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.
I agree that this is a problem for Romney. However, he seemed to be much more authentic in his famous religion speech. If only he could look more like that tonight.
show those sme figures on how Guliani is the republican front runner!! LOL
Aren’t we all?
Yes, perhaps you missed the context or my text in parentheses where I say that supporting a candidate based on religious preference or any other all-but-meaningless reason is also bigotry. I should perhaps clarify that I'm stating that meaningless reason for support or opposition should be a dominant factor in the decision. The text of many on here (and thankfully thus far this does not include you) makes me believe Romney's Mormonism is the driving force behind their decision to support someone else. That, in my opinion, is bigotry, where a political decision is made not on the merits of the candidate, but on how much he looks like you (you used in an overall sense, not directed at you personally).
Absolutely I would vote for a Muslim, if that candidate had policies that I believed were the best for the United States, understood and promised to uphold our laws, and had no character issues that lead me to believe he or she is unqualified for the position. I judge the character of an individual by their actions, not by some label they give their beliefs.
My position on bigotry is not "knee-jerk", as you would label it. I believe that any time anyone takes irrelevant factors into a decision making process, they are exhibiting bigoted behavior. What church Romney attends has such a minuscule bearing on how he'll perform in the office of the President that using that as a decision making factor is ridiculous, in my opinion. If his religion has an impact on his policies, and you disagree with those, fine. That's all well and good. Those who use solely his choice of religion as a determining point in their decision as to who to support for President are bigots, same as if they voted based on the candidate's race, or the brand of suit a candidate wore at a debate, or whether his middle name starts with a vowel or a consonant. There are plenty of ways to distinguish between candidates without having to resort to petty, useless and bigoted methods of doing so. Watching members of a forum made up of mostly informed and intelligent people resort to such bigotry is disgusting to me, and makes the rest of us look like undereducated, unthinking reactionary hicks by association.
The Romney Sleaze Machine
It is very important for Romney NOT to let McCain's "People, can't you see that I am the only adult here" attitude get to him. Romney gets miffed easily. Romney needs to get the body language and psychological demeanor of one who is the ONLY conservative left standing.
Mitt needs to hit hard on the reasons we fear a McCain presidency.
-- "I fear my opponent does not understand the danger of our open borders."
-- "My opponent doesn't realize that one major thing holding down public education and keeping health care costs high is the free services we are providing for the millions of illegal aliens and their children, people who are breaking the law just by being here."
-- "Senator McCain believes that the cost of lettuce would rise if we hired Americans and legal immigrants to work in our fields. That's about what slaveowners were saying in the 19th century about the high cost of farming without slaves." etc.
Except for the fact you seem to agree with Coulter's analysis of Romney's letter seeking gay support you would know one reason why I don't have a lot or respect for her. Her penchant for vulgarities as quoted in your post is another reason she doesn't get my respect. Someone with something smart to say doesn't need to use that kind of language.
But that is a pretty good spin, isn't it? You take a letter which in context implies that gays have been victimized by society and promises to fight for them, and massage it to make it appear that it's only a statement of fact that would impress no one to whom it was written. The reason real conservatives would be bothered by that letter is that it implies that gays don't have equal rights, and that for them to have equal rights we need new laws so they can do everything they want to do.
I am certainly in favor of equal rights for everyone including gays, but I'm not going to write a letter seeking their support pretending to support their misguided understanding of rights like Romney did. If one can't see that as pandering, he will swallow anything.
This is exactly the reason why Romney cannot win in November. This kind of material (which is abundant, but is being down played now due to circumstances) will all come out in the general election. The Democrats have no reason to withhold it. When Romney claims to be pro-family, the Democrats will trot this out to remind voters of his willingness to pander for votes. Then when Romney and supporters like Coulter make this defense, it will do nothing but make them look silly, just as Coulter looks silling for making such a ridiculous argument now.
Of course some will eat it up, but not enough to put Romney over the top in November.
I noticed you’re invoking “Georgia” for your posts. I never realized it was such a good-looking font.
Who are you for, if I might ask?
All I remember from the Keating 5 deal was McCain got some free jet rides, that was a looong time ago, 16 yrs or so?
Not to mention all those missing “W” keys on the computer key boards. I’m still waiting for the vandalism charges to be filed....
My thoughts EXACTLY.
Thanks for that one. I’ll try to catch up! :-)
Come on, camp Romney... THINK!
"In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him. Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $1.3 million (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating.
This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the Keating Five."
The fact that you think a persons' religion is an "irrelavant factor" shows that you have an intolerance for those who do not consider it irrelavant. That is the very definition of bigotry, even if you cannot agree. It is not that religion is the sole criterion of judgment, but to some it is an important one.
I don't know of anyone asking anyone to judge Romney solely on his religion. In fact I don't ask anyonee to base their judgment on religion at all. However, it is foolish to think that if Mormon's vote for Romney 8 out of 10 times, that there won't be some who vote against him because they aren't Mormons. It probably won't wipe out the pro-Mormon vote, but it may very will equal it.
Voting for Huckabee is voting for McCain. Huckabee can’t win and if it ends up in a brokered convention his delegates will go to McCain.
It’s McCain vs. Romney, and the only way to defeat McCain is to vote for Romney, not Huckabee.
Thems the choices.
I don't like any of the remaining candidates, but I think McCain has the best chance of beating the Democrats in November.
I was pulling for Thompson before he dropped out. I thought he was the only conservative in the race that had a chance at winning in November. With him out of the race now, I'm left with choosing the best of the worst.
But (save for Ron Paul) I will vote in November for whoever wins the nomination. I wish there was a way for everyone to lose.
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.