Why Romney is our best candidate
Written by Justin on January 17, 2008 – 6:41 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Well if Ann Coulter says it, it must be true. Yes my favorite blonde female Republican wrote an extensive column on how Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate while simultaneously bashing Iowa and New Hampshire voters for not doing enough research to make that obvious of a decision. Of course Michigan voters (and Wyoming ones) finally made the right decision.
However while on the subject of Ann I must make mention of her new book: If Democrats had any brains they’d be Republican. I just feel like her newer works are slipping. How to talk to a liberal (if you must) was one of the first conservative political books I read; it was great. Godless…not so much. It wasn’t bad but we get it Democrats really suck and her newest work seems to be little more of a montage of her best sentences ever. It’s like the TV show that puts in a clip show episode just so they can fit a 22 episode season. Though I don’t think she’ll be giving me my $17 back.
On to Ann’s theory:
…in the end, Republicans would choose [Romney] as our nominee. My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate.
I had no idea that Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire planned to do absolutely zero research on the candidates and vote on the basis of random impulses.
Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car.
One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain…
Turn on any cable news show right now, and you will see Democratic pundits attacking Romney, calling him a “flip-flopper,” and heaping praise on McCain and Huckleberry — almost as if they were reading some sort of “talking points.”
Doesn’t that raise the tiniest suspicions in any of you? Are you too busy boning up on Consumer Reports’ reviews of microwave ovens to spend one day thinking about who should be the next leader of the free world? Are you familiar with our “no exchange/no return” policy on presidential candidates? Voting for McCain because he was a POW a quarter-century ago or Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher is like buying a new car because you like the color…
Coulter went on to reference a New York Times writer that does just what she says is happening to Mitt, while taking her usual, less that mature (yet funny) jabs. Coulter goes on to defend Romney’s pro-life stance in a pro-choice constituency, his religious background and moral character, saying Giuliani avoids the “flip-flopper” label even though he has flip-flopped on marital vows quite a few times. Overall I feel like she is making a relevant point. If Democrats are quick to praise McCain or Huckabee, the must be foaming at the mouth over taking them on in a general election. I’m sure they would be worried if they had to take on Romney, given that he is articulate, fairly brilliant and he has deep pockets. Though I do love any support that gets thrown Romney’s way, I really feel like he needs his GOP3 love as much as any other candidate.
Last 5 posts by Justin- Merry Christmas Everyone - December 25th, 2008
- Congressman introduces College Football Playoff Bill - December 11th, 2008
- MUSG Thugs? *UPDATE* - December 4th, 2008
- The Filibuster Lives - December 3rd, 2008
- BCS Armageddon - December 1st, 2008
Posted in 2008 Election Coverage, GOP Talking Points |
January 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I’m by no means a single issue voter, but any of you Wisconsin CR’s that know me very well know that the 2nd Amendment is what originally got me involved in politics and it’s still a large motivator for how I vote.
Mitt Romney is a nightmare for gun owners. If he is the Republican nominee he will NOT be getting my vote.
Choosing between Mitt and either Obama or Clinton wouldn’t be much of a choice for me.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Mitt signed a ban on assult weapons, which the NRA considered a ‘net gain.’ Nate I can’t see a reason why one needs to possess an assult rifle. While really fricken cool, I just dont see why I need to make anything I shoot into confetti. I’ll stick to a shotgun or rifle if I really want to hunt
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2007/12/23/mitt-romney-on-2nd-amendment/
January 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Nate,
As opposed to your new fav the Huckster who changed his position on immigration today for the 15th time? BTW, seriously, please tell me why Romney would be terrible for gun owners. Also: since Guiliani and McCain can boast of having definitively worse records on gun issues, do you also plan on NOT voting for them if either is the nominee?
January 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
You could keep arguing who flipped and flopped more or you could vote for a clear conservative, Fred Thompson.
Nate-
It’s interesting that you brought up the 2nd Amendment, that was one of the top concerns from voters in South Carolina that I called through the Phone for Fred feature on Fred’s website: http://fred08.com .
Fred was the first choice of the 2nd Amendment voter.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Justin, no offense to you but I’m willing to bet you couldn’t define what constitutes making a rifle an “assault weapon” or “assult rifle” as you put it without doing a Google search.
The 94 Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004 was based primarily on physical characteristics/looks of weapons which the authors found by paging through a firearms catalog. Those features have no impact on the function of the weapon, but really only impact how scary they look.
I won’t attack your intelligence but you have really bought into the liberal’s propaganda on this issue if you think that the rifles banned don’t have a sporting purpose. AR-15’s have become the favorite among competitive marksmen who shoot in competitions at all different levels across the United States. And the AR-15 is also becoming the choice for most who are getting into “varmint” hunting which Mitt claims to have taken part in.
As far as the NRA goes, I’m a life member, but they aren’t the be-all and end-all of the 2nd amendment. They’ve let a lot of freedom slip away over the years that they could have preserved had they held a hard-line stance.
And for the record, while I’ve been a REAL lifelong hunter —The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting!
Brian I realize that you disagree with my current support of Huckabee. While I disagree with him on a few issues, overall he’s the one that best represents my priorities out of the choices we have.
None of the candidates really make my heart flutter but unfortunately we have to choose one or a prioritized list that we would support.
I will vote for the Republican nominee so long as it isn’t Romney or Rudy (both for similar reasons).
January 17th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Makes sense Nate, but what about McCain? He has been at least as bad as Rudy on gun-rights issues. Will you refuse to support him? I’m just curious because I’m amazed at the myths out there about him as a conservative … unfortunately on the 2nd Amendment (along with a few others) he’s been terrible.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
By the way Nate, yes, a little part of me died when I found out you were supporting Huckabee. Thanks a lot.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
On Gun Control:
* I know how to use guns; but I don’t own one. (Nov 2007)
* Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Don’t hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
* Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
* Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
* Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
* Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
* Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
* Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
* Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)
* Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
He’s certainly not perfect but better than most.
As I’ve said Huckabee isn’t perfect, but out of the barrel of bad apples it’s the one that I can eat the most of without holding my nose.
I’ve been bouncing between Huckabee and Fred for about a year. I think some combination of the two would be the best ticket out of what we have to choose from this cycle.
BY NO MEANS AM I HAPPY WITH WHAT I HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM!!!
But the 2 that I ruled out, were ruled out after A LOT of research.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Nate-
I’m sure AR-15s are very cool. I just don’t see their purpose. I figure if I was a marksmen I’d take anything with the biggest scope and shoot with that. As for their use as varmit hunting… Again I’ll say that I dont get off on making any animal into swiss cheese. its nice to know you’ll sell the party down the river in order to save your (unnecessary) guns which dems will take away
January 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
* Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
I can see why people would claim thats bad, but isn’t that a market issue?
January 17th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
that is a good thing how?
January 17th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Its amazing how everything rides on the President… however don’t forget that its important who is in Congress. That will determine the President’s action and legacy… Honestly I don’t see any of the Republican candidates being against what you want Nate if Republicans also control Congress… however if Democrats continue to control Congress any of the candidates, even Fred Thompson may have to compromise on one of the key issues. Even when Republicans controlled Congress, there was some bad compromises… Now, what is interesting is that no one is talking about the Congressional races yet? Maybe its too early. I think that will be a bigger deal.
Brandon… I still think Thompson will get 2nd on Saturday.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Nate-
I am not attacking you in any way, you’re a man I admire when it comes to politics but, could you explain your choice of Huckabee over Thompson? It seems clear to me that Fred trumps Huckabee on all the issues, especially fiscal policy (Huckabee raised taxes, Fred voted for the Bush tax cuts and cut spending) and immigration (Fred is a solid opponent while Huckabee support in state tuition for illegals).
Thanks for taking the time to respond!
Brandon
January 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
SPET3R-
Why vote for someone just because you think they have the best chance of winning? Have you considered that in other circumstances? Would you vote for an amnesty referendum if it was ahead in the polls? Primaries are about voting for what you believe, Fred’s beliefs are the closest to mine and the most conservative. I am voting for him because he stands up for what I believe and every vote he gets leaves an impression on the other candidates and future candidates: America wants a true conservative!
January 17th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Brandon… according to Huckabee about tuition for illegals (on the Hannity show) the bill never passed for starters. The bill would have allowed good performing students with high merits to attend college on a grant. It didn’t give free money away to anyone (like the Wisconsin bill would have), it had to be earned . His reasoning and some of the other supporters is that it would allow an opportunity for illegal immigrant children to attend college rather than try to find a job with a high school diploma. It would be better for the economy and the government in the long run because it made better citizens… Now that is the reasoning of Huckabee on that issue– I don’t agree 100% but he made valid points. I don’t think its fair to say he would have given it to them. To clarify I’m not 100% for Huckabee… I’m leaning for Mitt Romney because of his stances on the Economy. We don’t need a Social Conservative right now… we need someone with the business sense to keep us from going into a Recession. Fred Thompson would be a great candidate… except he’s much like Bob Dole in that he isn’t that exciting! Where is his motivation?? I have yet to see much life out of his campaign… Brandon, please apply for his campaign manager.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Brandon… I think that’s great and go for it. Conservative leaders who effectively communicate their ideas win the Republican nomination and the Presidency. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are great examples of that. The problem with American Politics is that US Senators and Congressmen rarely win the Presidency because they aren’t executives… they are usually too wrapped up in Washington Politics which make them dull and non leaders– not to mention their records come and bite them. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Ron Paul fall into that category…
January 17th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Justin,
I’m the one selling out my party? I’m holding true on the values that got me into politics. Just because I’m not willing to elect a guy that hunts twice in his life and has been an NRA member for about a year but then tries to pretend like he’s on my side…I’m selling out my party?
And by looking at my choices in our primary it doesn’t look like we have much of a party left to be honest with you.
I’ve worked hard for years to elect Republican candidates who support the values that I hold dear. But I won’t spend a second of my time campaigning for a candidate who’s PLEDGED that he will sell me out if he gets into office:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ygw9CQ9po
Justin, when varmint hunting, you generally shoot once and kill what you’re after. AR-15 rifles have become the choice of many because they are light and relatively easy/inexpensive to build accurized versions of when compared to a standard rifle. (less than $1000 vs. $1000-$1,500+)
And when it comes to the type of competitive marksmanship that I’m talking about, you aren’t allowed to put a scope on your rifle.
How is “* Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks” a market issue? I’m not clear on what you mean by that.
“* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
that is a good thing how?”
Currently at a gun show if I’m there and I have a gun to sell/trade and you’re there and you have a gun to sell/trade or if you just want to buy mine we do the transaction on our own and the government doesn’t get involved. Some people want the government to get involved which would make all guns (or most) registered over a period of time. I hope there is no need to explain the results of gun registration throughout world history.
“its nice to know you’ll sell the party down the river in order to save your (unnecessary) guns which dems will take away”
Who are you to decide what is necessary or unnecessary? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention Semi-auto rifles, but the 1st doesn’t mention Blogs, Xerox, TV, or the Internet. Our speed limit is 65 MPH on the highway…should we ban all cars that go faster than that? Is it NECESSARY to have a Corvette?
It’s nice to know you’ll sell my freedom because you don’t want to exercise it as your own.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Brandon, if you ask anyone who talks to me a lot (such as Wrasse) I’ve gone back and forth between Huckabee and Fred for over a year. Either one of them would be fine for me as a nominee. I had hopes over the past year that they would end up as a ticket, but the recent debates have pretty much proved that it won’t happen.
I agree that Fred is more conservative. From that standpoint he would be my first choice…but he just doesn’t look like he’s going to have what it takes to get his butt elected. I had stuff for Fred on my profile through most of the summer but pulled it off in the the last few months because he really couldn’t seem to get any traction. He has come on strong in media and in debates but the results aren’t showing themselves. If I have to choose out of what’s left it would be Huckabee.
Show me a Fred who’s going to pull some numbers and I’ll show you my support for him…
January 18th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Well said Nate. The 2nd Amendment protects all the amendments. Guns should be available to all law abiding citizens. Conceal and Carry should be available nationwide to law abiding citizens. It is the thief, rapist, druggie, or wacko that gives a bad name to guns. Guns don’t kill, people do. Simple tried and true. That is Senator Zien’s argument… There is a lot of truth in those statements.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:04 am
AMEN BROTHER!!!
January 18th, 2008 at 12:14 am
SPET3R-
I would say the records of Romney (everything back and forth) and Huckabee (immigration and taxes) have come back to haunt them, Fred’s is solid and consistently conservative.
Nate-
I saw your support on Facebook and believe me I didn’t take it with a grain of salt. Here are the latest numbers, he is trending up fast in SC going from 5 to 17% (tied with Romney) but you’re right, he needs to keep at it.
Rasmussen 01/16 - 01/16 24 24 18 16 5 3 Tie
SurveyUSA 01/16 - 01/16 29 26 17 17 5 3 McCain +3.0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/south_carolina-primary.html
He will continue to trend up if he stays aggressive and keeps highlighting his conservative record over the rest:
“We have some Johnny-come-lately’s now that don’t want to talk about their record and they’re hoping there’s not enough time for anybody to even examine them,” Thompson told a crowd at a campaign stop in Abbeville, South Carolina.
Thompson may have been referring to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who focused his campaign on Michigan before yesterday’s primary, and who has refocused his efforts in the Palmetto State and Nevada in the lead up to Saturday’s votes.
During the event, a man asked Thompson to differentiate himself from former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Arizona Senator John McCain.
Thompson described fellow Southerner Huckabee as “very articulate, very witty, but does not like to answer questions about his record.” He called the former Governor “weak” on the issue of illegal immigration and again railed against his endorsement from the New Hampshire National Education Association, a teachers’ union.
“Is he proud of that endorsement?” Thompson asked rhetorically.
Of his “personal friend,” and former Senate colleague, John McCain, Thompson said he would “never forget” McCain’s service to the country. However, he said he disagreed with McCain on tax cuts and immigration, particularly his support for last year’s failed immigration reform.
“When I saw him join forces with Senator [Ted] Kennedy on that, I knew that he was wrong track and he was, and the American people said so,” Thompson said.
http://fred08.com/NewsRoom/InTheNews.aspx?ID=ee02d831-1dc2-47e3-8b56-96dea7a9a406
January 18th, 2008 at 12:44 am
If you contrast the youtube link I posted above to this one I would expect any TRUE supporter of the 2nd Amendment to make the same decision I did between Romney and Huckabee:
http://www.nraila.org/multimedia/mmplayer_set.aspx?ID=82
January 18th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Nate,
The “I’m not a single issue voter” line isn’t really fooling anyone man. Backing Huckabee? He’s basically a pro-life democrat. But he’s cool with guns, so it’s all good, right?
So let’s say we nominate Huck, who in Arkansas saw taxes go up, spending go up, and the state government grow. You want to pay for this on a national level? Not being able to get an assault rifle doesn’t seem so important.
I’m not enthralled with the choices either. But when you match them all up, Romney is a right on every issue but gun control as you say. If you aren’t a single issue voter, you should be able to get past that.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Nice try Dan. I’m certainly NOT a single issue voter, but I’m very open about the fact that this issue is an important one to me, and it’s what originally got me interested in politics.
If he was very conservative on all other issues except he happened to be an abortion doctor would you be telling every pastor in America they should “get past that” and vote for him?
Those of you that are so quick to send me down the river because I’m not willing to sell myself out to elect this slick pretty boy from the East coast have already shown me you don’t know a damn thing about the issue which is a sticking point for Mitt. These so-called “assault weapons” function the same as the semi-auto deer rifles that about 1/3 to 1/2 of hunters in the woods are using today. They aren’t machine guns. You don’t hold down the trigger and watch the bullets spray. You’ve all been so indoctrinated by a media that uses the term assault weapon when discussing legislation while the news anchor sits in front of a screen which displays a weapon blowing off thousands of rounds per minute.
What you don’t understand is that the tactic used here is to slowly chip away at the 2nd amendment until there is nothing left. And they are so good at what they do that the average Joe Blow (and even some people that like guns and hunting) are fooled by the way they word things that sound perfectly reasonable. Ted Kennedy introduced a bill a few years ago that would have banned “any type of ammunition which can penetrate a policeman’s bullet-proof vest.” GEEZE…I have friends and relatives that are policemen. Why would I want to allow them to be shot through their vests. That doesn’t sound like such a bad thing to ban does it? Well just about every hunting rifle on the market including a .30-06 which is the most popular hunting round in the world will easily shoot through a bullet-proof vest because they are designed to stop handguns NOT rifles. But I’m willing to bet the same people that are telling me I don’t need an “assault rifle” would want to sell me down river because I want to keep these CRAZY hunting rifles that can shoot through a cop’s vest.
My buddy had a great analogy when we were discussing this issue the other day. Gun-banners don’t want the whole loaf of bread at once. They come asking for a slice at a time…and they’re happy. Because as long as we give it to them a slice at a time, they end up with the whole loaf at the end.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
My last two replies haven’t gone up…I’m not sure if the comments section is now set to moderation or what but I’ll try this again. This is the same video as is on wimp.com but from youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8×477c30
January 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Interesting that it went through when I put different information into the boxes.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Nate, it usually catches stuff based on url’s that people include with posts.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I’m with Nate. The Second Amendment is THE MOST IMPORTANT AMENDMENT in the Bill of Rights. Why? The Declaration of Independence certifies that ALL of us are endowed (by our Creator) with the unalienable right to life. If not entitled to the right to defend that life, we cannot say we are entitled the unalienable right to that life. The Declaration and Constitution are not mutually exclusive, and if we invalidate the first, we therefore have no Constitution. That is why the Second Amendment is so important.
Romney tries to present himself as a DC outsider, but all he brings to the table are standard Republican talking points and sound bites. I don’t doubt he would do a fine job as president, and if chosen by the party en masse, he will receive my vote in November. I just don’t think he’s electable against Obama, who has proven to be quite innovative. Hillary, well, she has no chance (in the general). I know too many die-hard liberals who don’t trust her, and will even vote against her in the general if she is the candidate. So the question is: Who can best compete against Obama?
This is why I support Huckabee. America is tired of Washington insiders and “Ye Olde Establishment.” (Clinton, McCain) Why do you think Obama is so popular? To be electable, Republicans need to bring somebody fresh.
What I will not do, however, is “not” vote for any particular candidate in November. Some of you may cringe when I say this, but short of State Propositions, on election day I fill out only one bubble, next to which reads “Republican.”
January 18th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Romney would get hammered in the general election. He is the John Kerry of the Republican Party, hair and all.
Romney is a consummate politician, more polls and makeovers than substance. His stances on abortion, gun control and gays resembles a game of musical chairs. Most people pick up on that flip-flopping and as a result, he is not as likable as many would like him to be.
“Washington is broken,” nice sound byte but another example of how Romney has once again reinvented himself after looking the polls.
We have no perfect candidates (that much is obvious) but we must refrain from putting forth someone that will be crushed by either Hillary or the unstoppable charisma (yet vapid) Obama.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I always thought gun laws did more to protect the government from its people than anything else. Also, I think that it is silly to dictate how someone is allowed to defend themselves. Even if someone owned an Abrams tank…if they do not use it to hurt someone else, there is no harm and therefore should be no law prohibiting OWNING one.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Mr Justin Phillips
The 2nd Amendment has never and will never be about hunting
you are either pro gun or not there is no middle ground. There is no difference between your shot gun and my AR15s.
The antis will snatch it up as fast as a SO CALLED Assault Rifle do you even know what a Assault Rifle is?
Mark AKA HKMP5
January 18th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and “automatic” rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Hi Justin,
It’s a danger to the Second Amendment to start to divide up firearms into different categories, especially when those categories are distinguished only by appearance. Let’s not forget that when the founders of our Constitution drafted it, they had just gotten through a bloody war that was sparked from years of government oppression and tyranny under English rule.
The fact that you don’t see a need for assault rifles could indicate that you’ve lost sight of how the Second Amendment came to be. Our country has been very stable for so long that it seems unthinkable that citizens would actually need to take up arms to protect themselves from tyranny. Believe me, I feel the same way. But things change over time, sometimes slowly, sometimes not.
We also ignore the possibility of a future war with a foreign nation fought on our own soil because it’s been so long since the last one. If that day were ever to come, that would be the day that the militia clause of the Second Amendment would show it’s purpose. On that day, every able-bodied adult should be able to stand up and defend the nation.
I know these ideas may sound paranoid and really far-fetched. I hope I never live to see anything like it. But don’t ever lose sight of what it’s really about. As the old saying goes, those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Mike
January 19th, 2008 at 12:10 am
So where do you head after Romney finishes in perhaps 4th place in South Carolina?
Are you heading to Huckabee…….why are we all laughing at the GOP this year?
January 19th, 2008 at 2:29 am
If romney doesnt get the GOP nominee… I’m still likely (though not 100%) to vote for the Republican nominee, they just wont see a single minute of my volunteer time
January 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
And Justin, thats going to be the problem… that is why the GOP could lose the presidency, however there is still a chance to regain Congress.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
You know what’s funny, though? A year ago I had my money and John Edwards as the Democratic candidate, as the one to beat. Fortunately no one took that bet, or I’d be out the cash. What I do find interesting is Edwards’s last ditch desperate measure to save his dying campaign with his “Let’s look out for the little guy / Let’s help out the poor” populist message. Did he not learn from America’s first failed war; LBJ’s War on Poverty? Perhaps that’s why his campaign has been such a failure, Or maybe: It’s because even the Democrats can’t overlook the big silver spoon that gives Edwards an uncharacteristically exaggerated Southern drawl.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
He’s pro big centalized government and a gun grabber… next.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
My choices, in order of preference:
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
Note the absence of McCain. Why?
Ultimately, McCain is a mitigator, not a leader.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
It will be interesting to see how Fred Thompson’s votes get split now.