Mitt Romney's Feb. 5 Strategy

Mitt Romney's advisers now have their final blitz mapped out. Confront McCain squarely on his past record. Play up, subtly, the generational differences between the two candidates. Put the fear of God in activists. “We’ll fight for another week and hope the conservatives realize they have to come together or have McCain as their nominee."

The strategy eschews big states and concentrates on smaller states where the delegate selection processes favor conservatives. They include Colorado, a caucus state, West Virginia, Alaska (which is why Romney mentioned McCain's support for ANWR drilling last night), and Oklahoma and Georgia, two states where delegates can be extracted from congressional districts.

The goal is to minimize the delegate gulf between McCain and Romney headed out of Feb 5 and give Romney a pretext to continue to campaign if McCain suddenly falters.

Romney's chief strategist, Alex Gage, writes in a memo obtained by this column that only a small shift among conservatives in many states could swing a whole lot of momentum towards Romney.

As we move towards February 5th, it’s worth taking a close look back at exit polling from the past few primaries. The coalitions that John McCain assembled in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have been strikingly similar—and are strikingly tenuous. Public polling shows McCain ahead in many states, but we are now in a two-man race and a few points’ movement among conservatives is all that’s needed to tip the scales in favor of Gov. Romney. In all three states where he was victorious, McCain’s margin of victory rested on moderates, self identified independents, and voters who disapprove of the Bush administration. None of these groups is a majority of the Republican electorate. In fact, every GOP primary this year has been at least 55% conservative, 61% Republican, and 50% supportive of the Bush administration— explaining why McCain has failed to win more than 36% of the vote in any of them.

The McCain formula for success worked in a divided field when conservatives was fractured, but even a small coalescence of conservatives around Gov. Romney would reveal his support as a coalition too small to win the nomination of the Republican party.

Conservatives, self-identified Republicans, and voters who approve of President Bush are likely to be majorities of the electorate in all of the February 5th states. It is therefore easy to see how
we defeat McCain in a two-main race by focusing on traditional Republican primary voters.
We still have an uphill battle in front of us—the mainstream media is ready to anoint John McCain and he will have advantages in many states from running for president for the past eight years— but Gov. Romney has a clear path to victory on February 5th and beyond.

Comments

John McCain doesn't support drilling in ANWR.

Posted by JC | January 31, 2008 4:38 PM

You mean opposition to ANWR.

Posted by Anonymous | January 31, 2008 4:38 PM

Sounds nice, but it's not going to happen. The GOP has its nominee.

Posted by NHCt | January 31, 2008 5:03 PM

I predict that Mitt gets at least 10,000 votes.

Posted by Paul | January 31, 2008 5:04 PM

Hello short sited GOPers. Think Reagan and look ahead 4 or 8 years.

Posted by Scott R. | January 31, 2008 5:37 PM

Not only is McCain against ANWR, but Romney said in the debate "he's opposed to drilling in ANWR, I believe. If I'm correct -- correct me, Senator" and McCain did not correct him.

Posted by Anonymous | January 31, 2008 5:39 PM

It's an incredible thing to witness RINOs, liberals, so-called independents and the MSM selecting the GOP's nominee.

What an incredibly fortunate set of circumstances for John McCain. If not for all the non-conservative primary voters along with a a very crowded field splitting the vote 3,4, and 5 ways - he would be out of the race.

Conservatism is in very bad shape.

Posted by slick | January 31, 2008 5:48 PM

Serious question for Republicans out there.

Exactly how can you consider Romney conservative? As governor of Massachusetts he was supported gun control, supported gay rights (and only later offered half-hearted opposition to gay marriage), raised thousands of fees, did little or nothing to promote business growth, and absolutely gutted the Republican party. At the end of his term, Republicans had the lowest number of seats in the state House of Representatives and state Senate in history *and* the lowest number of registered Republicans in history.

Have his stances all magically changed? Was he lying then? Is he lying now? Who is this man and how on God's green earth could you ever imagine he is "conservative"?

I am truly curious.

And, by the way, I am dying for him to win your nomination, because he will be trounced, whereas McCain at least has a chance to win.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | January 31, 2008 5:48 PM

Romney barely lost in Florida and it was only after Governor Crist endorsed McCain last minute. Romney needs more name recognition. McCain has huge weaknesses, scandals, and vulnerabilities. He has ruined his "straight talk express". Romney may have to be the candidate to come in and save the republican party and the fact that he is the only candidate to save the economy is just a bonus. His views on immigration and Iraq will hit home with most voters. This race is not over. It is still opening up. McCain is old and explosively emotional. He can't be trusted to represent our country. Romney has the education and expertise to make us proud. He is the best candidate to win the presidency.

Posted by James | January 31, 2008 6:02 PM

McCain looked and sounded like an old man desperately in need of a nap at last night's CNN debate.

He'd be finished right now if Mike Huckabee wasn't willing to sell his soul to be on a losing VP ticket this fall.

McCain is an embarrasment. He has a third grade temperament and has been trading on his POW story from nearly four decades too long. Okay, we get it, you were 'tied up'.

Pride always comes before the fall, and this old man better strap on and put on the Depends, because he's in for a very rough month.

Posted by Eldon | January 31, 2008 6:21 PM

Huckleberry is McCain's secret to success. The Evangelical's are splitting the conversative vote even though Huckleberry doesn't stand a change in hell in winning anything but the VP position (but what about Rudy?).

Remove Hucklleberry and Romeny wins...I blame Iowa they are incompentent to pick a president and the GOP will have 8 years to remember that a big tent party can't kick out people that aren't evangelical w/o proper reason...and imho being mormon is a sufficient reason...

Posted by ClubbieTim | January 31, 2008 6:59 PM

Better Donate to Mitt!

It's time for conservatives to put up or shut up. Romney has put $40 and now some more to keep the Republican party from being moved to the center left. His candidacy is our last hope or this party will become the party of McCain, Guliani and Arnold!

Posted by BHS | January 31, 2008 7:01 PM

Eldon - The one Republican polician which has any respect this side of the Pond is John McCain . I would suspect that holds good for most of the world . Personally although I respect greatly McCain and acknowledge he has the best chance of beating Clinton I hope Huckabee wins the nomination or at the very least is on the ticket .
To be sure what would be catastrophic for the Republican Party and for the USA is for Mitt Romney to win the nomination . In the secret Mormon Temple rituals he was annointed a king , in other rituals he participated in a ceremony which depicted the Christian minister as being in the hire and pay of Satan and in another ceremony he paticipated in mock throat slitting . We all know Mitt Romney's Mormon followers are very active blogging - I just ask you for one minute to reflect and be objective . Do you think that the Clinton machine would be silent about these horrible and bizarre practices of Romney ? Do you think the Clinton machine would be silent about Romney consenting to the secret Mormon practice of baptizing dead holocaust victims ?

The best hope of defeating Hilary is a McCain/Huckabee ticket although my heart would want the other way round .

So you Southerners if you can allow a Brit to encourage you deliver the South for Huckabee and ensure he is on the ticket so Hilary is stopped

Posted by Andrew Price | January 31, 2008 7:03 PM

If McCain is nominated, I cannot vote for him in good conscience. I will not be holding my nose on election day.

Posted by Eric | January 31, 2008 7:06 PM

Alaska (which is why Romney mentioned McCain's support for ANWR drilling last night)

Ass-backwards. Romney supports the people of Alaska in their desire to continue to be a major energy exporter to a nation that desperately needs their product, just as he supports the right of California to vote on silly Green Laws if they want. McCain joins the "We Know what's best for Alaska" Jews in the Senate, and the block of Senators in the Northeast that enmass oppose Alaskans exploring for and producing oil, and who oppose looking for oil and gas elsewhere.
The Northeasterners also oppose nuclear, and wind power if it is near a fellow Senator's vacation home.

*******************
McCain looked and sounded like an old man desperately in need of a nap at last night's CNN debate.
He'd be finished right now if Mike Huckabee wasn't willing to sell his soul to be on a losing VP ticket this fall.

Agree, and the delicious irony is that McCain will leave Pastor Huckleberry out in the cold while holding out plum jobs to Rudy and his "dear former Senate friend" Thompson and run a disastrous "I SERVED!!!!! I SUFFERED!!! YOU OWE ME THIS OFFICE!!! Presidential campaign.

******************
If McCain wins, it will be the first time in my life I do not vote for the Republican, though McCains beloved "dear war hero friend" John Kerry sure made it easier on my 2004 choice.
If Pastor Huckleberry, who used anti-Mormon bigotry, is on the ticket, I will vote for the loathsome vermin Hillary with enthusiasm. And hope that McCain is rejected worse than McGovern was - and all his nastiness, stupidity, and treachery is outed in the Presidential campaign. And all his "straight talk" lies that begin deep in his past Naval Career are Outed.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 31, 2008 7:56 PM

Andrew Price....as a Mormon, I can tell you, respectfully, that your analysis is wrong. Your understanding of Mormons is itself understandable... It's a tale that's constantly being retold. You've picked up oddly twisted information from sketchy sources, and now you have concerns. But really. Seriously. Not only do you have it wrong about Mormons, but you have it wrong that it somehow derails Mormons politically. Romney is probably not going to win this one for a multitude of reasons--and the prejudices of some may have a little to do with it. But Mormons are elected Governors, Senators, and congressmen (and not just in Utah), and they don't try and take over the world, or have preclivities for persecuting other Christians, or members of any other religion, or performing any heinous crimes. They're nice people who are 1000 more likely to show up at your doorstep with cookies than so much as give you dirty look for cutting them off on the road.

The proof is in the pudding, they say. The stories you're telling are like campfire ghost stories. They often have a grain of truth mixed in with a pack of nonsense (until the grain of truth is imperceptible except to those who know), they are fun to tell, and to freak yourself out about, but it's just silliness. And as scared as you may be at night while telling the tale, when the sun comes up and you can see that the scary shadows and shades were just rocks and stumps and other harmless ordinary things you realize were being absurd.

But even more fun is the following conjecture: Even if members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did everything you alleged, and somehow all it does is either (1) leave them unchanged or (2) encourage them to be nice, honest, and helpful to others--how is that bad. Maybe more people should be doing whatever it is the Mormons are. It doesn't seem to hurt. If you have Mormon friends (which is in doubt) I invite you talk and interact with them and judge accordingly.

Posted by Bryan | January 31, 2008 8:21 PM

We all know that Romney is much more conservative than McCain, McCain might as well be a liberal, he plays dirty tricks and it may come back to bite him. Romney is the best candidate by far. Romney is the only well-rounded conservative with a chance on winning the presidency.He has more executive experience than any candidate. He is a strong social conservative. He has vision for change He can turn around other mistakes made prior to his taking the Job. He has done it to Bain Capital, Olympics, MA. Huge deficit, Big Dig Fiasco, and he'll do the same in Iraq. Romney has a lot to be proud of, McCain is full of it though. Any true conservative will vote for Romney.

Posted by Andrew King | January 31, 2008 9:48 PM

Hey Andrew, I would love to elect a man that is seen as a potential king in the eyes of God! I think it is also admirable that he (and the rest of those Mormons) care enough about people who have long since passed on from this life to want to make sure they have had the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ through baptism. By the way, that practice is biblical (look it up in
1 Corinthians 15:29) Those of you who think our beliefs are weird, I know nothing I say will make a difference, you will just keep slamming your doors in the faces of our missionaries, and spreading lies about us on the internet, but you shouldn't be ridiculing that which you haven't taken the time learn about from those of us who believe in these sacred things. Even if Mitt doesn't win this contest, I guarantee he will do just fine in the eternal scheme of things. By the way Andrew, the anti-Mormon movies and books that you get your information from are just as distorted and untrue as John McCains false claims about Gov. Romney's position on Iraq.

Posted by little miss moffitt | January 31, 2008 9:49 PM

My comment was directed to Andrew Price, not Andrew King. I really appreciated Andrew King's comment, but he was writing it the same time I was writing mine. Sorry about the confusion.

Posted by little miss moffitt | January 31, 2008 9:51 PM

I agree with the "two man race" philosophy outlined above. In that scenario, Mitt has a chance.

Unfortunately, it is not a two-man race. It is a three-man race, with the conservatives split between the smart ones (Mitt supporters) and the bible bashers (Huckabee supporters).

If those sheep would wake up and vote for somebody who is like them who actually has a chance, Mitt would stand a fighting chance.

I still think the minister is still in the race so he can go back to his congregation and tell the legendary story of how he stopped the MORMON (gasp!) from getting the white house.

That should be good for some hallelujahs (and not a few bucks in the plate) for years to come.

I have a feeling that I'll vote on Feb 5, and on Feb 6 I'll be ashamed to be an American.

Posted by cprince | January 31, 2008 10:09 PM

Last week, I could have held my nose and voted for McCain if he were the nominee. But after seeing him blatantly lie about Romney in a desperation to ensure he gets the nomination he has been over for almost a decade, I cannot vote for John McCain for president in November.

Here's hoping the conservatives come to their senses and rally around Romney before it's too late.

Posted by Joseph Antley | January 31, 2008 10:11 PM

A reply to Charles Giacometti.

Romney strongly supports the 2nd amendment...he has however expressed a need for some limits on lethal assault weapons. He understands, as the founding fathers, that the best protection against government tyranny is for the citizens to have the right to bear and keep arms.

Mitt vigorously opposes gay marriage. He did everything possible to fight the court ruling in Mass. that permitted this perversion. The liberal legislature refused to put gay marriage on the ballot even though the good people of Mass requested it. Mitt sided with the people of Mass to have it on the ballot but knowing that gay marriage would be rejected and voted down by the people again the liberal legislature refused.

Hey Charles, you try to eliminate a $3 billion deficit without raising taxes. Raising a few fees is what Mitt did and lowered taxes again and again. All the while battling against the most liberal political opponents on this earth. Business's eventually came to Mass. when they realized there was finally an executive who was pro-growth and anti-tax.

Huckabee supporters: Know this that a vote for Huck is a vote for liberal McCain and consequently a vote for Republican defeat this November. Huck and Mitt have the same values....only Mitt has a realistic chance of beating the Broken straight talk express.

Posted by Bruce W. | January 31, 2008 10:35 PM

Since when did being a republican mean we have to be idiots when it comes to the environment? TR was the iconic republican, but he understood the need to preserve the nations heritage for future generations. We don;t need the oil that bad, like George Bush himself said, we need to cut our depenedence on oil cold turkey. Drilling ANWR is just enabling a bad, destructive oil habit

Posted by Teddy Roosevelt | February 1, 2008 12:54 AM

While I am a supporter of Dr. Paul, I can say in Mitt Romney's favor that he has balanced a budget whereas John McCain has never accomplished the same. Anybody who has the discipline to balance a governmental budget is conservative enough for me. Balanced budgets inherently force conservative choices upon all parties.

Mitt, I have a suggestion - just ask John simple economic questions. His answers will get you elected. Also, the next time John publicly puffs his chest as a military hero and commander-in-chief just ask him what he would do if America was attacked right now and we didn't know who did it. John's answer would reveal that he is no more equipped to make CIF decisions than you are.

Mr. Huckabee, you made a good run. You didn't try to become a spoiler, that's just how it ended up. Now stop playing the spoiler and go back home.

Posted by Craig L. Williams | February 1, 2008 1:09 AM

One more observation about Andrew Price's comment. He says everyone supports McCain "on this side of the pond". I too am on "this side of the pond", and as a proud Brit it is obvious to me that Mitt Romney would make a much greater contribution to the good of the world. He has a thought-through nuanced approach to muslim extremism; he will tackle global economic pressures with skills born of experience. He will set a personal ethical and moral tone that will do nothing but good.
I know of many strong Romney supporters here. The BBC takes a classic MSM position, but there are plenty who see through it. And not every Brit is an evangelical Christian like Andrew Price, who is clearly willing to make whatever distortions that he needs to about a religion in order to reinforce a dreadful bigotry.

Posted by Lee Sheppard | February 1, 2008 2:02 AM

Here is the dirty big secret that Dick Morris, the Democrats and liberal media do not want McCain and Huckabee supporters to understand until AFTER the Republican primary is over:

1. a vote for Huckabee at this point in the race is a vote for McCain. Huckabee cannot win the primary and is almost out of money.

2. a vote for McCain in the Primary is a vote for Obama or Clinton in the general election.

McCain cannot win the general election and McCain knows that without the base of the Republican party he, like Dole before him, will loose. The base will never support liberal McCain. Anyone voting on super Tuesday and beyond who is considering McCain or Huckabee needs to think long and hard about the impact of their vote. If you prefer President Obama or Clinton over Romney, then vote for McCain or Huckabee my friends.

ALL REPUBLICANS NEED TO FLOOD THE INTERNET WITH THIS MESSAGE, SHARE AND DEBATE IT WITH MCCAIN AND HUCKABEE SUPPORTERS AND TAKE BACK OUR PARTY………WE CAN WIN THE WHITEHOUSE IN ‘08!! GO MITT!!!!

Posted by Fairness | February 1, 2008 2:28 AM

How could any moderates and liberals backs war monger McCain. McCain wants to bomb Iran and stay in Iraq for 100 years and promised for more wars. McCain says he wants interest rates to be ZERO out of complete ignorance for how interest rates affect the economy. I'd like to see him say that to retirees on a fixed income. McCain want 10 million illegal immigrants to stay permanently and legal immigrants who can vote do not support it. How could this country be secure if he is in power??? If McCain is nominee, as a republican I would rather vote Clinton than McCain. As least we know Clinton has some intelligence and lead the booming economic. McCain will lead this country to a total ruin with his lack of intelligence and no executive experience. Mitt Romney is an expert in economics and finance and is the man we need as president.

Posted by linda | February 1, 2008 11:14 AM

The simple thing to do to access who is the most conservative candidate is look at "who is endorsing who". Romney is gathering all the conservative votes. McCain gets Guiliani and the Governor of California and well just look it up. Do your homework Look at the endorser's records too. It may help you out.

Posted by Wendy73 | February 1, 2008 11:36 AM

Mormons and Evangelicals need to get over their bickering and think about this nation for a change. If you are a conservative then get behind Romney and lets get a Ronald Reagan conservative in the White House. Pride goeth before the fall. I see jealousy and envy and pride raising its ugly head.

Posted by Susan | February 1, 2008 11:42 AM

Reply to Bruce W.:

Thanks for trying, but you are quoting from Romney's press releases, nothing more and nothing less.

Apropos Craig Williams and the balanced budget nod to Romney. He couldn't have done anything but balance the budget. The Massachusetts Constitution requires it.

Thanks for trying, but you guys are falling for the Romney PR machine. It's pretty simple. He either is a liberal who is lying now, or he is a conservative who was lying when he ran for office in Massachusetts. I don't think either is particularly palatable. I actually think he is neither. He just wants to win, and will say anything.

He destroyed the Republican party in Massachusetts. (You won't find that tidbit in his press releases, Bruce!) If he wins the presidency, he will finish the job of destroying the party nationally that W. has already--and very effectively started. Good luck to all of you!

Posted by Charles Giacometti | February 1, 2008 11:53 AM

Charles,

If Romney is indeed as liberal as you suggest, wouldn't that make you more in favor of him? Just curious.

Posted by Alvin | February 1, 2008 12:33 PM

Charles,

If Romney is indeed as liberal as you suggest, wouldn't that make you more in favor of him? Just curious.

Posted by Alvin | February 1, 2008 12:34 PM

Charles-Mitt Romney is the furthest thing from supporting Gay Marraige. He has always been anti-abortion. Here is the real answer. Mitt Romney like me is not pro-homosexuality. He is a Mormon, so am I. We like Jesus believe that homosexuality is a sin. On the issue of Abortion. Mitt Romney and I are never, never, ever going to be Pro-Abortion. The media has spun it this way, but as a Latter-day Saint who served a two year mission, when we had a baptismal candidate who had previously had an abortion, they had to be interviewed by a top Church authority. Abortion is a Sin.
Now, once I have established that, why did Mitt support the "Agency" or right to choose of women and men who were sinning? Answer-Because God gave us all our "agency" and he has made us responsible for our choices. It is not the Governments place to take away people's right to sin. Some Evangelicals who would blow up Abortion clinics might disagree but God who gave us our "agency" did not disagree.
Now, when Mitt Romney was presented with a new wrinkle on Abortion-such as the use of disposed embryo's for Stem Cell reasearch, he at that point changed his position due to the immorality of this issue. Could you imagine women getting pregant on purpose and again on purpose having an Abortion to sell the fetus for research?
Our Constitution upholds liberty and justice. It also protects the rights of sinners. Now if you want to throw out the Constitution and start over.........????? No, Thank YOU!
Mitt Romney is the real Christian in this race. Look at his family, just look? Who is the happiest person? Who has the happiest family? "by their fruit ye shall know them"
I certify that Mitt Romney is anti-Abortion and anti-homosexuality. He was Governor of Mass!!!!
He did an amazing job with an all liberal State legislature.

Posted by RON | February 1, 2008 1:27 PM

For all McCain's faults, he's still beating Romney, despite the fact that Romney has outspent him 10-1. Those who support Romney need to brace themselves for the final rejection next Tues.

Posted by Publius | February 1, 2008 1:36 PM

At this stage of the primary all that matters is what Republican voters believe Romney or McCain will do AND stand for if they are elected President. Both candidates have changed positions on issues (I could list ten pages of significant issues where McCain has changed his position on that dwarf the number of positions where Romney has changed his position). Furthermore, I defy anyone to demonstrate any issue where Romney has truly "flip-flopped." Governor Romney has "flipped" on some social conservative issues from when he was a candidate for the Senate in Mass and now as a presidential candidate, and I don't doubt those decisions were made primarily for political reasons, most notably his public position on abortion and his new found discovery of the 2nd Amendment and life-time membership in the NRA. I think that strategy by the Romney campaign was foolish to attempt to actively portray himself as something he is not....but it is something that no other candidate is either. However, for Republican primary voters it matters what you think the candidates will do on these issues in the future. As President, both Romney and McCain would support a "pro-life" agenda, but would not go as far as Governor Huckabee in immediately pursuing a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Neither Romney nor McCain would sign off on most of what was contained in the 1994 AWB ("assault weapons ban") but the fact is that even if in the minority the Republicans in Congress are never going to let another bill like that get to a vote and the majority of the politically active public no longer believes banning handguns or firearms would help violence. In short: those above issues are non-starters, irrelevant, don't matter at this stage of the game. This is what matters: Which candidate will make the best executive officer as (1) commander-in-chief, (2) CEO of federal economic and ficscal issues (which includes job creation, taxation policy, entitlement spending reform, and health care and tort reform, (3) chief executive of immigration policy, and (4) a great executive who also has a reputable character. The voters will have to decide these issues; I've lived with Senator McCain for over two decades and I believe that with the exception of #1 above, he would drastically fail to be the better executive in all of the other three areas that I think matter most NOW.

Posted by arizonalawdawg | February 1, 2008 2:08 PM

To LDS soldier RON,
I find it interesting that all of your points are based on your religion, church terminology, and "Christian" banter. For disclaimer, I am an atheist Libertarian republican who would under NO circumstances vote for that pandering, showman, and religious Romney. Also, I don't understand why so many people are enamored of Romney's fertile family. Quite literally, I do not care about the "morality" of a candidate from a pious LDS, or even Christian perspective. Instead, I want an individual who is secularly ethical and makes rational decisions. An atheist homosexual would probably get my vote over Romney, despite the best efforts of him to photo-op with his smiling progeny and egregiously inconsistent record.

Posted by flipflop | February 1, 2008 2:22 PM

Publius:

McCains "lead" has never been significant.

It's not Tuesday yet. Why brace for a "final rejection" when we can fight to avoid it.

Posted by J. Ash | February 1, 2008 2:22 PM

RON: "Mitt Romney is the real Christian in this race."

Ron, the above quote in your post is disgraceful and feeds the reluctance of many people to embrace Romney's candidacy. He already made it clear that he is not bringing religion into his campagin, nor would his Mormon faith or its leaders guide his decisions as President.

RON: "Now, when Mitt Romney was presented with a new wrinkle on Abortion-such as the use of disposed embryo's for Stem Cell reasearch, he at that point changed his position due to the immorality of this issue."

RON, this is just foolhardy political spin. It is true that Romney has always been personally opposed to abortion, but his newly discovered public (government) opposition to abortion was a plain and politically contrived strategy to attempt to attract social conservatives and evangelical christian voters in the South (pure electoral politics). He would have done much better to stick with his personal belief that abortion is wrong but make the case that it is an issue that the Constitution requires to be made by the citizens of each State (he would have come across looking like a good conservative federalist).
I try to call it like I see it and while I believe Governor Romnney is by far the superior choice in the remaining field, he is not the candidate I would create if I could do so from scratch. Finally, while voters can vote for who they believe the best candidate is, at this stage of the primary every vote for Governor Huckabee is a de-facto vote for Senator McCain's nomination.

Posted by arizonalawdawg | February 1, 2008 2:27 PM

arizonalawdawg: "He would have done much better to stick with his personal belief that abortion is wrong but make the case that it is an issue that the Constitution requires to be made by the citizens of each State"

But that is his position. He advocates overturning Roe v Wade, allowing the issue to be decided by the states.

Posted by michael | February 1, 2008 6:21 PM

michael: "But that is his position. He advocates overturning Roe v Wade, allowing the issue to be decided by the states."

He does now believe that Roe v Wade should be overturned (and that he would appoint judges who share that philosophy--which statement presents yet another problem if he does get elected President because the Dems in the Senate will refer back to it and try to "Bork" any nominee he sends up who has expressed any opinion on the issue of whether Roe is still good law), as any intellectually honest constitutional attorney believes as well.

However, my point is that he should probably not have been so public about it when in the past during his race against Senator Kennedy he stated publicly that he supported Roe v. Wade and would take no action (as Mass. Governor) to deny any woman's rights under Roe. Sure it can be explained, but the MSM doesn't spend the time to do it, and his opponents simply use the fact that he changed his position on the issue to label him as a flip-flopper. Much better if he would have simply stated "I have always been personally opposed to abortion. My position as Governor required me to follow the Supreme Court's law (Roe) on the issue. As President, I would instruct the Solicitor General to argue for the repeal of Roe if the appropriate case arises,and allow the citizens of each State decide how they should best regulate the issue of abortion." It's hindsight now, Governor Romney picked up another win in Maine and Tuesday is really going to shake things up - and hopefully shake the Huckster back to Arkansas.

Posted by arizonalawdawg | February 3, 2008 2:21 AM

ArizonaLawDog -

I disagree on several points, but want to focus on one... your priority on illegal immigration.

I understand that illegal immigration is important. I don’t understand its priority in today’s environment. What I mean is that compared to terrorism, IRAQ, and government deficit spending, illegal immigration is NOT of high priority to me… I do believe in closing the borders now, but the issue of some form of amnesty (yes, I will call it Amnesty) is something that needs discussion and then pragmatic execution.

I do not believe its appropriate to tie the issue of illegal immigration to US safety against terrorism. Other than closing the borders, there is minimal link… and therefore, does not trump the more urgent needs such as terrorism, IRAQ, and government deficit spending as I noted earlier. I've seen a lot of focus by conservative commentators, but am still not convinced.

I’m a person with an open mind on issues, but am a moderate Republican. Pragmatic and not idealistic… which I believe makes it difficult for the more conservative part of the party to include me given some of postings I’ve read… however, I do believe in small government, low taxes, reduce gov’t spending, etc… just not all the positions of some of the more conservative voices out there.

Interested in hearing yours or anyone else's thoughts on this.

Posted by Brad | February 4, 2008 6:12 AM