family man.
Most Americans don’t want a President who promotes his Christianity first, and leaves the nation’s business as an afterthought.
A Huckabee nomination would drive away secular conservatives, Jewish Republicans, Catholic Republicans, and everyone else who believes, like me, that the White House would become a theocracy.
Romney by 21 and 14 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ma/massachusetts_republican_primary-538.html
>Those who claim that mantle are not to be trusted.
Upon what do you base your distrust on Romney?
Romney supports the amendment protecting marriage between one woman and one man. Supporting equal rights for all is not the same thing as supporting gay marriage or promoting a homosexual agenda.
Ann Coulter understands the difference:
I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media -- how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being pro-gays, and that's going to upset the right wingers. Well, you know, screw you! I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against.
I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us. ~~ Ann Coulter
____________________________
Institute For Marriage and Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician." (Maggie Gallagher,"In Defense Of The Family," National Review Online, 6/25/2004)
Jokelahoma,
How many do you suppose will vote for Romney because of his Mormon ties? Are they bigots for voting against someone because he is not a Mormon? That’s what they are doing.
And did you answer my question whether you would vote for a Muslim?
Your kneejerk reaction to hearing that someone would make a person’s religion a consideration in his vote is just as bigoted (if not more) than what you claim to be bigoted. A bigot is one who is intolerant of the views of others. But considering one’s religious views does not make one intolerant. There are many religious views that in my judgment make a person’s judgment questionable. I suspect some would say that my religious views are such. You problably would. But I would not call someone a bigot just because he held that view. That would truly be bigoted.
I heard that 10 minutes before tonights debate a shocking news story is going to break on McCain, He is the love child of M. Thatcher and JFK, concieved in, you guessed er’, meh’ ...ico
McCain be gracious? C’mon, what’s this guy been smoking?
Sooner or later, that moment will come.
McCain seems very subdued in public these days: willpower or Valium.
Notice how we NEVER hear anything about l'affair Keating? I was beginning to think I had hallucinated the whole thing.
Dittos! How about playing a little hardball, FGS?
Surely you jest! I'm not going to repeat what has been documented about a thousand times on FR already. If you don't think I have good reason to question Romney, there is nothing anyone could produce to change your mind.
Oh, but if McCain is our nominee, rest assured the dems and MSM will be talking about it on the nightly news early and often as an example of our alleged corruption and greed. McCain’s Keating 5 baggage, his inside-the-beltway cronies and his unstable temperament will be exploited endlessly.
I’m with you.
No one here has yet to prove that Romney has gone back on a campaign promise once in office. All that they can come up with is that Romney’s PAST positions were flawed.
I can agree with the latter. I don’t see why that means you can’t trust a person who has proven to keep his promises.
I know Romney’s no true conservative. I didn’t know that his negatives are higher than McCain’s. Yes, everyone running at this stage is a liberal, but there is only one EVIL liberal. I’ll vote for anyone to keep the EVIL liberal out.
I'm sorry to be dense, but which story was that? (I can hardly bring myself to read half of these McCain threads, so I guess I'm out of the loop.)
LOL.
Of course that is the ONLY thing that matters to some.
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.