Romney Is Not Out

Don't count out a surprisingly strong showing by Mitt Romney on Tuesday.

For one thing, the polls are very tight; there was no real post-Iowa bounce for John McCain; he was rising before Iowa and seems to have a ceiling at about 35%.)

Romney seems liberated on the trail -- like a hose unbent. He is full of energy; his television ads are excellent; his debate performance last night was stellar.

He has spent more than $10M securing the approval of conservative Republicans, has held more than 40 town hall meetings in the state, has traveled here more than any candidate, is from a neighboring state, has a natural base here.

There are no alternative conservative choices with a shot at winning the nomination.

A lot of voters in Concord this morning told me they were choosing between Romney and Huckabee -- and this was at a McCain event.

And while there are many vestiges of the old McCain, he is more negative, has more baggage,
is still unacceptable on immigration, and was on the air late.

Comments

I sure hope so since there is little doubt that McCain would be a more difficult adversary in the general election but not a chance!

Mark, have been smoking too much of funny stuff with the Romney staffers? He is trying to spin a reasonably close second place (5 pts) as a victory when just a month ago he had a huge lead. That is a meltdown of epic proportions. Yes, there are plenty of Republicans who cannot stomach McCain but there are even more who cannot stomach Mr. Mitt-plastic.

Posted by rts | January 7, 2008 4:40 PM

Marc, "There are no alternative conservative choices with a shot at winning the nomination." Huh? Gov. Huckabee just won IA, has been in a statistical tie for the lead in the nation for a few weeks now, has potentially very strong showing in the states' primaries coming up. I support Gov. Huckabee because he is so conservative... ficon, socon, and on foreign policy and national sovereignty. I've supported him for many months because of his positions as a conservative. I don't understand the misrepresentations of his record except that too many people backed Mitt Romney too early, believing his earnest pleas that he was not the Mitt he appeared to be. We're talking about who is to lead our country, and I want a man who has settled principles and experience that he's not trying to hide.

Posted by Steve L | January 7, 2008 4:43 PM

" I support Gov. Huckabee because he is so conservative... ficon, socon, and on foreign policy and national sovereignty"

LOL!! Ha, that is making me laugh so hard. Where has Stevel L been. do your homework buddy.

huckabee is no fi-con or forieng policy conservative. seriously, what are you smoking? Absolutely hilarious. Delusional.

Posted by John Galt | January 7, 2008 4:54 PM

Steve L:

The short blip of Huckabee's presidential try brought a new word to the political vocabulary: Christian Socialist. We're not sure if you're just joking with your post or not? Two liberals (Rudy and Gomer) vs. two conservatives (Mitt and Fred). Everyone agrees on at least that much.....except you? You need to look at your definition of conservative. You may liberal but don't know it.

Posted by Eric | January 7, 2008 4:59 PM

Mr Ambinder makes some interesting comments here - but I do not know if they are founded in reality. I thought things were 'wide-open' relative to getting the nomination w/ Huckabee taking an advantage with Iowa and way out in front of Romney in national polling.

Now of course, Romney's 'core opposition' numbers are way up there with Hillary's (>45%) and he is less likely to beat the Democrats over any other Republican candidate. As such, I would hesitate to put him up as our guy. In addition, Romney in no way holds to the social conservative arm of the party (which the R establishment could care less about).

Posted by Kevin D | January 7, 2008 4:59 PM

As a NH GOP voter I will never vote for or support Mccain.

His support of amnesty, mccain feingold etc...is unforgivable.

He is an angry miserable old man and the sooner his campaign is ended the better.

F--- U Juan Mccain!

Posted by Bill Braskey | January 7, 2008 5:26 PM

WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE?
John McCain has been in DC for 25 long years. He is a big part of the Washington grid-lock problem. He is aging like a fossil at 71 years old. He has ridden his war hero status for a long time with small results in Congress. Military leadership can hardly translated to excellence in real life management, because you only has one acceptable way to respond to your seniors which is "YES SIR!” How can any one believe he can revitalize the country? He should be getting ready to pack up his office and move to Florida for his retirement.
Reagan changed party and he worked out fine. Pro-life, pro-choice is not the most important issue facing this country. I don’t give a darn if he is a Mormon or a Jew. We need someone to win back the leading role in the world economy. Romney has the records of success to show for. He is a proven winner in both the private and public sectors. You need a successful economy to create jobs.
Huckabee had 14 ethnical violations brought against him relating to finances as governor. Shortly before announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States, Huckabee ordered that the drives of 83 computers and 4 servers be destroyed during his transition phase in leaving office. He raised taxes 21 times and granted clemency to 1033 convicted felons, 12 murderers and rapists. Try to improve his tough on crime image with Chuck Norris. (Give me a break! If they were selling weight lose machine it would be more convincing!) He has a 2 1/2 year of religious higher education and as a minister selling religion for a living with people's donation for 12 years. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_huckabee
Check their bios and decide with the facts, not hearsay.

Posted by John Nobrainer | January 7, 2008 5:33 PM

From one Christian consevative to another please be careful! Gov. Huckabee is like us on abortion and marriage but that is where our common ground ends! Immigration & taxes are big conservative issues too !! He couldn't even answer straight questions last night on the debate, about his record on taxes. He DID raise taxes, he IS soft on immigration and wants to give away our tax dollars to immigrants children for colleg. He cares about the life of the unborn children, but he puts murders back on our streets! This is a social issue, not to speak of a judgement issue! On foreign policy Huckabee is not a conservative and usually doesn't seem to know what he is talking about! God wants us to use our good judgement on voting. A lot is at stake don't be fooled because he talks like a Christian .... he is a different brand of Christian. Look who endorses him! Why doesn't Rush trust him? Why are the Homeschoolers being so cautious!!There are warning signs everywhere!

Posted by MJ | January 7, 2008 5:36 PM

" I support Gov. Huckabee because he is so conservative... ficon, socon, and on foreign policy and national sovereignty"

I think I can taste a little vomit in my mouth...sheesh.

Romney will come out of NH with more delegates than anyone and looking strong. If he wins, then watch out. If he loses big, then he will likely fade over time, but he will not go quietly I'm sure.

Posted by Mike | January 7, 2008 5:39 PM

Folks, that was an honest post. I meant what I said, and one of the happiest days of my life was the night Ronald Reagan won the presidency (my first presidential election I could vote in). I loved R. Reagan when it wasn't cool, and I always have. I followed Gov. Huckabee's campaign a long time, looked carefully at his record myself, even tried to follow up with people who knew him in AK. There have been people in the media I have respected for a long time who have misrepresented his record. I don't know what else to say; it has been sobering to me. If you really are an "old-school" conservative, look at www.mikehuckabee.com for yourself. He has not morphed. His principles have not changed, and he tells the truth. How would you like a guy on public TV to bump your arm, lie about you and misrepresent you, smile, and then expect you to defend yourself in a debate. It's not about substance, but spin. Gov. Huckabee has substance, not handlers.

Posted by Steve L. | January 7, 2008 5:59 PM

"there was no real post-Iowa bounce for John McCain"

Was one expected? He came in fourth place.

Posted by mad6798j | January 7, 2008 6:15 PM

John McCain is the nastiest human being I have ever seen campaign for President.

I do not like him as a man, would not want to have a beer with him and hope he never wins his Senate Seat again.

He needs to come home and find peace to live the rest of his years that way.

Posted by Carolina | January 7, 2008 6:24 PM

Simply put, a vote for McCain tomorrow in NH is a vote for the Dems come November. The reason is that many conservatives will not vote for him.

I am about as conservative as they come, and I know only one person who will vote for McCain (just being honest, my brother in law said he would, albeit grudgingly) Everyone else I know says that they just can't vote for a man who has done so much to fight AGAINST what they believe in.

True, Obama or Hillary would be worse, but there is a point where you say "at least I knew that they were a Democrat, and what they stood for." John McCain was supposed to be on our side.

Figuratively speaking, I would rather fight for the enemy than fight for a traitor. Look around, there are loads of good conservatives who feel the same.

Posted by Sam | January 7, 2008 6:33 PM

Huckabee is a liberal. Or should I call him, "OPEN THE PRISON GATES HUCK", or maybe "TAX $ SPEND MIKEY". I am a religious person. But I do not have a preference for working out my personal salvation only when the media is watching. And I don't respect those that do. I would vote Hillary over Huck, because at least she is straight about being a liberal and we KNOW her personal moments in the media spotlight are staged. Huck fools even himself that he is having genuine conversions as soon as the press gather. Help us, NH.

Posted by mythbuster | January 7, 2008 6:37 PM

Count the delegates. Romney isn't even close to being out of this. I agree with most of the others here, McCain is cynical and does not represent our party well. He pushed for the surge which was courageous, but he'd make a lousy president. He won't even make a decent candidate against Obama or Hillary. The Sunday night debate should have made it clear who was the best prepared. And, Huckabee will prove to be a joke.

Posted by trailman101 | January 7, 2008 6:41 PM

Mike Huckabee is the poor man's George Bush.

Posted by Vincent | January 7, 2008 6:41 PM

I see where Mitt won the vaunted Wyoming caucuses - great because in a general election against Obama that's probably the only state he'd carry(ok, maybe Utah also). Face it, Mitt has zero appeal to independents. The guy's the biggest phony to come down the political pike since, well, John Edwards. McCain's the only Republican who stands a chance of winning in Nov.

Posted by CTDem4Mac | January 7, 2008 6:44 PM

Know this. McCain, not a conservative, has stuck the conservative movement in the back too many times. He CANNOT rally the conservative base, which is a MUST to win a general election. Conservatives won't vote for the Democract, they simply will stay home.
Guliani is a liberal in most respects. He doesn't have the negatives McCain has, but he cannot inspire the conservative base either.

Weather you are a Mitt fan or not, he may be the only candidate that can rally the base. Thompson lacks energy to do it...and apparently the support.
Without the base, YOU LOSE. It's that simple.

Posted by Brandon | January 7, 2008 6:45 PM

Well, you’ve proven that you know nothing about military leadership and that “Nobrainer” is an appropriate pseudonym. The only thing Romney’s record in Massachusetts proves is that he’s willing to say anything to get elected. Just try thinking of one political principle that you’re confident he wouldn’t compromise to become President. Republicans that don’t oppose Romney on principle should oppose him for political reasons. If we nominate him we will get crushed by either Obama or Hillary. He’d almost certainly lose Iowa and Ohio and he’d probably put states like Virginia in play. On the other hand, name a state that Kerry won that Mitt could flip?

John McCain is the best chance we have of winning in November. General election polls prove it and thinking people on both sides of the aisle know it to be true.

Posted by Michael Hall | January 7, 2008 6:47 PM

Huckabee won Iowa and is leading nationally because he is a consistent conservative. Not sure how you missed this.

Posted by Ben | January 7, 2008 6:51 PM

I am legal resident, catholic, small business owner and WILL NEVER CONTRIBUTE my money to Huckabee! Illegal imigrant and taxes are the most things that is important to me!

Not interesting with Romney at the beginning campaign or debate. But later on find he is the one WHO ANSWERED CLEARLY problem and challange this nation have..., slowing down econoly, competion with China, taxes, rising health care cost!

Watch how fun and good comunicator Huckabee is but HE NEVER ANSWER clearly except in abortion or second amandent!

And to be honest, NOW I see him as such Christian BIGOT and THIN skin! Yes, yes, his Baptist must be better than Romney Mormon and other religion believe...SHAME!

Hope people can see beyond 'change' words and religion! To me it's still ECONOMY STUPID!

Posted by Ina | January 7, 2008 6:53 PM

John Nobrainer said...."Pro-life, pro-choice is not the most important issue facing this country."

45 million unborn babies terminated since Roe v Wade. That's equal to 15,000 occurrances of 911.

If thats not important...then nothing is.

Posted by Rifle | January 7, 2008 6:59 PM

Mike Huckabee has pledged to not raise taxes. He wants to get rid of the IRS. He insists that we use irresistable force when engaging in combat rather than the "light footprint" that we used initially in Iraq. He supported the surge and says that it is working. Mike is a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. Mike is pro-life and pro-marriage. Mike opposes embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life. Mike supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He also supports the federal human life amendment. Mike trusts in Christ as his Savior and Lord and is not ashamed of Him. Wouldn't it be great to have a leader who prays to God? Don't we want God to bless this country? We have been blessed with President Bush over these two terms, and it would be great to have his godly legacy continue on. Please prayfully consider who God wants you to vote for, because we are all accountable to Him at the end of the day. We should vote for the candidate who is most pleasing to Him. We are made for God's glory, and we need to do what is right always, regardless of the consequences. Please prayerfully consider voting for Mike Huckabee, and may God bless you all!

Posted by David | January 7, 2008 7:06 PM

Marc,

You state Romney is energized and "like a hose unbent". I've been watching him for a while on CSPAN at his events and would agree completely with that characterization. Since Iowa, he's been different and more authentic.

In Iowa, he tried to appeal to the religious conservatives which was a tough sell against a Baptist preacher. Now, his message of change and taking apart Washington actually fits his life and his experience and it shows. He's now free to really talk about what he knows, what he loves, and want he genuinely wants to do in Washington. He sounds like he is now running on his merits instead of running against someone else's flaws. That makes all the difference.

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 7, 2008 7:13 PM

Hey McAmnesty, Try to find a Constitution and check out Article IV, Section 4, which states that the United States SHALL protect the states from invasion! Instead you, Jorge Boosh, Teodoro Kennedy, and Grhamnesty FACILITATED the invasion! All of you should be removed from office and deported!

Posted by PatN | January 7, 2008 7:18 PM

McCain is a traitor.

Posted by matt | January 7, 2008 7:23 PM

ROMNEY WINS "KID'S VOTE" BY A MILE:

Every 4 years, NH holds a "Kid's Vote". This is where 8500 little kids in NH vote for who they want as President.

Sounds meaningless except that THEY HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN WRONG!

Today, they went Romney - 35, McCain 20.

Lol, who knows?

Posted by Bill Mitchell, Raleigh, NC | January 7, 2008 7:24 PM

WILL Mike pledge to not give path amnesty to illegal imigrant, huh?

McCain - Huckabee, huh?

Seem 'PERFECT HOPE' for illegal imigrant future but also a 'PERFECT GOODBYE' for GOP future!!!

Posted by Ina | January 7, 2008 7:27 PM

To Michael Hall,

You said Romney would compromise any principle to get elected.

Yet, he may lose the election for one reason alone. He is clearly smart, well educated, articulate, energetic, experienced, and scandal-free. He has a great family and exudes the kind of class a President should have. He is everything we could want yet he may lose because of………his faith. So I ask, wouldn't it be politically expedient for him to renounce his Mormon faith? Overnight, his poll numbers would soar and the percent of voters who won’t consider him would plunge. Yet, he won’t do that? Why do you think that is? If he is so unprincipled, why won’t he do it?

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 7, 2008 7:28 PM

***Mitt Alert*** Mitt Romney has won the state of New Hampshire!. In a poll of 8,500 6th and 7th graders in NH, kids were asked who they would vote for for president, they picked Mitt Romney!!!!!!!!! FYI in the history of doing this poll the "kids" have never been wrong.

Results:

Mitt Romney - 35%

McCain - 20

Posted by Allen Ridge | January 7, 2008 7:29 PM

I think a Romney/Petraeus ticket would be bring the best and brighest and safest future for America. Having the best businessman in the country and the best military man, it just couldn't get any better than that.

Posted by sheryl | January 7, 2008 7:41 PM

Come on! All the reasonable pundits show Romney winning the debate yesterday hands-down. The focus group in the audience overwhelmingly picked him as well. McCain didn't do to badly, but he just doesn't have the same set of skills/talent the always-successful Romney has. So what if Romney changed his mind on abortion 10 years ago. He hasn't "changed his position" on anything in years, but to listen to the libs on this site, you'd think he's a different man every 10 seconds. Mccain is not a total disaster, mind you, Huckabee is strange, Ron Paul is insane, but Romney is the only exciting candidate in my view.

Posted by Andrew S | January 7, 2008 7:41 PM

The kids in NH probably are never wrong because they hear their parents talk. But anyway, Huckabee is still holding out as a conservative in some circles. I am not sure what Americans see in this guy. In answer to Romney (I mean the moderator since he won't talk to Romney) he said that the courts forced him into the net 500million tax hikes to fix education. I checked the education records and sure enough, it improved in Arkansas. So he can't take a credit for fixing education because in his own account the courts forced him to fix it with the money. At any rate, either Obama or Huckabee makes a good democrat. One has a terrible record and the other has no record. Hey but the guitar thing was cool wasn't it?

Posted by Randy | January 7, 2008 7:41 PM

CTDem4Mac...
Mitt is polling just as well with some independents as Mccain in NH. Check the polls and the facts before you speak.

Posted by Barc | January 7, 2008 7:56 PM

Steve L:

I hope you were kidding when you said Huckabee was a conservative. If not, he has fooled you along with many other conservatives. He is a Christian Socialist (income redistribution, etc) like someone mentioned earlier.

A person that raises taxes, increases government spending, give tuition breaks to illegals, granted clemency to convicted felons, etc. is not conservative.

Also, I never understood how Chuck Norris could consider himself a Christian when his show, Texas Ranger was full of violence.

Posted by Jim | January 7, 2008 7:58 PM

Romney should have been running like has has the past day or two the entire time. He spent way too much time focusing on the lack of merits of OTHER candidates instead of presenting a true vision of what he is all about and how he can change Washington. He spent more time critiquing why someone else (be it Giuliani early, Huckabee and McCain later) should NOT be President instead of why he SHOULD be elected. It may be too late, but it's a good change by his staff.

Posted by RB B | January 7, 2008 8:00 PM

David:

I am a true christian conservative. However, I do not want a Baptist pastor telling me how to live. I guess once he becomes president, he will pass a law that requires all businesses to be closed on Sunday so we can all go to church.

Posted by Jim | January 7, 2008 8:02 PM

Romney is the one to beat! He has the business experience to right our Economy! Vote for change...vote for Romney!

Posted by Jim Hewitt | January 7, 2008 8:07 PM

Young, sexy Obama vs crusty old grumpy McCain? Are you kidding me?

McCain would get slaughtered.

Posted by Bill Mitchell, Raleigh, NC | January 7, 2008 8:11 PM

Did it ever enter anyone's mind that with all the money Romney spends, he is planting people on all these sites to shore up the Romney appeal? You can't say Huckabee has any money to do that!!! Of course, it would be unethical, but that doesn't stop Romney. Look at his record in Mass...you will find a Republican that will say and do anything to be elected. How about the time he ran for Senate against Kennedy...even Kennedy said that Romney even back then changed his positions all the time to get elected. The Democrats would have a field day with Romney in the General Election. Remember how the Republicans cleaned Kerry's clock with being a flip flopper!!! Romney makes Kerry look tame.

Surely the people of New Hamphire can see past this phony. Why do you think he lost so big in Iowa? It wasn't just the evangelical vote, it was because they saw Romney for what he is...a plastic, professional phoney!!

Vote for Mike Huckabee...a real conservative. The Republican Party is changing and the values Huck has of caring for the poor in our country and not just the rich is going to be apart of that change. He had to raise taxes because he was given a HUGE DEBT when he was Governor and he had to improve schools (governament mandated). There was no money!!! The schools improved a lot with their scores improving every year. He left the state with excellent roads, more than Romney did in Massachusetts. He also left the state with over $800,000 surplus. I know some of you think Huckabee might be unethical because he took gifts in office...remember he was a pastor before he was a Governor and that behavior is very acceptable. Also, he doesn't have a lot of money to live on. The cases for unethical conduct were thrown out of court. I think he has more ethics than any of the other Republican candidates.

Posted by Skip | January 7, 2008 8:17 PM

I have been horrified by McCain's re-emergence as a contender.

As Laura Ingraham pointed out on her show this morning- has everyone forgotten about the fact that McCain pushed Ted Kennedy's immigration plan, the one that went up in flames on account of the American people being against it?

And McCain still supports the very same garbage to this day.

His idea of "getting the message" is to add some additional fraudulent features that are supposedly to make legalized anarchy palatable to the general public.

John McCain is a national nightmare, and the sooner he fades into obscurity the better.

As someone who believes in Republican principles, if it is an election between Obama and McCain I will eagerly cast my vote for Obama to see that McCain never sets foot in the White House.

(If Lou Dobbs runs, then I may vote for him provided it is absolutely certain that McCain will be unable to win.)

Posted by lance sjogren | January 7, 2008 8:18 PM

Huckabee, a Christian Socialist? Wow, you hit the nail on the head! I've been trying to figure him out and that is an excellent 2 word discription.

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 8:19 PM

The criticism of Romney as a flip-flopper is justified, but Huckabee supporters are pots calling the kettle black, because the biggest flip flop of this campaign has been Huckabee's reversal from a La Raza open-borders anarchy supporter to an advocate of immigration enforcement.

I guess you would have a good counterargument that Huckabee is not a flip-flopper on immigration, however. Because it is clear he is really still an open-borders anarchist.

Posted by lance sjogren | January 7, 2008 8:22 PM

"Young, sexy Obama vs crusty old grumpy McCain? Are you kidding me?"

True indeed. It would be the politics of hope against the politics of an angry old belligerent/arrogant "know-it-all".

Posted by lance sjogren | January 7, 2008 8:24 PM

How can anyone dispute Romney's credentials? In business, he was super successful and help fund companies like Staples and Domino's when no one else saw there potential. With the Olympics, he turned what could have been an embarassment and black eye (specifically after 9/11) for the US, into arguably the best one there has ever been. As Governor, he left office with a surplus and didn't raise taxes to do it. He tackled the Health Care issue while still keeping it privatized and saved his state millions.

So, while everyone wants to talk about flip-flop, let's talk about his record. He is the only one that has proven that he can make a change and is not someone who can be bought. He already has enough and is trying to give back by serving his country. Remember, he took no salary to run the Olympics or as Governor. With all of this in mind, there is no doubt that Mitt Romney is the most experienced, most qualified person to bring about the changes that need to made to bring this country back to it's greatness.

I vote Romney!

Posted by Dan | January 7, 2008 8:27 PM

Enough with the flip-flop senario regarding Romney! That is getting lamer by the minute. The guy is sharp on his feet, and has a get-r-done resume...However, I totally agree with you about McCain! That guy scares me!

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 8:29 PM

Obama has become a movement. The Republicans will have to get behind the only candidate that offers a new movement, with a populist approach. The GOP cannot put up another candidate who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Romney. McCain will seem like Bob Dole. The only one who can out-communicate Obama is Huckabee. Huckabee has proven appeal to the middle. It is Obama who will come across as "preaching" with all that strut and cockiness he is developing and he will appear as a weird Al Gore type before it is over. Huck does not have the high negatives of Romney or McCain. He can reach the middle.

Posted by Truehawk | January 7, 2008 8:32 PM

Hey,Dan, how much does Romney pay you? He is the ultimate flip flopper and has been for a long time. We don't need somebody in the White House that we can't trust won't change his positions AGAIN!!!

Posted by Skip | January 7, 2008 8:32 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

I have a McCain-focused site. As a regular reader of this blog, I can see that Marc's post that "Romney is not out" has sparked a considerable number of comments. My two cents, going back to the original post-

Of course, I agree w/ him that Romney is not out. He has all of the advantages that Marc enumerated in the post. I doubt that anyone on either side on the ground in NH believes that their candidate has this wrapped up. There's way too much volatility in this particular primary for it to be over.

Moreover, we can't really be sure how many independents will in fact participate in the GOP primary, where they would break heavily for McCain. Is there a point that Obama might reach, where he'd draw so many independents to deprive McCain of a Republican victory? I certainly don't know...

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 7, 2008 8:32 PM

Ambinder has it about right. Do not believe the opposition charge that Romney is a flip-flopper. Read the article: "Listen, New Hampshire! Romney has been saying all along...."
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/

Romney's one change of mind doesn't even compare to the other candidates' changing all over the map in order to sound more like him.

Romney will win New Hampshire. Not by a big margin. But by enough to silence critics.

Posted by Christian Prophet | January 7, 2008 8:33 PM

Hey,Dan, how much does Romney pay you? He is the ultimate flip flopper and has been for a long time. We don't need somebody in the White House that we can't trust won't change his positions AGAIN!!!

Posted by Dixie | January 7, 2008 8:33 PM

I didn't realize that Romney took no salary as governor... That is very impressive, but not suprising. Thanks for that info. Helps with a few questions.

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 8:35 PM

Hey, quit giving Dan such a hard time! You sound so angry... I've been looking for some answers and he makes some good points, as does the writer of this article.

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 8:39 PM

Romney's making a great come back and I hope he continues.

Huckabee comes across like a huckster (pun intended); I don't trust him. McCain seemed like he was pleading too much, not what I would see as presidential material. I don't believe McCain has the vision we need to bring us through the world problems we are seeing. Rudy doesn't have the same level of experience as the others already mentioned. IMO, only Romney has what it takes to beat Obama when it comes time.

If Romney doesn't get the nomination, I'll do something I've not done before and vote for Obama. I'd rather have the devil I know in office, than the devil I don't know.

Posted by Rick | January 7, 2008 8:41 PM

Mike the Huck-ster!

He does not have this conservative evangelical fooled. His record is not conservative on anything but his pro life stance. He is many things but not a conservative no matter how many pairs of rose colored glasses you put on!
Can anyone say "Jimmy Carter II.

I rather have Romney anyday!

WN

Posted by Wayne Newcomb | January 7, 2008 8:42 PM

A lot of great comments from most of you. I am a Romney guy for one several reasons, but most of all he believes in family values. I want more protection for our children from the socialist liberal wackos that are trying to destroy this country. I want more conservative judges, especially on the Supreme Court. I don't want the ACLU to be allowed to run amok. I want to kick out every illegal alien (not undocumented workers as claimed by the dems). I want government spending put under control. I want the Bush tax cuts to be continued. I want someone from the private sector who knows how to put our government back in order. If there is one candidate other than Romney that can do all of these things, I don't see it from the current presidential aspirants.

Posted by big nicholas | January 7, 2008 8:48 PM

While I have been disappointed with McCain for his stance on immigration and McCain-Feingold, he is the standardbearer on the 2 primary Reagan principles:

1. A Strong National Defense (none of the other candidates compare)
2. Reduced Spending w/Proportional Tax Cuts

McCain is the only one to have a chance against Obama for 2 primary reasons:

1. He Draws Independents
2. The Media Loves Him

No, it's not the best hand to have, using the proverbial poker analogy, come Nov 08 and who McCain selects as his running mate will be crucial to him having a chance. Huckster is a regional candidate only and Mittster already has the Kerry "flip-flop" label engrained onto his wonderfully chiseled face, along with negative ratings comparable to Hillster. Thompson is toast and Guiliani, even if he were to win the nomination is abhorred even more so than McCain with the Christian conservatives.

Either we coalesce around a candidate soon or we not only face having a far-left wing President this year, but a fillibuster-proof Democratic Senate, and 2 more far-left Supreme Court judges on the bench.

Purge your animosity now for McCain and get behind him, or we are in for a painful 4 years!!

Posted by DAB | January 7, 2008 8:50 PM

The only thing PHONY about Romney are the PHONY issues that surround him.

"If you yell something loud enough and long enough, people start to believe it."

His religion and "Flip-flop" are not really issues! Just phony issues. Romney has no scandals to jump on unlike Huckabee (except of course, if you count the scandle of the scadalous USA olympic committee that he SAVED by turning the 2002 winter Olympics into a great credit for our country in front of the world). Since he really has only been successful as a governor and businessman, and since he's actually only trying to make America a better place, his opponents have to resort to jumping on his religion like Huckabee "Don't you believe the Devil and Jesus are brothers!!" OR "flip-flopper"... On real issues such as ECONOMICS, America's place in the world, bringing an outsider's view to Washington, IMMIGRATION, and HEALTH CARE, Mitt is the REAL DEAL!! He is a real opportunity for America. I don't know why folks don't see this...

Posted by Andrew S | January 7, 2008 8:53 PM

In my 76 years as an American, Gov. Romney is the best candidate for President that has come along in my lifetime in either or any party. If he is not elected, we shall all be the losers.

Posted by Judge William | January 7, 2008 8:55 PM

Hey Skip and Dixie,
I should ask you the same question since you both posted the exact same repsonse and that is always the sign of campaign staff spamming blogs.

As for me, I was actually a Thompson supporter and I also liked Huckabee until I studied their records. Huckabee is a liberal Republican and as much as he can hide behind his Christianity (I actually am glad that someone can speak of Faith), it still boils down to his record of raising taxes and giving illegals breaks, which act as a magnet for them to keep coming.

But how I came to support Romney was because I looked at his record when it was on his shoulders, and his record is VERY impressive. But of course, you revert to the old line about flip-flop witout answering my question which is, when you look at his record, can you deny that it is the most impressive of the bunch? Nobody even comes close, and that's why everyone is attacking him. The only thing that they have on him is "Oh yeah, he flip-flops" No, just go look at his record to see where he stands.

By the way, I can give you a long list of things that McCain and Huckabee have flip-flopped on as well. All you have to do is ivestigate it to prove what I am saying.

Posted by Dan | January 7, 2008 8:57 PM

Can anyone say, "conspiracy theory". "Mitt is paying for positive comments on this site" , pleeeeeeeeze. Just like Bush bombed the world towers. Some of you people are freaks.

Posted by Danbar | January 7, 2008 9:03 PM

I've been watching Romney since the 2002 Olympics and have always been impressed. He governed as a conservative in a liberal state, while McCain acted like a liberal when he should have been a conservative. Huckabee is just scary with his identity politics.

If ever there was a time for someone with intelligence, integrity, experience and leadership, that time is now and the person is Mitt Romney!

Posted by David | January 7, 2008 9:05 PM

Would Huckabee be a phony if the weight loss stories are not entirely honest?

There is pretty convincing evidence out there that he may have had gastric bypass. My question is if he's the nominee and it's true, would it sink the Republican ticket.

Calls have been made for him to release medical records so Republicans can have confidence in his story before voting.

Posted by JB | January 7, 2008 9:05 PM

Yeh repubs! Get behind the huck because he can beat Obama. Get behind Mike - slick willy - Huckaflipper. That's just what we need in this country, a genetic convergence of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Danbar | January 7, 2008 9:11 PM

When you're filling your car with $3 gas and buying some $2.65 a dozen eggs, remember who is running on stopping deficit spending. The war for oil is what caused prices for anything that eats grain to skyrocket. When THOSE prices rise, the fresh fruit seller raises his prices again, now you have some nice $5 a pound grapes in the market. Laugh all you want, it's YOUR money being spent. YOU'RE the one going to pay $250 a week for groceries. Still think Ron Paul sounds like a bad idea? He's the ONLY candidate, Republican or Democrat that is running on reducing your cost of living. Maybe you have plenty money. Me, I'm not so rich.

Posted by Louis Nardozi | January 7, 2008 9:12 PM

Christian Populist is a better descriptor of Huckabee; he's been described as the Republican John Edwards. He could be a decent candidate (in terms of electability, not quality); He could take the conservative Christian vote as well the Democratic working class, which tends to be more socially conservative.

However, perhaps as a liberal (I tend to identify with Democrats more) I'm not the best judge of your guys' voting base- but just so you know, in all recent Romney vs. Obama polls (last one being not a month ago), Obama beats Romney- by an average of over 12 points.

I can't argue with any of your arguments about McCain garnering conservative support, but he alone is able to beat Clinton (looking at polls), or even tie Obama.

I wish I could vote. Lower the voting age!

Posted by Nick | January 7, 2008 9:12 PM

Dear New Hampshire,

Join me tomorrow at the polls and let's support a TRUE REPUBLICAN, Gov. Mitt Romney. He's got the goods ... proven executive leadership, brains, business know-how, charisma, strong values, and a contagious optimism about our country’s future. He has a core understanding of how to keep America strong. He’ll strengthen families and lower taxes, so we’re all self reliant -- not reliant on the government. He'll get our military back to Reagan-era strength and give us the resources we need to defeat Islamic Jihad. He’ll solve immigration. He's a man of accomplishment and turns everything he touches to gold. He’ll bring back luster and life to the Republican Party, and certainly to America's standing in the world.

I admit, Senator McCain brings some strengths to the table; certainly the skills to be a great Secretary of Defense. He's just not presidential...way too cantakerous a fellow to bring our country together. He's got his talents and guts, but he's too stubborn and abrasive, and with too much of a maverick liberal streak to be our president. Wrong on immigration, wrong to vote against the Bush tax cuts, wrong on the 1st Amendment (McCain/Feingold) … the list goes on and on. I know you're tempted to vote his way NH - I was pulling for him too in 2000 - but I’ve learned a lot since then. His time has past. Sen McCain will let us down in November. He can't go the distance.

Romney is the most gifted candidate in the bunch - Republican, Democrat, or Independent - and he's the best choice for America.

Thanks for reading. See you all at the polls tomorrow morning!

Sincerely,

Matthew Bates
Nashua, New Hampshire
Capt, USAFR
Live Free ... Or Die!

Posted by matthew bates | January 7, 2008 9:13 PM

The republican/evangelical/conservative establishment base puts up candidates like Huckabee and Romney and says in effect, "if you don't vote for our idealogically purer candidate we will kill this puppy", referring to the overall objectives of a broader group of moderate to conservative voters. Well this year guys, kill away. If you don't want to offer up a mature and moderate candidate, then you can stew in your own juices.

The so-called "change" people want is to get some adults to represent the needs of the whole country to replace the infantile partisan idiots who seem to have the keys to the kingdom right now.

Romney is a hateful opportunist, cleaned up with big bucks, a shining smile and a fancy suit. In any event, his nomination will be a dead end for Republicans -- current polls show that he can't even defeat the only democrat who is more inately odious that he is -- John Edwards.

Posted by mrdon | January 7, 2008 9:14 PM

omney lives in his own world where god has a body and lives near planet kolob. Where his religion is the only true church. Where there are men on the moon that dress like quakers ( according to the prophet and founder of the LDS church, Joseph Smith).In Mitts world men have many wives , like his "prophet Brigham Young did. In Mitts world god changes his mind so I can too. Mitts god is a flip flopper too. Blacks can`t be priests, oh.. wait a minute .. yes they can.Men need to marry many women... aw crap.. thats a mistake. Indiand are filthy and loathsome according to the book of Mormon, uh ... uh.. wait a minute , lets change our scriptures fellas. Romney flip flops because his god and his church do. Whats the big deal ? Yes , Romney is out, you guys just don`t realize it yet.

Posted by DavidE | January 7, 2008 9:16 PM

McCain is grouchy old man and we will see any hopes of a republican president go down the drain if we nominate him. McCain needs calming medication and retirement. He is no conservative.

Posted by Danbar | January 7, 2008 9:18 PM

Keep in mind that much of McCain's support in the opinion polls comes from independents. Those same independents have to choose between either voting in the democrat or the republican primary. To the extent that Obama is making the deomcrat primary exciting, they may well choose to vote there rather than with McCain.

Under that scenarion, Romney ekes out a win.

Posted by Derek Phelps | January 7, 2008 9:21 PM

Ditto to Mr. Bates comments... I think I will join you!

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 9:22 PM

"The only conservative" You got that right! As for conservatism, McCain is at best a John F. Kennedy Democrat.

And I don't know what Huckabee is. He applies a religious test to murderers and rapists to commute their sentences. Confess Christ is your get out of jail free card with him. What kind of judgment can we expect from this man? His poor judgment is responsible for a few deaths of the innocent. Give me a real leader with a real education and good judgment please -and someone who doesn't make us Christians look so stupid.

Posted by Phillip | January 7, 2008 9:22 PM

New Hampshire delegates are shared. Even if Romney comes in a close second he will walk away from New Hampshire with the most delegates thanks to his win in Wyoming and his good performance in Iowa (delegates are also shared in Iowa). A win for Romney in NH could seal his nomination, a slight loss means that the race will hash on until super Tuesday which is way too far into the future to predict with no clear front runner.

I get tired of the flip Mitt claims. Rarely are such claims backed up with any evidence. Saying it over and over does not make it so. Every candidate changes or modifies positions, even John McCain, which is why I thought his low shot on Romney at the debate Saturday night was hypocritical.

Posted by Dave | January 7, 2008 9:26 PM

Don't count ON a surprisingly strong showing by Romney tomorrow, either!

Posted by Bob Waters | January 7, 2008 9:27 PM

What I can't figure out is why any one but Romney is even a choice?
Can anyone name any one of the republicans that has anywhere near the depth of ability to solve problems, and turn things around than Romney?

Huck is a lib that is Pro-Life,
McCain is again a Lib that is pro-War,
Thompson has dirty hands on the McCain Feingold,
Rudy is great on crime, but has used our money to pay for personal guards for his mistress. And all this while he was in office!

So pardon me, I don't get it.
Not one of these guys backround and actual real life products campares to Mitt's.

Go ahead and elect one of these clowns, in Nov, I will vote 3rd party.

Posted by Joe U | January 7, 2008 9:28 PM

Interesting to me how many avowed liberals want to give us advice as to the fact that McCain is the only repub that can beat Obama. The lib dems have fought Romney from day one (mostly behind the scenes and hiding in the blogosphere) because their back room experts have concluded that Romney is their worst nightmare. The dems can't beat him and they know it.

Mark my words, the dems have been digging and scratching to find dirt on Romney in hopes of beating him in November. But how will they find dirt on the man who is so squeaky clean that he wouldn't take tax-payer dollars to pay his salary in Ma. Think about it.

Posted by Danbar | January 7, 2008 9:29 PM

Even if all the accusations that "DAVID E" makes about Romney were true (which they are not) - who cares? That is not what is going to dictate how he runs our country! You would have to be a fool to not see his record. You would have to be a fool to not see that he is the ONLY mega-conservative of the whole bunch. All across the board, he is a conservative. All the other GOP candidates are not 100% conservatives - they each lack in one or more areas. Romney has the purest record. Did he change his mind on something? YES! Thankfully! In order for him to be a "flip-flopper" he would need to change his mind again, and again. He hasn't done that - EVER. He went from being pro-choice to pro-life and all his records show nothing but pro-life!

What is wrong with this country, and alot of you wwho are reading this, is that we all flap alot at the mouth, but we do not take the time to STUDY each candidate and their RECORDS to see where they have stood, where they stand, and where they are headed in this political world. I for one, have studied them all.

My vote is squarely with Romney. He's the only honest one, that has NOT changed his voting practices and that is 100% conservative!

Mitt's the man!
(sorry for any typos!)

Posted by Teri N. | January 7, 2008 9:33 PM

Huckabee supporters, you are falling into a trap. I can't even count the lies that I have personally seen. And he is truly a prolife socialist. I know what he has on his web page,but he learned first hand from the clintons. Did you know the famous ad he showed at a press conference he said he was not going to run ran in two markets, and was particularly strange...he accused Mitt of not signing any execution orders...... MASS does not have the death penalty!
You should really do some real research. I will vote for a socialist who admits before I vote for Huck.

Posted by smitt | January 7, 2008 9:34 PM

As for you DavidE, the anti-mormon bigotry is old news and makes you sound like an idiot. Get over the tired old mormon hate speak. You show your ignorance and all but tiny minority of your fellow bigots are embarrassed for you. If you don't have the intellect to talk about issues stay away from these forums. You are not helping your candidate Mr. Huckabigot's case by showing the ignorance of his supporters.

Posted by Danbar | January 7, 2008 9:40 PM

DavidE,
I find your comments disgusting and reprehensible. I hope that everyone here will call you out for what you are. An ignorant bigot.

Posted by Dan | January 7, 2008 9:42 PM

There are no conservatives viable in the NH race. NH is no longer conservative and prefers their repubs moderate to liberal.
Just get the dang thing over. The state is as big as a postage stamp and indicates nothing but political tradition.

Posted by thatcher | January 7, 2008 9:42 PM

I'd like for some of Huck or McCain's supporters to answer my question. I keep hearing them say Romney is a phony who will do anything to get elected.

If that's true why won't he renounce his Mormon faith?

That's the one issue that may cause him to lose the election so it's the singular issue he needs to flip-flop on to win the election.

Whay won't he do it?

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 7, 2008 9:44 PM

I couldn't help noticing that when McCain said he was NEVER for illegal immigrant amnesty, no one called him on it, why? I seem to recall that him, and his buddy, Ted Kennedy, tried their very best to ram through an amnesty bill that was soundly defeated. Did I imagine that?

Posted by lee rader | January 7, 2008 9:47 PM

I'm middle class and I will never vote for Huckabee.

I was completely offended by his remark about you want to vote for a person you work with versus someone who laid you off.

My dad, now retired had a small business for 20 plus years and he had to lay folks off from time to time.

He didn't like the fact but keeping a business afloat sometimes is a tough thing and for Mike Huckabee to play that kind of class warfare I find it really offensive.

He demonization of people who are CEO or business owners is terrible and makes you remember that religious people can be very mean, judgemental and pious. I'll never vote for him.

Posted by sheryl | January 7, 2008 9:56 PM

In response to DavidE (posted Jan 7, 2008 9:16pm).

Martin Luther (the reformer) once said that he would rather be ruled by a competence Turk than an incompetent Christian.

Let's assume for a moment that Huckabee is really a conservative and yet he had to raised taxes, that could only means he is not competent.

Posted by Abel N. | January 7, 2008 10:06 PM

Matthew Bates....

I will join you in the polls tomorrow to vote for Mitt Romney.

Thanks for your service.

Vive le Romney!

Posted by Ben | January 7, 2008 10:12 PM

Romney is a flip-flopping boob. He is the Republican version of Bill Clinton with less talent. America needs a man of integrity...America needs John McCain!!!!

Posted by American citizen | January 7, 2008 10:12 PM

Many of these comments have been personal, invalid or otherwise...
I am a small business owner and taxes are killing us. the higher our taxes the harder to keep the business afloat. Someone with real world economic experience is very appealing to me. Romney is the only one with this experience. Also, our economy is going to be impacted considerably over the next decade and beyond. Not just domestically but equally as important, globally. Romney looks to be the one who commands a knowledge of economics and the global marketplace. This is a key reason why I am looking at him for the most powerful job in the world. Our nation's economy will be directly linked to our ability to fight terrorism, emerging Chinese and Iranian concerns and as well as commanding the respect of the world. We are and I hope we will continue to be a global superpower and influence for positive change around the world.

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 10:16 PM

I have voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, and Bush Jr.. I have studied Huckabee very carefully and have found that the conservative media is wrong about him. There is no other candidate more conservative than Mike Huckabee. The man is even more conservative than President Reagan himself. It will be unfortunate if the conservative medias misconceptions and reservations about him cause the nation to vote for a true liberal like Romney, McCain, or Guilianni.

Posted by Robert | January 7, 2008 10:22 PM

Aside from all the facts and dirt that has been posted to date, we should look at NH as a microcosym of the general election for '08. Bottom line, while the independent demographic in NH is a bit higher than the national average, the bottom line is that even if Romney were to get all the Republican vote in Nov 08 (highly unlikely), he won't be able to crack the independent vote to top BarackO. Only Guiliani or McCain can draw a competitive independent vote in the general election.

Posted by DougRepub | January 7, 2008 10:22 PM

No, I am not on anybody's campaign, unlike many of these posts for Romney.

I am from Indiana and our Governor, Mitch Daniels, was on President Bush's economic council before he came back to Indiana to run for Governor. Indiana has had a big problem with property taxes especially hitting central Indianapolis where a lot of our poor are living. Apparently when their homes were reassessed, the values represented a huge increase in property taxes. Of course, the city went wild and rebelled and elected a Republican Mayor of Indianapolis and took out a three term very popular Democratic Mayor.

The Republican Mayor is now proposing an increase in Sales Taxes, Income Taxes and maybe another increase on cigarette taxes to replace the property taxes that are so high. This is someone who is Republican and is up for reelection in November. When you have an emergency in your state, you have to raise taxes sometimes. This is what Governor Huckabee has done in Arkansas. It is not always a bad thing to raise taxes, sometimes it is necessary for the people of your state.

What is more important about Governor Huckabee is that he doesn't change his conservative values to win elections like Gov. Romney. You can trust that what he says will still be his position when he is elected President.

By the way, in case any of you haven't noticed, Governor Huckabee is now leading on the National Republican election candidates and is 12 points ahead of Governor Romney in South Carolina. Does that sound like he is not respected and liked already around this country?

Posted by Skip | January 7, 2008 10:28 PM

Robert,

The challenge for Republicans is to find a full spectrum conservative. Some, like Huckabee are conservative socially while believing government should help the "little man which ends up meaning they don't favor small government of fiscal conservatism. Others, like Rudy, are fiscally conservative but support abortion for example which makes them socially more liberal.

Huckabee is very conservative socially perhaps more so than Reagan but it's the fiscal part that he gets lost on.

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 7, 2008 10:29 PM

Get real on Romney. The truth is there is a very substantial group of people across the entire political spectrum who will never vote for a Mormon. I say this not as a Mormon-hater. I lived for eight years in Utah and came away with immense admiration and respect for the people of a truly "American" religion. I respect and admire them -- but I do not believe. I am an episcopalian, and sad to say, many of my fellows have expressed to me their belief that Mormonism is a cult (or worse). Even in my liberal denomination, many seem to be willing to allow their ignorance to slide toward intolerance.

Right or wrong, this is mountain that neither Romney nor a majority of voters will climb. I will tell you truly that, regardless of my personal feelings toward the candidate (which are not warm) it deeply saddens me that we live in a place where religious intolerance is not only being more and more widely practiced by the secular community, it is also all too prevalent within our so-called religious community.

Posted by mrdon | January 7, 2008 10:29 PM

Huckabee is a LIAR of the greatest proportions:

In Sunday night's debate Huckabee said:

I choose not go to negative in Iowa

FACT: Huckabee went ahead and showed his negative ad to the mainstream press

Huck also said:
No, I did not intend to imply that the guy who lays people off was supposed to represent Mitt Romney

FACT: Romney is the only CEO in the race

Besides this lying, Huck refused to answer the question of whether he raised taxes in Arkansas by 500 million, instead making up some excuse that made no sense.

Romney said it best: "Mike, you make up facts faster than you talk, and that's saying something."

HUCK SUPPORTERS, WHY, OH WHY, DO YOU REFUSE TO SEE THAT HUCK IS NOT NEARLY AS "RIGHTEOUS" AS HE PRETENDS TO BE. HE'S DISHONEST AND HE'S GOT MORE STYLE THAN SUBSTANCE. SEE IT, PLEASE!

Posted by John Allen | January 7, 2008 10:31 PM

John McCain is NOT a Conservative.

Mike Huckabee is NOT a Conservative.

McCain has stabbed Conservatives in the back for years.

Huckabee uses Christianity as a cover for his liberal policies. It's disgusting.

The Liberal Media LOVES McCain and Huckabee.

NO CONSERVATIVE will vote for either of these media darlings.

Posted by Tony | January 7, 2008 10:35 PM

I am going to make this short and sweet. Any one who has been using this "flip flop" label ignorantly is an unprintable BIGOT. To all of you that have done this, welcome to Orwell's Animal Farm. In Mitt's case, you have heard this and repeated it ignorantly, as did Orwell's sheep. It can only be interpreted as bigotry, because if you would have cared enough to look up Romney's record, you would have realized that this sheep-like, two word slogan does not apply to him.

If you applied some modicum of thought, you would realize that McCain and Huckabee have both "flip-flopped" more during the last two debates than Romney has in the past ten years. You might also notice that a "flip-flop" implies a transition BACK and FORTH, not a change of mind which is thereafter faithfully maintained. Mitt has faithfully maintained his change of heart and mind regarding government's role in abortion rights. His gubernatorial record also remained faithful to this change.

Of course, a sheep's brain is more suited to mindless bleating than to real, intellectual discourse, and mindless litany is at the root of bigotry. I challenge all sheep to find even one, true "flip-flop" from Gov. Romney's record, or forever cease this mantra.

Posted by Paul | January 7, 2008 10:38 PM

Huckabee showed the ad to the media because they would have said he was lying and didn't even have one. The people of Iowa believed him and decided he was the candidate they wanted to support, not Romney, the phoney!!!

Yes, Huckabee didn't answer the question because Romney was getting a pass because he "raised fees, not taxes" and he wasn't answering about that either. It's the same thing, the people paid more money.

You know how Romney cites the 1,000 pardons Huckabee did...well, Gov. Romney didn't pardon anybody because he cared more about his election and not being connected to Dukasis who lost on that issue that the people of his state who deserved a pardon. For example, there was a guy who was found guily of a minor crime. After he served a term in the service and received a medal, he returned to Massachusetts and asked Governor Romney if he could get a pardon. The answer was "No", this was a case that deserved to get this pardon.

Gov. Huckabee received 6,000 requests for pardons in Arkansas, unlike other states that the Governor does not have to deal with that. There was a woman from Arkansas that answered one of these posts and she said the judges in Arkansas go way overboard in their decisions and penalties. Huckabee read over all 6,000 himself and made the determination that those 1,000 had been punished too severely for their crimes and pardoned them. Here is a man who cares about the people of his state above himself. Yes, he made a big mistake on that one inmate who went out and raped and killed somebody. I think that out of 1,000 he pardoned, this record is not too bad.

You see, Gov. Romney took his record and took small pieces out of it and made attack ads that did not represent the whole truth so that people would make decisions that were incorrect about Gov. Huckabee. Don't let that man sway your vote with dishonest reporting.

Posted by Skip | January 7, 2008 10:50 PM

Skip - I live in SC and you are right, Huckabee has some support here with narrow minded evangalist's just like he did in Iowa. In how many states do you think Huck can recruit enough of his fellow preachers to win the race? Not many.

The only support Huck has is with fanatics who are turning the other ninety percent of voters hard core against him. Most of the country is sick of him and you and your narrow minded vision of a theocracy in the name of religion.

Posted by Danbar | January 7, 2008 10:51 PM

Wow, what a great exchange of opinions!!

I remember telling my wife, during the closing ceremonies of the SLC Olympics, that Mitt Romney was going to be a household name in the future. I don't care that he's Mormon - I appreciate that he has faith. Though I'm not particularly religious myself, I find that, for the most part, I prefer government officials that are... maybe I'm just strange, but I feel I can trust those who believe they answer to a higher power than themselves!

I looked back to Ronald Reagan's early years in California (before he went to Sacramento...). Man, the "Flip-flopping" he would've been charged with, all the way to the White House!! I guess that's what happens when an open mind finds a better idea!

Until three days ago, I was completely undecided. Now I'm a Mitt-Man.

Posted by J.C. | January 7, 2008 11:05 PM

I guess, Danbar, you don't have a very long memory. Geoge W. Bush won the Presidency in a large part because of the evangelical vote and Gov. Huckabee will too.

The difference for Huckabee is that some of you are right, he is not a economic conservative. The Republican party is changing and, it should to help the poor along with the rich like Huckabee tries to do. Arkansas is one of the poorest states we have and he had to govern in his state for them. He was voted in for Republican governor three times or 10 1/2 years despite it being a Democrat state with the Clinton money and backing for the Democratic candidates. Romney served one term in Massachusetts and from what I heard he wouldn't have got elected again...that tells you about his term. He left his roads in Mass. in terrible condition. He said he was pro-choice to get elected in that liberal state, then he changes his mind to be pro-life when he wants to run for President. Do you think maybe he just might change his mind again that is if the polls show that is what everybody wants. That is somebody that will get stomped on in the General Election because we can't trust him. Don't think Kennedy and the people in Mass don't have a lot of things that they can give Obama or the Democratic candidate against him.

Posted by Skip | January 7, 2008 11:05 PM

Two words come to mind in reference to Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. Bob Dole. And that is NOT a compliment. The last time that Republicans turned an old warhorse, literally, it worked out real well. Remember 1996? That was when the petulant Sen. Dole was so desperate to be president that he quit the senate to devote full time to running for president. After he won the Republican nomination. He was an embarasment and so would be Sen. "F--- You" McCain. The reason that the field, except for Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani are so mad at Mr. Romney is because he has the money and the ability to go the distance. Mr. Romney IS a conservative and the fact that he has become pro life shows that people can change. Isin't what politics is about? Sen. "F--- You" McCain claims to be pro-life, but what kind of leadership has he shown in his congressional career? NONE. All of his issues are what please, in no particular order, Democrats, the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times editorial page, the big three networks and the now outed racist, Don Imus. Please New Hampshire, stand up and vote for Mitt! Marc is right, the only conservative that can win in November!

Posted by Mark J. Goluskin | January 7, 2008 11:05 PM

Concerning Mitt Romneys non-pardons... "there was a guy who was found guily of a minor crime. After he served a term in the service and received a medal, he returned to Massachusetts and asked Governor Romney if he could get a pardon. The answer was "No", this was a case that deserved to get this pardon."

NO, IT DID NOT DESERVE ANYTHING!! I served 20 years and earned more than my share of medals; none of that would have EARNED me a pardon if I'd committed a CRIME!!!

DO THE CRIME, SERVE THE TIME!!!

Posted by J.C. | January 7, 2008 11:11 PM

Dear J. C. Those are my initials. And yes, you are just strange.
JC

Posted by Jesus Christ | January 7, 2008 11:15 PM

Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day, Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime... that is the conservative way. "Pride, cometh before the fall".
All you evangelical (so called Christians) need to study your New Testament.
Your comments are errogant and self-serving. They do not promote your cause and only defame the truth.
Calm down, pray for forgiveness and wake up in the morning and vote for a true conservative who will preserve our countries values, protect our economic future and truely lead us into a new day... That's right, you all know who I'm talking about! It's time to fix Washington from the outside in!

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 11:19 PM

New Hampshire voters don't be fooled by "Slick Romney". He took polls to see exactly what people wanted and changed himself to be that person. Don't you want somebody who is real and you can TRUST? Guaranteed it is not Mitt Romney!!

If he would be the Republican nominee, I won't be like a lot of others who have said they would vote Democratic if a candidate is someone they don't like, but I won't vote Republican either.

By the way, the reason he doesn't denounce the Mormon faith is because it would be a HUGH mistake and show that he doesn't have a real religion either. I do believe he has a real religion. Did anybody ever think that Romney belongs to this faith that hasn't accepted blacks until recently...isn't that racist?

Posted by Skip | January 7, 2008 11:22 PM

I am a Georgia conservative, born Baptist, baptized at 12 but not overly diligent in my practicing my faith. I respect those of faith that want to help the poor but helping each person directly is certainly what Jesus taught.
Isn't the Christian that wants the government to help the down trodden forsaking their personal responsibilities?
The Federal government should do what our founding fathers intended. Protect our borders and our citizens to allow them to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We have to maintain a optimistic view of our abilities and future. Those that work at the jobs and those that help make the jobs are both after the same thing, the American dream.
So, let the Democrats tell us everything is going wrong but elect a conservative Republican that can lead our people AND administer the Federal government while he is reducing it's size and focusing it the federal responsibilities. Not some politicians pet project.

Posted by Mike L | January 7, 2008 11:22 PM

To those of you calling Mitt Romney a flip-flopper.

If you take the time to actually go over his record as governor, which many of you won't, you would find that Mitt Romney just flipped . . . he didn't flop. And, if I think back in my memory, one President we (republicans) all loved, Ronald Reagan, also flipped. Isn't that what we want from someone especially on the pro-life issue?

Posted by Pat | January 7, 2008 11:23 PM

Howdy,

I've enjoyed this great debate among voters. I have to say, I haven't seen one McCain supporter cite reasons to support McCain other then they think he can beat Obama and they think he has stayed firm on positions (something I don't believe myself.) My question, why don't you McCain supporters just vote for Obama? What is your point in supporting McCain? I support Romney because he is the smartest man in the race who will nudge (yes I said nudge) the country toward less spending, better judges, less immigration, and a stronger military. And, I think he wil have a profound effect on the efficiency of our government, allowing it to accomplish more while spending less. What are the reasons for the McCain supporters?

Posted by Ben in Texas | January 7, 2008 11:30 PM

Skip, Take some Tylenol PM, hit the sack and get some sleep. You sound tired, cranky and frankly a bit like a broken record (a very narrow minded broken record). Harping over and over and over again. I've made up my mind as many have already. I will sleep calmly tonight. stop fretting get some sleep and maybe, just maybe you may wake up tomorrow a bit more tolerant a tad more optimistic and hopefully a lot more realistic.

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 11:35 PM

Huckabee and the pardons.
My problem is not with the number but the 12 murders. And the Wayne Dumond case. Huckabee didn't pardon Dumond because the parole board paroled him. By the way, it was the same parole board that Huckabee had just reappointed. and Dumond was paroled just days before time ran out on Huckabee's option to commute the sentence. Political expediency??
And, Huckabee was not very forth coming on his reasons for paroling someone every 4 days. (I believe my math is correct. 1003/10.5 years/365 days = 1 every 3.7 days). Were the courts that bad?

Posted by Mike L | January 7, 2008 11:37 PM

LOL! Hey Marc, did Mitt pay you in cash or stock options for writing that entry? John McCain is going to kick Mitt's ass tomorrow for one reason: Regardless of his position on any individual issue, he's genuine. You know what you're getting with John McCain. Mitt Romney is totally full of shit. He changes his positions more often than I change my shirts. I wouldn't trust him to mow my yard.

There's a reason why none of the other Republican candidates can stand him, as evidenced by the way they ganged up on him in this week's debates. There's a reason why a leading New Hampshire newspaper, in making its endorsements for the upcoming primary, basically said "Hey, we don't care who you vote for in the Republican primary just as long as it's NOT Mitt Romney!" Seriously now, what does that tell you?

Posted by Dan | January 7, 2008 11:39 PM

Give it up, Deborah; Skip (and Dixie) have already been outed as Huckabee Staffers. Arguing with them, or even showing them their own faults, will be a waste of time.

J.C. (aka James Clopton, ISC(SW), USN(Ret.))

Posted by J.C. | January 7, 2008 11:40 PM

Skip,

Governor Huckabee said yesterday that he denied 90 percent of the pardon requests so he approved of 10 percent which seems rather high to me. Remember, many of these people have gone through the full judicial process which has many checks and balances to ensure criminals get a fair trial and appropriate punishment. In spite of that, one out of every 10 people who asked for a pardon got one.

Having said all that, I doubt many Romney supports here are voting strictly on this one issue. To me, Romney is just a more impressive candidate. He holds a bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian, earning his degree summa cum laude. Additionally, he has both an MBA (Master of Business Administration) and a JD (Juris Doctor or law degree) from Harvard. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class. Mike attended Ouachita Baptist University earning his bachelor's degree in Religion. Mike’s education, though clearly not as extensive, is also not as relevant to the Presidency as law and business degrees.

I could also outline their career differences but suffice it say, I’ve looked at both of their resumes and quite simply, I find Romney to have the best credentials I’ve ever seen in a Presidential candidate. So for me, it is record plus values plus experience and education. I’d encourage all Huckabee supporters to compare the candidates for themselves and see who comes off most like a President. Huckabee says he’s a common man but I would argue we need more than that to lead the free world. We need the uncommon man.

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 7, 2008 11:42 PM

Mitt Romney is the leader that all of us have been waiting for he will bring a new era of true concervative principles. When we talk about Reagan we aren't getting the full picture, McCain and Huck are liberals and the only way that we can stop ths madness is to realize that they attack Mitt because he is the one concervative. The sad thing is that he will beat both of them even if they do combine their liberal powers.

Posted by Brett S | January 7, 2008 11:44 PM

Ci2Eye wrote, "...but I would argue we need more than that to lead the free world. We need the uncommon man. "

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for typing the words I've been looking for.

Posted by J.C. | January 7, 2008 11:46 PM

McCain carries national security conservatives with a bullet. (the only way the GOP beats Obama)

He carries social conservatives. Not as well as Huckabee but he carries them. Ask Sam Brownback.

And he carries fiscal conservatives (maybe not like Romney but close)

I understand he makes the base mad on immigration, CFR, Gaqng of fourteen stuff--but that is part of being a centrist and that's how you win elections.

You can also win elections by tacking back to the center after tacking to the right to get the bases' vote. If you'd rather be outraged and betrayed later then by all means, vote for Romney.

I'd rather be proud of my vote and swallow some things I don't like now.

Posted by Prentman | January 7, 2008 11:50 PM

It's pretty clear what Skip and his ilk are up to, but if the dialog isn't productive, it just needs to end. Nite, nite Skip, Dan, and all those who didn't get their mid-day nap.
I, like Ben in Texas would love to hear more from McCain's supporters. He scares me. He has a past that is not conservative. I don't see him listening, just wanting to take charge. Not sure I would ever trust him. I'm very concerned for our country and our children's future. We need a government that works.

Posted by Deborah | January 7, 2008 11:50 PM

Obama has become a movement. The Republicans will have to get behind the only candidate that offers a new movement, with a populist approach.

He is a movement with no beef or accomplishment prior to running for President but his soaring, deliberately vague oratory. Yes you could answer a movement with a movement like make the Republican Party a wholly owned subsidiary of the Creationist movement or become a member of the Paulista Zealot movement of Truthers and gold bugs - but those "movements" have even less appeal and track record of change than Obama's messianic movement. Remember, only 14% of non-Evangelicals voted for the Pastor.

The GOP cannot put up another candidate who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Romney.

First, the supposed "huge" impact of class resentment has not been evident in both Parties nominees or "classes" for 70 years. IT is just a persistent media narrative that the "poorer peoples" candidate is automatically more noble and worthy - waived of course when the Democrat is rich....And people within "classes" who make it to President have more often than not shown that they are not the product of "Daddy" for good or bad but their own man or woman.

Examples:

1. Candidates of wealth background - FDR, JFK, Adlai Stevenson, Kerry, Forbes, Romney, Carter, Bush I,II, Gore.
2. Candidates of advantaged upper middleclass background - McCain, Dewey, Obama, Hillary,Muskie, Bradley, Edwards (mill foreman's son, not mill worker's son), Dodd, Richardson (banker Dad), etc.
3. Candidates born of the middle and lower middle class - Bill Clinton, Reagan, Lieberman, Truman, Eisenhower, Kucinich, Thompson, Biden, Huckabee, Humphrey, Giuliani, Dole.
4. Candidates who knew poverty - Jesse Jackson, George Romney, Nixon, Lincoln, LBJ, Chisholm...

With Romney, knowing George Romney and growing up with him was certainly an advantage over Jesse Jackson having no Daddy - but indicators are Mitt was so gifted as a student and leader, and in his career pursuits his father's modest wealth (in George Romney's day, CEOs were paid nothing like they are now, and Romney was noted in his day for giving much of it (40-45%) back to the tresurer as too much pay for a CEO) - were not a factor. Romney went to Stanford on recommendations of teachers that he was a "once in lifetime" student. At Stanford and BYU, he compiled a 3.97 GPA back when GPA meant something, and would have gotten what scholarship aid he needed at Harvard if he needed it. In between, Romney lived 2 1/2 years in near-poverty, in a monastic life, as a missionary. Which followed summers of tough work on ranches. As a missionary, after an auto accident he was mistakenly pronounced as dead at the scene, Romney's reputation was such that he was the 1st young Mormon to take leadership of a major country mission from a Mormon Elder (the Elder was badly injured, his wife killed in the same crash).
At Harvard, Romney was what one graduate prof called the -
"The half dozen we get in all our grad schools each year that will secure Harvard's reputation by future deeds, with almost near-certainty from their specialness, even in a sea of quite bright students with high promise. And of course we count on serendipity and hard work and creativity to get another dozen out of the rest of the students."
Romney had no assistance from his Dad starting out in a different field. 15 years out of college, he passed his Dad's financial worth, even giving 20% of what he made to church and non-Mormon charities. He lived his 1st 20 years in the workforce in a middle-class lifestyle with a station wagon holding 7 with a dog on the roof, a 16-foot fishing boat, and got new jogging shoes as a christmas present. He and his Dad set up that Mitt would inherit no money from his parents, as he really didn't need the money - his part would go to charity.

Sorry to expound so long...but Romney owes his success to the "silver spoon in his mouth" as much as Chief Justice Roberts does...and most voters would find Romney's not taking pay for public service as Olympics head or Governor or President (if elected) - commendable.

McCain will seem like Bob Dole.
Worse. Dole was well-loved by all Republicans as a standup guy who never betrayed anyone. McCain is hated by the Base and by a number of his "dear friends" in the Senate he has screwed, by Hill Staff he abused. He lost New Hampshire in 2000 to Bush in Republican votes. McCain only beat him on idependents that split later 50-50 between Bush and Gore. McCain is older than Dole was, or anyone was who ran for President, openly hates people, misses Doles sardonic humor mark....and would absolutely be torn apart by Obama as the Old Order, 30 year inside the Beltway Senator who has done nothing but further divide people while milking his POW "entitlements" for 35 years.

The only one who can out-communicate Obama is Huckabee. Huckabee has proven appeal to the middle. It is Obama who will come across as "preaching" with all that strut and cockiness he is developing and he will appear as a weird Al Gore type before it is over.

The person that has performed the best in debates is Romney so far, not the Huckster. Romney is not a veteran politician and he damaged his credibility badly trying to pander to bible-thumpers. (Think Hillary also stupidly trying the same thing to a Southern black audience - Ahhh ain't tihred, nuh way, nuh how!) YOu can't out-thump a bible thumper or convince some of them that heresies like Catholicism, Mormonism, being a Jew are acceptable...
He now has this phoniness bit clinging to him that he has to dispell by showing what he is - a guy that has spent his lifetime fixing broken things or making little promising things turn into big valuable things - in business, in NGOs like the Olympics and Mormon Church, in Government.

It would be stupid to reduce a Presidential contest to which person gives the best "soaring, elegant speeches" and who has worked up the best self-deprecating humor on their perspective rubber chicken circuits the past 20 years. Especially when one just talks a good game and the other is a Flat Earther Fundie with numerous scandals and high tax, Open Borders socialistic tendencies.

Huck does not have the high negatives of Romney or McCain. He can reach the middle.

And Huck does not have the high negatives of leading candidates and is surrounded in the warm glow of a Biden or Richardson because?? You guessed it, he wasn't a leading candidate until less than a month ago. And the press is determined not to vivisect Huck or Obama just yet or turn on one of their great leak feeders - McCain - until later.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 7, 2008 11:52 PM

Ci2Eye is right we need the uncommon man because the common man will miss spell conservative twice in a blog where as Mitt Romney wouldn't.

Posted by Brett S | January 7, 2008 11:52 PM

Okay Ben, here's why you should vote for John McCain:

1) The man is a certified war hero who endured alomst 6 years of hell in a North Vietnamese prison cell while people like Hillary Clinton were protesting the war and undermining our troops in the field. When given the opportunity to be released, he refused unless all of his fellow prisoners would also be released.

2) John McCain was the only ... the ONLY! ... presidential candidate from either party to openly call for sending more troops to Iraq in early 2007. Everybody else, both Democrat and Republican, was looking for a way out. At the time, he said "I'd rather lose the presidency than see my country lose a war we need to win." THAT's leadership, Ben! Not doing what's easy or popular, but doing what you believe to be right. Had it not been for people like John McCain, we would have have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq instead of being poised for a huge victory over islamic extremism like we are today.

3) John McCain understands that, like it or not, sometimes its necessary to compromise with the other side in order to get things done. The 70% of the American electorate in the political middle is sick and tired of the "progressive" far left and the "true consevative" far right shooting spitballs back & forth at each other, playing "Gotcha!!!" while nothing is done to address the very serious problems that this country faces. John McCain has earned the respect of lawmakers of both parties (witness his endorsement by Democrat Joe Lieberman) and he will be able to bridge the partisan divide that has so poisoned Washington since the 1990s. This is what the American people want when they speak of "change". We're sick & tired of the f***ing "culture wars" and rigid, anal-retentive idiots who would rather cling to some standard of ideological purity than actually accomplish anything!

4) John McCain knows full well that we aren't gonna round up 12,000,000 illegal aliens and deport them. It ain't gonna happen, OK? Forget about it. He knows that while the border must be secured, we also have to assimilate these people into American society. He hasn't stooped to demagougery by shamelessly screaming "AMNESTY! AMNESTY!" to get votes like Mitt Romney, who hypocritally employed illegal aliens to weed the flower beds at his mansion!

5) Even though you referenced it in your post, it bears repeating that John McCain consistently polls as the strongest Republican candidate to take on either Hillary or Obama. You aren't thrilled with the prospect of a McCain presidency? Try imagining President Clinton or President Obama with a Democrat-controlled House and Senate! All of a sudden "President McCain" starts to sound a whole lot better. And make no mistake: Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson don't have a prayer in November. Maybe Rudy Giuliani can win, but McCain's the best bet.

Is that enough reasons for you? If not, I would finally add that John McCain is a man of uncommon courage, experience, and strength of character. He's proven it throughout his life. Like Ronald Reagan, he's simply a stud. He's the kind of man I want in the Oval Office.

GO JOHN GO!!!!

Posted by Dan | January 7, 2008 11:56 PM

McCain has expressed perhaps the most appalling "flip-flop" regarding his stance on amnesty for illegals. Only after the backlash on Washington through e-mails, phone calls, and letters did the Senator get the picture. Many conservatives, if not the majority, look at illegal immigration as their most important issue, and he was wrong. Plus, McCain voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts which helped our national economy.

I'm extremely skeptical about Huckabee's support of the fair tax, since I've heard multiple times in the last several days that the fair tax would NEVER pass Congress, especially if the Dems hold the majority. It looks like Huckabee needed an issue to attract fiscal conservatives not just the evangelicals. I'm a Christian and I see Huckabee as weak on immigration, taxes, and foreign affairs. He's a liberal on many important conservative issues, namely smaller government. That leaves Governor Romney, who brings economic experience and success to the table. Conservatives need to nominate a candidate who best brings together all the coalitons within the GOP. Mitt Romney receives my vote.

Posted by Scott | January 7, 2008 11:57 PM

You're welcome J.C.

I don't understand why people want a President who is "like us". I want a President who comes from among us but has clearly risen to a level well above us.

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 7, 2008 11:59 PM

I am 72 years old and Mit Romney is the most capable man that has ever run for the Presidency in my memory. We would be getting a "turnaround" specialist who could "turn around" Washington. As for Huckabee, he is Jimmy Carter II. So many evangelicals changed parties just to vote for him. He taught a Sunday School class and his sister was a faith healer. How could he be wrong? We found out with interest rates over 20%, our embassy in Iran held hostage for over a year, every other day gas purchases (remember that) and getting up at 5 a.m. just to get enough gas to go to work. For those of you that think that just because he is a Christian he will be great - remember Jimmy Carter. Huckabee needs to run a mega church. He is a great preacher and would be very successful. He would be a disaster in the White House. Wake UP people!!!!

Posted by Rachel | January 8, 2008 12:05 AM

Liars, Buyers, and Whores! Anyone can spend a few minutes on the internet and find condeming facts about any one the candidates. I made it real simple this time around. I'm voting for the person I like the most. The same way I pick those that I want to hang out with and those I don't. A few of those guys would be trying to screw my wife when I'm out of town. I won't be voting for them. A couple of them come across as real cocky. I usually get pretty tired of those kind. One of them I think is going to pass away soon, man he's depressing as hell to listen to, somebody slap him. Only one of them I can trust. I would even feel comforable inviting him over to share some hamburger helper.

Posted by JAKE | January 8, 2008 12:06 AM

Scott, you're a xenophobic retard, as is anyone who screams "ANMESTY!" every time the subject of immigration reform is raised. One can only hope that there aren't enough of you to tip the Republican nomination to some sure loser in November like Mitt Romney. Hell, if it came down to Romney or Obama, I'd probably vote for Obama. Romney turns me off that much. He's totally plastic, just like Al Gore was in 2000.

I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of independent voters will also vote for Obama, and then you can enjoy 4 (probably 8) years of a Democratic president and a Democratic congress who you can be assured will do absolutely NOTHING to change this country's current immigratioin policies! Wake up.

Posted by Dan | January 8, 2008 12:09 AM

We don't need to fight the Democratic, populist, BIG government "movement" with a Republican, populist, big government "movement". Thought that was kinda cute the BIG vs big. You can tell i am not a comedian.

You can't out hug a tree hugger. If you use class warfare, the only class that looses is the middle class (and that is about 80% of us). We have a trial lawyer telling us we have 2 Americas. We have Senator telling us he is going to "change" Washington (by increasing the amount of money they take from the citizens). We have the first woman candidate (and she has her own set of White House china, well that is one good point).

So why don't we nominate someone that could really look at the bureaucracy and start to whittle it away, return school choice to the people at home, build our military and national security organizations back to the levels they should be.

Enough rambling. Good night.

Posted by Mike L | January 8, 2008 12:11 AM

Chris Ford,

Thanks for the post. Interesting read about Mitt's education experiences that goes way beyond just knowing the actual degrees he earned.

He's an impressive guy who indeed goes way beyond common.

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 8, 2008 12:15 AM

Wow, way to bring out the facts Chris Ford!

As for Dan, while what you say is mostly true, I don't believe John McCain's war record has any bearing anymore. I'm a Retired Chief Intelligence Specialist, and I hold John McCain's Military record in the highest regard, but it's been too long to parley that into anything now. I'll give him his due; he has ALWAYS done right by the Military.

It's true that Washington requires compromises sometimes to get things done, but he has compromised TOO MUCH for me to believe he can be a Conservative President. I won't vote for someone simply because he'll draw Independent voters from the Left - We ALL should vote for the person who will be the best President.

Posted by J.C. | January 8, 2008 12:16 AM

Ben in Texas

Why do I support McCain?

1. I want to be proud of my vote 2. i think he will put us on track to energy independence 3.I trust him to keep us on the offence against terror 4. I trust him to stabilize Iraq 5. I know he will appoint conservative judges 6 I know he stands by the 2nd amendment 7. he has been a crusader all his life for spending cuts (especially pork barrel spending) 8. he has a record of working accross the aisle which makes him a centrist who can get things done 9. his record of changing the status quo (hence the "maverick" nickame, Jack Abramoff's incarceration and the success of the Iraqi surge) and 10. if there is a terorist attack or a foreign policy crisis there is no one else in whose hands I want the ball given his experience and life history

Posted by prentman | January 8, 2008 12:17 AM

Rachael,
You are right on the money. Problem is, many today don't remeber that time and think Bill Clinton gave us 8 years of a great economy and now Obama or Huckabee could do the same thing. However, Bill was riding out 12 years of fiscal conservative policies and the rape of our military, stripping the equipment and numbers in the service.

Happy birthday, whenever it was.

Posted by Mike L | January 8, 2008 12:20 AM

Dan makes some excellent points regarding Senator McCain. He is an American hero and has a long record of service to our country. perhaps, too long. He has made compromises in legistation that bring into question his ability to manage our nation in a way that will move us forward. I can't ignore the whole immigration debacle. That combined with his stance on taxes and our freedom of speech are very worrisome to me. He does not speak for me. I have followed him for years and even supported him in earlier years. But, it is time for a change. I don't watch polls too closely, and perhaps we all need to stop following them so closely. I'm hoping for the best our country has to offer, unfortunately, it is probably not McCain

Posted by Deborah | January 8, 2008 12:21 AM

JC,
the only time John will draw independent voters is in the Republican primaries, then they go back to the more liberal side.

Ben in Texas
I am proud of my support for Romney. You should never be ashamed of your vote unless you sell it.
Reaching across the aisle for McCain-Feingold, abuse of the first amendment, freedom of speech restrictions is not good for the country
Compromising on fair play for and up or down vote on judges is not fair or good for the country. Republicans did not filibuster Clinton's nominees. The Democratic strategy was the first time in history (1 exception over 200 years). John's "gang of 14" was purely political and set a terrible precedent.
So, I don't want to continue to bash John McCain, but he is not a conservative.

Posted by mike L | January 8, 2008 12:30 AM

JC:

I don't think Dan was saying that McCain's heroic service was a REASON to vote for him. Just that it's something that defines who he is.

Posted by prentman | January 8, 2008 12:33 AM

Just a foot note on Huckabee. The guy I want running our US of A. By the way, this is a personal attack ad in case some of you didn't recognize it.
Huckabee on the Economy
The grocery-tax cut took effect July 1 (passed by his successor, not Mike).
According to the Arkansas Policy Foundation it will save the average four-person family in the state $234 a year. That may not sound like much, but it is significant in a state where per capita income has generally ranked 48th or 49th in the nation.
In 1983, when Clinton began what would be a ten-year stint as governor, per capita income in Arkansas was only 75.2 percent of the U.S. average. It increased only a hair to 77.6 percent of the national average in 2006, when Huckabee left office.
But now there will be $234 more in each Arkansas household each year, an important amount in a poor state.

Posted by mike L | January 8, 2008 12:36 AM

That's right. Mike, the compassionate, Christian conservative that wanted to allow the children of illegal aliens to be eligible for state funded scholarships didn't reduce the sales tax in his state on FOOD!!!!!
Got to love the record.

Posted by mike L | January 8, 2008 12:39 AM

Ok I am going to be respectful and civil to all the people that are voting for McCain. I must plead with you to reconsider your vote. Please please please don't give our country over to Mexico. This is America we speak english here and we should learn Spanish not because it is inevitable that spanish will be more widely spoken in North America in fifty years than english but because we need to be the best we need to roll with these changes that will come. McCain has had a undistinguished life excluding POW experience. He was a sub par student with discipline problems and problems with authority . He had around 100 demerits at the Naval academy. He had a prolonged relationship with a stripper, cheated on his loving wife that waited for him for all those years he was in Vietnam, was involved with multiple scandals one of which being the Keating five. He has an anger problem but has never been ordered to go to anger management like average people sometimes are. Bottom line undistinguished and unqualified intellectually to lead this country.

Posted by Cameron | January 8, 2008 12:41 AM

"Where there are men on the moon that dress like quakers ( according to the prophet and founder of the LDS church, Joseph Smith)" - DavidE

Who let the bigot out of his cage?

DavidE, you might want to question what your preacher tells you before repeating it - you only look like an ignorant fool now.

Is this the best weapon the anti-Romney nuts have? Ridiculous anti-Mormon chestnuts?

Posted by Chris | January 8, 2008 12:45 AM

I was looking at Mike Huckabee's background:

His first job was working at a radio station where he read the weather. He was President of Hope High Schools Student Body. He graduated from Ouachita Baptist University completing his bachelor’s degree in Religion in 2 1/2 years, before attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth where he dropped out after one year. After his college experience he worked for a television evangelist, James Robinson who he says shaped his character. He has several honorary degrees. His profession is listed as American Politician Author, and Public Speaker and inactive Minister.

How can some one with 2 1/2 years of college, No Business, economic or judicial experience be fit to lead our country.

I believe it would be beneficial for all of us to see what real experience each of these candidates have before we elect them to the highest office in the land.

Posted by Troy | January 8, 2008 12:46 AM

Mike Huckabee supports the "Fair Tax" because he wants to obfuscate his real record on taxes. Bring his record up, and he'll throw the old "fair tax" into the mix. What cracks me up is to hear people claim that the Huckster hears the voice of the middle class. If he really cared, why did he raise the sales tax in Arkansas? It hits the poor the hardest of all taxes, and yet that was his choice. If he loves the middle class so much, why is he proposing a fair tax that relies upon a sales tax--again targeting the middle class?

And yes, those taxes target the middle class, as they spend a greater percentage of their money on raw consumerism. Additionally, they are taxed at the same rate as a man who makes millions. Let's not even ask what this does to the American economy. By raising the price of buying things, it discourages spending money. The recipte for economic growth?

And since used items are not covered under a fair tax, Mike Huckabee is effectively turning the US economy into a great flea market with perhaps an even stronger black market.

Not that his little fair tax would ever pass.

Huckabee's record is abysmal. And while I like a religious candidate, the Huckster is Grade A tent camp revival: something that will never appeal to Catholics and mainliners. He made the claim that all those who enter faith through Christ are becoming "members of God's army." Excuse me? Can anyone come up with the first reference on how that's appropriate? The only thing remotely close from Christ's words was that he would divine families. Christ's servants? Great! Christ's agents? Great! Christ's followers? Fine! Christ's army? It doesn't jive with my faith. At all.

Posted by CMartel2 | January 8, 2008 12:46 AM

All New Hampshire read this entry before you cast your vote today! You must take some time to read the Blog entry Posted by:
Ci2Eye | January 7, 2008 11:42 PM.

This entry did a lot to confirm my vote. We do need an uncommon leader in these troubled times.

Posted by Deborah | January 8, 2008 12:49 AM

To the other Dan:
You list off some of the things you think are great about McCain, so I will list the things that I don't:

1) Google "Keating Five". The only reason he tried to reform campaign finance was to make himself look good because he got caught in a scandal of his own.

2) He made a back room deal with some Dems to not allow the Republicans the use what the MSM had called the nuclear option on court appointments which would have allowed an up or down vote in the senate to get strict constitutionalists nominees. This could be harmful to MANY generations.

3) No matter how he spins it, he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice, but now has flip-flopped and says we need it. He says that he is trying to model Reagan on this one because he wanted to cut spending at the same time. Reagan didn't wait for spending cuts. He knew that when you cut taxes, tax revenue increases. Just like the Bush tax cuts. He also will not sign the anti-tax pledge.

4) The most recent flip-flop McCain is selling is that he isn't for amnesty. What would you call allowing the illegals to stay in the country? He says that he would get the 2 million criminal illegals out. What about the ones that commit tax fraud by not paying taxes on their income but abuse the services provided by tax payers? Or the other ones that commit fraud by using someone else's ID and SS#??? What about those criminals?

5) See #1. McCain-Feingold was the single worst repression of free speech we have seen in a long time in one of the most important places where free speech is needed...in the ability to have our voices heard in choosing our politicians.

6) He is deifinetly not 100% pro-life.In August 1999, during a campaign swing through California, McCain told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that though he would "love to see a point" where the Supreme Court decision could be repealed, he did not support its repeal. Now he says that Roe v Wade is a badly flawed decision. Is that a flip-flop?

How can any Republican vote for John McCain? He has consistently shown that he cannot be trusted to stand for what most Republicans do stand for...Lower taxes, the sanctity of life, the rule of law and judges that will not make laws. John McCain does not stand for any of those things and has proven so.

So, don't believe the spin you hear from McCain and his supporters. Look for yourselves at who the real flip-flopper is. You will see that it is John McCain.

Again, that is why Mitt Romney, with a record you can go and look up for proof, is my CLEAR choice for President.

Posted by Dan | January 8, 2008 12:51 AM

Dan,
You don't even acknowledge McCain's flip-flop. Were all of the people that hit Washington over the Kennedy immigration bill xenophobes too? Democrats got the message just like the President and McCain did. It's about the rule of law, not discrimination. How could you vote for Obama over Romney? He's the one who, if elected, wants to talk with the loon in Iran. Can we infer Obama is an anti-Semite because he wants to meet with Achmidinejead (spelling?) since Mahmoud wants to wipe Israel off the map? I don't think he is, but I still wouldn't support him. Wasn't he the one who suggested bombing areas in nuclear-powered "ally" Pakistan to find Bin Laden/Al Qaeda? McCain is honorable, I just am not on the bandwagon for his brand of politics as the commander-in-chief. However, as a proud conservative I would support a McCain nomination, and not even consider voting for Obama. By the way, your "retard" comment reflects poorly on you. Let the liberals smear each other.

Posted by Scott | January 8, 2008 12:53 AM

I just want to make it clear, there are 2 Dan's commenting right now. One who is for McCain and calls people "retards" and myself who is for Romney.

Posted by Dan | January 8, 2008 1:09 AM

Dan,
Your attitude reminds me of McCain, no wonder you like him. Agree with me or F off. Very convincing.
He is a war hero no doubt but a lousy Senator and no conservative. Should we expect his running mate to be Teddy? or Feingold? You might want to peddle your anger politics in the other party (try moveon.org). Not going to work with value based folks.

Glad to See Steve L dropped out which is what the Huckster will be doing soon. Slick politicians from Hope, AR ain't gonna cut it in either party this time round. His identity politics is frankly disgusting. Don't think his question "don't Morman's think that Jesus and Satan were brothers?" qualifies as WWJD. Reminds me more of Jesse then Jesus.

Posted by Jim | January 8, 2008 1:18 AM

...or is there only one Dan, with a split personality?!?!

Two Dan's... duly noted.

Posted by J.C. | January 8, 2008 1:18 AM

I am voting for Romney for President. His qualifications are, by far, the best of any of the candidates. I could not trust the economy, the war, foreign policy, the administration, or a new direction for the country to any one of the other candidates. Romney has the vision, the energy, the intelligence, the character, the background, and the education to be a great president. None of the others come close. If you honestly look at what should be important in selecting a candidate you will agree. Forget all the labels. Labels do not mean a thing and are for people who do not think and/or who are bigoted.

Posted by Mad Jayhawk | January 8, 2008 1:31 AM

Sorry Dan the Romney supporter. I missed the posts between mine. Mitt is best candidate running to bring about change to the Beltway, not any of the senators or congressmen or former preachers. Republicans lost their way with spending and the majority in '06, so we need a man with ideas for improving our economy while protecting our borders and not taxing us to death to take charge. The buzz is about change, but I'd like that change to make government smaller, not bigger.

Posted by Scott | January 8, 2008 1:32 AM

"Vote for Mike Huckabee...a real conservative. The Republican Party is changing and the values Huck has of caring for the poor in our country and not just the rich is going to be apart of that change."

Oh boy - just what I want, the death of Reagan Conservatism and the rise of populist pap. Government - to a true conservative - is not there to be our nanny. Using government to "help" the poor has not, and will not work. Private groups, families, churches and individuals do a far better job of lifting others up. All government has done in "helping" the poor is create a class of dependents (and voters for the left) and removed power away from private charities. Why should a drunk go to a Catholic parish for help knowing that the Father there will make him sober up - the government will give him a free ride? Why go to LDS social services when you get free check every month thanks to the government? Why go through the pain of going drug free with the help of a Baptist run rehabilitation center when you can always count on Uncle Sam to support you in your addiction? Compassion - to a true conservative - does not include creating more people dependent on government. Huck, the Christian populist, is not a conservative! Increasing the power of government ALWAYS decreases the freedom of the people.

Which Greek philosopher stated that democracy is doomed to fail once the people realize they can vote for the state to provide them with bread?

Posted by Evan | January 8, 2008 1:43 AM

Skip,

Hucks excuse that he "showed the ad to the media because they would have said he was lying and didn't even have one" is a ridiculous lie. Huck said himself that he made the decision to pull that ad about an hour before is was to air. The media already had the ad and had seen it, or at least had the opportunity to see it. A couple of them apparently didn't get the memo in time, because it was aired a time or two. Sure, the print media hadn't seen the ad, but all they had to do was ask the broadcast media if the ad really existed.

(And if Huck really didn't want to air the ad, why would he even care if people knew about it. Why even bring it up???)

This whole episode is the most humorous political PR stunt I've ever seen.

Posted by Diane | January 8, 2008 1:49 AM

Dang! I just learned from some very astute posters here that Mitt is paying people to post for him on the web. All this time I've been doing it for free... I'm so angry I just might go McCain here any moment. Why didn't any of you pro-Mitt posters (all of you are paid of course) let me in on the secret?!

I think I'll switch my support to lucky Hucky.

Posted by Evan | January 8, 2008 1:52 AM

Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes sense for the avg. ppl and he has the record to back up what he is saying. Go Dr. Paul.

Posted by John HU | January 8, 2008 2:00 AM

Skip,

Here is a good test that I use myself to see if I'm truely being honest, our if I'm pulling the wool over my eyes and happily drinking the Kool-Aid.

Take out Huck's name and insert your least favorite canidate's name into the story.

For example:
Mitt said that he "showed the ad to the media because they would have said he was lying and didn't even have one".

Be a bit more honest with yourselves Huckabites. The guy is populist who is running an anti-Mormon whisper campaign against Mitt Romney, and setting himself up as "Pastor-n-Chief" or "Mulla". Huck will win many of the votes from the unenlightened evangelicals who want to vote for one of "us" vs one of "them". Fortunately I know that there are some pretty sharp evangelicals who can see that Huck is not much more than witty one liners and cut from the same cloth as another Arkansa governer who ran for president.

Posted by Evan | January 8, 2008 2:03 AM

John McCain has earned the respect of lawmakers of both parties (witness his endorsement by Democrat Joe Lieberman) and he will be able to bridge the partisan divide that has so poisoned Washington since the 1990s...

You are using pretzel logic. Lieberman, the leper of Democrats embraces McCain, the leper of conservative Republicans - and you call that a sign of proof that the two men have earned the respect of lawmakers of both parties?
Look, I admire Lieberman and McCain, but both have worked to build media reputations through betrayal of Party committments and not from a noble bipartisan philosophy. Lieberman through his embrace of neocon thinking and Mccain from 25 years of either being hardcore and expecting others to loyally back his obstinate behavior up, or a Maverick out sabotaging positions to position himself as the "wise man in the middle" attempting to "salvage the situation" by making what John McCain wants, happen. Like his grating "my dear friend" greeting which he uses equally on ex-VC captors, Reagan, Ted Kennedy, Mitt, or any station he can get in front of a camera for, McCains "bipartisanship" is passive-aggressive.
**************
I strongly concur with Paul on the brainless sheep chanting "flip-flopper!" It is one thing to say someone that changes their mind on a war funding vote the same day is a flip-flopper. It is another to smear a man as purportedly weak and vacillating for reconsidering a view and changing a stance.
In the military, in management we have a word for stubborn or miind frozen in stone, managers and officers that refuse to learn from experience and change methods or views to fix a clusterfuck. We call them ex-managers and ex-officers.
We also have a word for people that convince people to convert to a position or rethink a decision - then openly hold the person they convinced in contempt because they were right before the other person "flipped" to agree with them and showed their character flaw.
We call them people that shouldn't be trusted to convince someone to become pro-life, rethink their faith, a life of crime. Assholes. Assholes because they have to feel purer and above the new convert. Which makes their persuasion abilities awful.
The right to life fanatics throwing shit in Romney's face because he publically came to agree with them and thus proved he was less pure, a phoney compared to a good rural Southern kid who was taught anti-abortion was a matter of dogma that they best never question or Sweet Baby Jesus would be pissed -while still walking barefoot in red Southern soil - guarantee one thing. It becomes a lot harder to convince others to be pro-life if your convert not only pisses off the pro-choice people they once knew but are publically scorned and riduculed by the RTL people whose cause they joined as a "flip-flopper, a flip-flopper!"
That's a real selling point for the pro-life movement, isn't it?

And no better illustration of the deep failure of a leader determined never, ever to change his mind in the face of facts or reversing decisions that killed thousands of Americans and foreigners unecessarily exists than George Bush. In his determination to never revisit a decision he made because his gut is always right - he avoided people that wished to hash out problems, awarded Presidential Medals of Freedom to his worst decision-makers - Franks, Tenet, Bremer and would have tossed one in for his "special friend" Rummy, if he could have. Bush has run with a dysfunctional leadership and management style. McCain, Mr. Arrogant and Obstinant, would be just as bad in office.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 8, 2008 2:05 AM

Deb said:

McCain is the only one to have a chance against Obama for 2 primary reasons:

1. He Draws Independents
2. The Media Loves Him

----

1). Yes, McCain draws some support from independents. I believe his strongest suit is his appeal to the "apathetic vote", people who have no idea where candidates stand on the issues but have seen the guy's face on the media year after year so figure he is presidential material.

2). In an Obama versus McCain election, the media will no longer be very fond of McCain.

But, the fact that McCain is the liberal media's favorite "Republican" probably would indeed count for something, in that they would not bash him as hard in the general election as they would someone like Romney.

However, with a candidate like Romney, whom the media hates with a vengeance, they will attempt to bludgeon him so shamelessly that there might be a pro Romney backlash.

Posted by lance sjogren | January 8, 2008 2:13 AM

Chris Ford:

With all the political analysis going on it is refreshing when someone brings some genuinely new insights into the mix.

Your post is brilliant. Your comment about McCain's passive-aggressive temperament is something I have sort of been aware of for a long time, but I have never seen it articulated the way you did.

McCain's reference to anyone, friend or foe, as "my friend", as you point out, is something that has grated on me for a long time, and, as you point out, is indicative of his pathological political persona.

Posted by lance sjogren | January 8, 2008 2:20 AM

...or is there only one Dan, with a split personality?!?!

Two Dan's... duly noted.

Maybe it's the same Dan. Dan did some soul searching and realized that it was not the fact that others opposed McCain that was a sign that they were retarded, it was the fact that he supported McCain that was evidence of a mental disorder.

So he engaged in some self-therapy and cured his McCain's syndrome.

Posted by lance sjogren | January 8, 2008 2:25 AM

This is ridiculous. Many of you are using ad hominem arguments to discredit candidates. I once again feel the need to interject.

First of all, yes, I said I was a liberal (social). However, I'm a fiscal conservative. This is why I rather like McCain.

Before someone goes off on some "McCain isn't a conservative rant," let me, as a outsider, tell you that there are two distinct stances:
Social conservative: no gay rights, pro-life, gun-rights, no euthanasia, favor creationism, no proper sex education (I'm sorry, that last one was an editorial on my part. As a high school student, it's my duty to inform social conservatives that abstinence-only sex ed has failed; so many kids at my school are sexually active. Congratulations)

Fiscal conservatism (your Reaganomic def): 1) reduce the growth of government spending, 2) reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital, 3) reduce regulation, and (4) control the money supply to reduce inflation (sound money policy)

When people say that John McCain is not a conservative, they are being ambiguous; are you referring to conservatism in the fiscal sense or the social sense?

Dan, I'm sorry, but you are sorely mistaken when you dismiss McCain's justification for opposing the Bush tax cuts as "spin." McCain stated that the tax cuts did not include spending caps. Under the first tenet of Reaganomics, the reduction of spending is needed. McCain qualifies as a fiscal conservative.

A social conservative McCain is not. A former aide said of him, "He's a social conservative, but his heart isn't in this stuff." He's more of a conservative that isn't in to the whole making his beliefs law.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter if he's the tradition kind of conservative. It's about selecting the most electable Republican. McCain will hold tremendous appeal for independents and Reagan Democrats like my father.

Posted by Nick | January 8, 2008 2:28 AM

Huckabee is a phony, as phony as they come. He is not conservative but is appealing to those religious conservatives who are not familiar with his record. McCain is old and crusty and mean-spirited. He's also not funny though he tries to be. He is liberal, hence the "maverick" nickname, and his lymphadenopathy means he will probably die in the next ten years.

Vote for Romney, don't be blinded by the media's false criticisms. He changed one position once (which obviously makes him a flip-flopper) and he is terrible because he's a Mormon. That's about the extent of the criticisms. Oh yeah, he's also "unlikeable". Whatever. Get a clue people.

Posted by Ben | January 8, 2008 4:02 AM

Huckabee is leading the republican nomination with 25% of the vote, ahead of Giulani at 20, and Romney at 9%, according to Gallup. Huckabee won the Iowa vote by 9 points, way more then of the polls predicted. He won among women and those who make less then 100,000 a year and younger votes, and those who identify themselves as very conservative and conservative, and those who consider themselves evangelical. Everyone thought that it was a close race, and 'conservative columnists' thought that Romney would win it, and he didn't. And when Huckabee won, his rivals are still trying to spin away his victory. I think that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh won't support Huckabee until he gets the nomination and its the general election and he's facing the Democrats. Then, those who are working for the victory of Huck's rivals will urge people to vote for him.

Lets see: Huckabee campaigns against abortion, for the 2nd Amendment, wants to get rid of the income tax, wants a strong military, against gay marriage, isn't calling for universal health care like the Democrats, supports the surge in Iraq. Those are very conservative positions. He's conservative on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues, conservative on foreign policy. Calling Huckabee a "liberal" didn't work in Iowa among the Republican base, so why do you expect anybody to take it seriously? If Huckabee is a liberal, then George W Bush must be a liberal too, right?

Posted by voter | January 8, 2008 4:21 AM

McCain conservative. Yeah, right. Huckabee conservative. See McCain. The same goes for the rest of the field. Republicans have run to the middle far earlier than the other side. They may run farther to the middle to win in November and really push the left even farther to the left, just to be different. Where will that leave us as a country?

None are true Republicans. We are scared of throwing up a true Republican and have been for years. The national guys (Bush and Congress) have been spending to win votes for 7 years, it has not worked. To take it all away scares everyone.

We refuse to listen to anyone that preaches the conservative mantra of spending cuts, cutting taxes, more spending cuts and getting the Feds out of the states business. We don't vote for them. It will take a crisis (see Jimmy Carter) to get a true Republican elected. Until then, it is a shell game and we are playing along.

True Republican? Run Condie. She is less defined than Obama, maybe she will end the shell game. She is about the only one out there that hasn't had to defend a liberal 'moment'. She may be the only true Republican just by default.

Until then? Run Romney. The only side that cares if he is Mormon is his own party. The other side (leaders and a plurality of voters) hates religion in most any flavor, Mormon or not. At least Romney has run a state, run a business, and would not embarrass the office. Everyone else is a guess. Romney is smart enough and vain enough to find the right people. The only question is, would they be our kind of 'right people.'

Posted by CApublican | January 8, 2008 5:15 AM

If Huckabee gets the nomination the Republican party won't rebound for 20 years!!I live in Memphis, just accross the river from this idiot!! He is a joke...Imagine, Obama stuffing the Huckster, big time, and you will have the whole picture. This guy is shallow, and a fraud. I can just see it....its the day after the party convention, and all the newspapers are full of the bad news luggage this guy has....Kinda like Guiliani. Imagine little Ole McCain, debating the 6 foot 2 Obama. The cartoonist will have a hay day. The headlines will read: "THE OLDEST CANDADATE AGAINST THE YOUNGEST CANDADATE IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA". You don't have to use your imagination to know the out come of that incounter. "WE LOSE!!! Wake up people. Like it or not, if you want to win this thing Romney is the only one of them that can go toe to toe with Obama and win..If thats important to you.

Posted by ITrustNo1 | January 8, 2008 5:25 AM

Just remember the new SLOGAN:

"ROMNEY IS THE NEW REAGAN"

He's got so many attributes of Reagan, it's uncanny. For those complaining about his changing from Prochoice to Pro-Life, Reagan also did that, yet he became President.

He's articulate, if not moreso, than Reagan.

And he doesn't come across as someone the democrats could allege is not bright. They often would try to paint Reagan as a dunce who listened to Nancy's astrology.

This won't work against Romney. He's sharp as a tack.

He also has a classy way of debating - always takes the high road with a smile, while McCain seems passive-aggressive. McCain's "poor me, I'm a victim of attack ads" playbook is so obviously emotionally manipulative.

From a very superficial standpoint, ROMNEY is a good-looking robustly vital and energetic specimen who would be a wonderful representation of our country compared to the pathetic Texas-hick style of Bush or Huckabush. Romney is so Reaganesque in that respect and I look forward to seeing pictures of a man of his stature and intellect negotiating with that dishonest, slimy punk called Putin. What a contrast of two countries!

And Romney is just the one to defeat Mocha Obama!

Can anyone here cite what they believe to be Mocha Obama's weaknesses aside from the fact that he's an empty suit who gives vague loft rambling platitudinous speeches that have no substance.

Posted by ChrisAnd | January 8, 2008 6:08 AM

Is Marc Ambinder lost son of Romney? Why is Marc always licking Romney's hands?

I have not seen anything as biased as this shit from Marc on his blog.

Posted by Um | January 8, 2008 8:43 AM

ChrisAnd: What's with the "Mocha"?

Life issues are the number one priority for me, and I support Romney. Although I disagree with him on capital punishment, I am convinced the turnaround in his thinking on abortion and embryonic stem cell research is authentic. I would not support him otherwise.

Concerning Romney's Mormonism: he inherited it. There is no indication that he has set aside years of his life to devote to studying what is and what is not reasonable about his faith. In this he would appear to have something in common with many of us of different faiths. Nevertheless, he is by all accounts and evidence a strong family man devoted to his one wife and their five sons, daughters-in-law, and grandchildren.

Romney is wicked smart and yet seems down to earth at the same time. He earned his JD cum laude and MBA concurrently (!) from Harvard. Sometimes he tells jokes that aren't funny, like the hair bit in response to Huckabee's campaign advisor's stated desire to knock Romney's teeth out. As someone pointed out, in debates Romney does not take advantage of his intellect to put down other people, when he could easily crush them, but tries always to bring the discourse back to the issues and the records. Romney's records in business, in the Olympics, and in government indicate he is a man of general competence with some extra special gifts thrown in. The fact that he has such varied and successful executive experience coupled with training in the law would be a boon for our nation and for the world if he were elected President.

By all indications, Romney loves this country very much. He appears to be grateful for the opportunities he has had--opportunities that he took and, as any good steward should, ran with. I think he is ready to give back big time.

Posted by SC&Mich | January 8, 2008 8:51 AM

Marc,

Excellent overview of what might occur today. John McCain is problematic for conservative Republicans because he's so liberal.

I like Mitt Romney and I thought he did an incredible job Sunday night as well. Let's keep our fingers crossed that people are voting for the issues, leadership, capability and proven track records, such as Mitt Romney's and not the, "don't pick me on me with my voting record, it's negative," the ad, not the record. Oh yeah? Records are terrible for Huckabee and McCain.

Posted by Candace Salima | January 8, 2008 9:07 AM

I remember a story of a lady who would have seizures every time she heard Mary Hart's voice on TVs Entertainment Tonight. Well, I have the same problem with Mike Huckabee. I'm sure he is a nice enough fellow, but there is just something about the fast talking, sing-song preachers cadence that sets off a bad reaction in my brain. Can anyone explain this?

Posted by scotty | January 8, 2008 10:01 AM

Go Mitt!

Posted by Cory | January 8, 2008 11:03 AM

Mr. Mitt Romney is the only candidate in this race that has viable solutions to the needs of a changing America.

Listen closely to the words of all the other candidates. They talk about change but have no idea what they would do to create change. Mitt is the only one that has a statistical eye to what is really going on.

Give me a successful business eye and personality over a politician.........I choose Mitt Romney for President!

Posted by Mark D | January 8, 2008 12:31 PM

I'm still curious as to why some of the Huck supporters here see him as very conservative, while other Huck supporters admit that he will bring a "New" conservatism to us. I agree with the later, Huck will bring us a "New" conservatism; one that promotes bigger government to help the poor and needy. Hmmm... this "New" conservatism sure doesn't sound much like the old.

To the poster that said he was Baptist from the age of 12 and feels that government helping the poor is very Christian. The Lord said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's. We as individuals should be looking out for our brothers and sisters. When we remove that responsibility off our shoulders - we loose touch with our own sense of charity. Some friends of our had a Norwegian exchange student in their home. One day he noticed them make a large donation at their church - a donation to help out some members in need. His attitude was, "how stupid, in our country the government takes care of all that".

I do not want to live in a nation where the goverment has taken away our individual responsibilty to help others around us. If you read my previous post, you will also note that the government does a terrible job at charity no matter how much money it throws at the problem!

Posted by Evan | January 8, 2008 12:44 PM

I've looked at Huck's past as well. How can ANYONE believe that this guy has the brains needed to run this nation well? He is crafty and he has practice in front of a crowd - but I do not believe he should ever be commander and chief and chief executive over the most powerfull nation on Earth.

Posted by Evan | January 8, 2008 12:49 PM

AMEN! No Hucksters in the oval office!

Posted by Mark D | January 8, 2008 1:18 PM

Evan,

If you look at Huckabee’s past you see that his first job was at a radio station reading the weather. Interestingly, I remember from Reagan’s biography that he too was in radio. As I recall, he was a sportscaster.

Both men are good speakers and this training is likely the reason. I would imagine one learns quickly to enunciate and develop a cadence to their speech that is a must in broadcasting. Huckabee expounded upon this training and went on to be a pastor of several churches. Again, his ability to speak compellingly was key. Modern pastors inject many one-liners and a fair amount of wit into their sermons to keep the audience engaged. If you listen to Huckabee on the campaign trail, his still does this today. In fact, it’s the humor than many cite as a reason for liking him. But, unlike Ronald Reagan, I don’t think Huckabee has many strengths beyond his oratory skills and speaking ability is only one of many strengths a President should possess.

Posted by Ci2Eye | January 8, 2008 1:56 PM

Hucksterbee's nomination would be a complete disaster of 1964 proportions for the Republicans with one significant difference: at least Goldwater's political immolation planted the seeds that started the modern conservative movement. Hucksterbee will be carried along by the media because they are salivating at presenting Hucksterbee as another Pat Robertson if he was nominated. But prior to that, they will give him whatever life support they think he needs. And that brings me to the subject of the traditional electoral pro life hari kiri.

The pattern of the modern Court with Roberts as chief justice is not one of legislating from the bench. And with us on the verge of two more court replacements (at least one in the next presidential term) -ask yourself who is more likely to replace Ginsberg or Stevens with a juror of the mould of Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, or Alito.

A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court. Similarly those who would refuse to vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon: Hucksterbee's pathetic attempt to make the job of the presidency one of a religious test deserves the swiftest of rebukes.

As a twelve year independent voter who was annoyed at many of McCain's deviations from the conservative orthodoxy and who does not favour him for the nomination, I have to look at the alternatives and put my "ideal candidate" mould aside. (And as Duncan Hunter is the longest of long shots to win, that is a reality for me anyway.)

A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court -McCain because he is overall pro-life in his outlook and Guiliani because (i) he keeps insisting he wants an originalist on the court and (ii) he is interested in outcomes and knows that a deal will have to be struck with the conservatives in lieu of other areas he is questionable on. And I say this as someone who does not want Guiliani to get the nomination.{1}

As far as the pro lifers doing their traditional geopolitical hari kiri, Hill, Edwards, and Obama would never nominate a genuine originalist for the high court. EVER. They would not even give such a person a chance. Do you honestly think that McCain, Thompson, Romney, or Guiliani would do a worse job in this area than any of the Dem major candidates?

A Hucksterbee nomination would be a disaster. As far as those who would not support Romney because of his Mormonism, as a friend of mine noted "it is better to be ruled by a wise Mormon than a foolish Baptist" -a paraphrase of Martin Luther's wise dictum on wise Turks and foolish Christians.

I do not want to have to go through twenty more years of self-inflicted damage akin to the way the prolifers in their political stupidity in the 1986 elections got us Anthony Kennedy on the court instead of Robert Bork in 1987 and the high court voting difference in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1990 which retained Roe. Religious pro lifers had better learn Jesus' advice about being "wise as serpents and guileless as doves" darn fast unless they want to go a long time undoing the damage that their 2008 election stupidity would foister upon us with a Hucksterbee nomination -and that is apart from Hucksterbee's naive view of economics which is beyond the scope of my time or inclination to go into at this time.

Note:

{1} Plus, there are these two "committments" as listed on Guiliani's site:

[I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, & protect the quality of life for our children

I will reform the legal system & appoint strict constructionist judges]

Rudy saw what happened when Bush tried to push Miers on the conservatives. He is no dummy and realizes that his stock is not high with the same constituency who rebuked Bush on Miers and illegal alien amnesty.

Posted by I. Shawn McElhinney | January 8, 2008 3:15 PM

Based on his record, I can't think of a single conservative principle that I have confidence Mitt Romney won't compromise on.

He sucks on guns. He sucks on taxes. He sucks on healthcare. He's a fraud and a buffoon, and it's to the everlasting shame of GOP voters everywhere that this man is in serious contention for our party's presidential nomination.

Posted by BC | January 8, 2008 6:48 PM

This has been one of the most intelligent comment strings I have seen on the Internet.

I am a 20 year military veteran, and have great respect for Senator McCain's service, but he has shown repeatedly that his principles do not include protection of free speech against government regulation. One of the great tragedies of the Bush Administration was signing the McCain-Feingold law bill into law. That statute allows unlimited runs of political propaganda as long as it is by the editors of a newspaper or magazine, the producers of a TV or radio show, the producers of a movie (like Michael Moore), or a popular personality like Oprah Winfrey. Yet the political contributions of those who do not own media resources or have celebrity through them are restricted. McCain's bill gives power to those already in power, both in government and in the media. It is an acid eating away at the foundation of democracy.

Reverend Huckabee as a Baptist minister for 12 years surely got the regular anti-Mormon bulletins put out by the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Missions Board. He surely preached sermons against Mormons, like other Baptist ministers afraid of their flock defecting to one of the faster growing religions in the US. He was a major speaker at the 1998 SBC convention in Utah, whose whole focus was to denounce the Mormons to their face and call them to repent and become Christians, with a special video and book handed out to all delegates. Therefore, his claim not to know anything about Mormon religion is a simple lie, because he surely thinks he knows things, as his snide remark to the New York Times proved.

Frankly, the teachings of Jesus in the Bible were that a truly religious person does not brag about it, and a truly religious person does not criticize other people because their religion is different. Jesus taught Jews that God's commandment to "love thy neighbor" applied to their relationships with the heretical Samaritans, and that praying on street corners so people would praise your righteousness was a disgusting hypocrisy, since all men should be humble in their relationship to God, not proud. Reverend Huckabee apprently comes from a religious tradition that rejects the humility taught by Jesus and embraces the hypocrisy taught by Jesus' enemies.

Huckabee is in the debt of people who want him to "take back America for Christ", as he announced in his speech to the SBC in Utah. Basically he is telling his core constituency that he is going to make Evangelical Christianity the established religion of America, favored above all others. That is a betrayal of the First Amendment.

In summary, I cannot support McCain because he is most loyal to a faction--the power establishment--and I cannot support Huckabee because he is most loyal to a faction--those who want to make Evangelical Christianity the official religion of America. Neither is loyal to Americans as a whole. Each in his own way threatens to make most of us into second class citizens.

Posted by Raymond Takashi Swenson | January 8, 2008 8:59 PM

dtvgfkrp kfovm uxtl ctfu ykea mnfczxtei udkjqniyt

Posted by vbgceptlh pohvx | March 14, 2008 6:55 PM

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Posted by lipitor cheap price | March 20, 2008 2:25 AM

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Posted by cheap hydrocodone | March 20, 2008 6:55 AM

Useful site. Thanks!!

Posted by order lorazepam | March 21, 2008 4:38 AM

rjgeo awdsnubji nzrl buieavhp fpmeqv pkguo jwlmgf

Posted by rqiu cxwrnmi | March 25, 2008 9:37 AM

rjgeo awdsnubji nzrl buieavhp fpmeqv pkguo jwlmgf

Posted by rqiu cxwrnmi | March 25, 2008 9:38 AM

rjgeo awdsnubji nzrl buieavhp fpmeqv pkguo jwlmgf

Posted by rqiu cxwrnmi | March 25, 2008 9:41 AM