Let's just say this up front: it is WAAAAAY too early to say who will be a frontrunner in 2012. But it isn't such a stretch as it was this last time around, when the GOP had no clear heir-apparent. This cycle had several strong contenders rallying support to them. And the top three are who you would expect.
Here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/112252/GOP-Faithful-Like-Palin-Romney-Huckabee-2012.aspx
Showing posts with label mike huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mike huckabee. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Mitt News Nov.23rd, 2008
A website promoting Romney for a 2012 Presidential run:
1. Here: http://mittromneyrevolution.com/
-----------------------
If you didn't already catch the news, Mitt was in Georgia (the US state) campaigning for Senator Saxby Chambliss.
2. Here: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/mitt_romney_campaigning_in_geo.html
------------------------
I'll bet you didn't know Mitt Romney had a flickr page...
3. Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mittromney
------------------------
Romney was on CCN's Late Edition with Jennifer Granholm, Carl Levin, and some other dude to discuss the Auto bailout package that congress is considering.
4. Here: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002990434
------------------------
General Motors responds (quite well, in my opinion) to Romney's NYT editorial some days ago...
5. Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/l21gm.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
-------------------------
This story highlights part of an interview with Romney by Wolf Blitzer in which Romney refuses to go back into the muddy waters of primary fighting. The real amusing part however is reading the comments which follow the article. I won't say, "not since Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton have two men hated each other so much in American history!"....but boy, I sure is tempted :p
6. Here: http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/11/mitt_takes_the_high_road.aspx
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Four Possibilities for McCain
I've broken this down real simple.
1] Lieberman/Ridge. If chosen, will be meant to showcase his maverick streak. He'll be making Obama look like a wimp, though a moderate. If Lieberman is chosen, it will signal McCain's dedication to "bipartisanship." This is a dangerous game to play. McCain DOES NOT want his ticket to be "more or less" the same as Obama's on being moderate. Obama/Biden is of course VERY left-wing, but there's only so much the media is going to admit and therefore only so much that swing voters will know about them. If the media picked up the tack that "Well, both tickets are moderate...But Obama is the better of them." Like I said, dangerous to play that game.
2) Romney/Pawlenty. By choosing either of these guys, McCain is playing the swing-state game. Romney carries a lot of positives. Mid-west voters love Romney, and Michigan also goes into play. I'd also submit that Minnesota is in play with Romney. Afterall, he won the state in the primaries. But the negative is that Evangelical christians, who largely supported Huckabee in the primaries, will be turned off by his selection. The upside of Romney is that he's vetted, he can debate the hell out of Biden, he has money for campaigning (it may not look good, but what the heck?), and he was the runner-up in primary votes. Pawlenty is safer choice. Despite his more left-leaning views on Global Warming ("cimate change"), and few lesser things, he has the charm to lull swing voters to like him. He's young, down-to-earth, and is sufficiently a good debater.
Romney Downside: Huckabee supporters/evangelicals. Primary history with McCain, can be used to Democrats advantage.
Pawlenty Downside: Lukewarm-conservative on many issues. Perhaps will not match-up well with Biden's mouth-running-contest.
3) Palin/Hutchison/Fiorina. Choosing a woman VP may steal a very good portion of former Hillary supporters who voted on the grounds that it was time to put a woman in the White House. My feelings on this are mixed. On one hand we Republicans can't wait until we feel sincere enough to choose a woman (or minority) to lead us. Nor should we be afraid of our sincerity being questioned by the Democrats for doing so; after all they do it all the time. On the other hand, we want fully-qualified women and minorities just as we want fully-qualified white males. It's a matter of experience and judgement. Kay Bailey Hutchison is the that woman. But, her downside is that she's a boring person. Very. Sarah Palin has only been governor for about a year or so, and Carly Fiorina has a spotty background in leading Hewlett-Packard. So when considering a woman, we have to take our chances.
4) Jindal/Steele/JC Watts. This boat carries some of the same problems as the one above. There's the "sincerity" problem again, and the experience problem. Jindal has only been governor for a short time. Michael Steele is a GREAT guy and I love him, but he has lost a major election for senate, and his experience as Lt. Governor is not suficient. JC Watts would be a great pick, on the other hand. In many ways, he's the best pick McCain has. But he seems to be totally passed over. Perhaps insiders know something we don't?
1] Lieberman/Ridge. If chosen, will be meant to showcase his maverick streak. He'll be making Obama look like a wimp, though a moderate. If Lieberman is chosen, it will signal McCain's dedication to "bipartisanship." This is a dangerous game to play. McCain DOES NOT want his ticket to be "more or less" the same as Obama's on being moderate. Obama/Biden is of course VERY left-wing, but there's only so much the media is going to admit and therefore only so much that swing voters will know about them. If the media picked up the tack that "Well, both tickets are moderate...But Obama is the better of them." Like I said, dangerous to play that game.
2) Romney/Pawlenty. By choosing either of these guys, McCain is playing the swing-state game. Romney carries a lot of positives. Mid-west voters love Romney, and Michigan also goes into play. I'd also submit that Minnesota is in play with Romney. Afterall, he won the state in the primaries. But the negative is that Evangelical christians, who largely supported Huckabee in the primaries, will be turned off by his selection. The upside of Romney is that he's vetted, he can debate the hell out of Biden, he has money for campaigning (it may not look good, but what the heck?), and he was the runner-up in primary votes. Pawlenty is safer choice. Despite his more left-leaning views on Global Warming ("cimate change"), and few lesser things, he has the charm to lull swing voters to like him. He's young, down-to-earth, and is sufficiently a good debater.
Romney Downside: Huckabee supporters/evangelicals. Primary history with McCain, can be used to Democrats advantage.
Pawlenty Downside: Lukewarm-conservative on many issues. Perhaps will not match-up well with Biden's mouth-running-contest.
3) Palin/Hutchison/Fiorina. Choosing a woman VP may steal a very good portion of former Hillary supporters who voted on the grounds that it was time to put a woman in the White House. My feelings on this are mixed. On one hand we Republicans can't wait until we feel sincere enough to choose a woman (or minority) to lead us. Nor should we be afraid of our sincerity being questioned by the Democrats for doing so; after all they do it all the time. On the other hand, we want fully-qualified women and minorities just as we want fully-qualified white males. It's a matter of experience and judgement. Kay Bailey Hutchison is the that woman. But, her downside is that she's a boring person. Very. Sarah Palin has only been governor for about a year or so, and Carly Fiorina has a spotty background in leading Hewlett-Packard. So when considering a woman, we have to take our chances.
4) Jindal/Steele/JC Watts. This boat carries some of the same problems as the one above. There's the "sincerity" problem again, and the experience problem. Jindal has only been governor for a short time. Michael Steele is a GREAT guy and I love him, but he has lost a major election for senate, and his experience as Lt. Governor is not suficient. JC Watts would be a great pick, on the other hand. In many ways, he's the best pick McCain has. But he seems to be totally passed over. Perhaps insiders know something we don't?
Friday, August 15, 2008
ROMNEY NEWS & I'M BACK!
1. Evangelicals and Romney talk, from The Boston Globe. Here...
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/evangelicals_an.html
I don't get it. They say the anti-Romney movement isn't about his mormonism; that it's really about his change of position on abortion. If that's so, then why haven't Evangelical Leaders said anything about Tom Ridge? In any case, Romney is no longer pro-choice. Tom Ridge is. See the difference, folks?
You may have heard Mike Huckabee's recent dagger move at Romney as well, saying in an interview that Romney is unacceptable as VP, BUT NOT BECAUSE HE'S MORMON!
Yeah. Riiiiiight.
Not that anyone really cares, but this is my first blog post here in quite some time. My excuse is that I've been working, trying to get my car in tip-top shape for this coming semester, and quite forgot that my blog even existed. In any case, the VP race is heating back up as each presidential candidate is sizing up his fellow pols for the Veepship. I've noticed that Romney and Pawlenty are back as the most mentioned names for McCain, and Jindal is not. Neither is Palin or Steele, which is a shame. I liked both.
Time Kaine for Obama? That would be GREAT. Time Kaine is well-intentioned Democrat, somewhat moderate whose greatest strength (in Republican terms) is that he would make absolutely no impact on whether Obama got less or more votes. Will he be the Veep? WE WISH!
There's also talk of John Kerry. Frankly, that would be an extremely unsavvy pick for Obama. If he's trying to out-Vietnam Vet McCain, he can do better (though not as well). In any case Kerry is not seen as a Vietnam WAr hero. He's seen as a jerk who slimed American troops, who threw away his medal, and who joined the "we hate America at any cost"/Jane Fonda brigade. And then there's the fact that George Bush (who isn't supposed to be popular) beat John Kerry in 2004 by a nifty margin. So will he be the Veep? WE WISH!
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/evangelicals_an.html
I don't get it. They say the anti-Romney movement isn't about his mormonism; that it's really about his change of position on abortion. If that's so, then why haven't Evangelical Leaders said anything about Tom Ridge? In any case, Romney is no longer pro-choice. Tom Ridge is. See the difference, folks?
You may have heard Mike Huckabee's recent dagger move at Romney as well, saying in an interview that Romney is unacceptable as VP, BUT NOT BECAUSE HE'S MORMON!
Yeah. Riiiiiight.
Not that anyone really cares, but this is my first blog post here in quite some time. My excuse is that I've been working, trying to get my car in tip-top shape for this coming semester, and quite forgot that my blog even existed. In any case, the VP race is heating back up as each presidential candidate is sizing up his fellow pols for the Veepship. I've noticed that Romney and Pawlenty are back as the most mentioned names for McCain, and Jindal is not. Neither is Palin or Steele, which is a shame. I liked both.
Time Kaine for Obama? That would be GREAT. Time Kaine is well-intentioned Democrat, somewhat moderate whose greatest strength (in Republican terms) is that he would make absolutely no impact on whether Obama got less or more votes. Will he be the Veep? WE WISH!
There's also talk of John Kerry. Frankly, that would be an extremely unsavvy pick for Obama. If he's trying to out-Vietnam Vet McCain, he can do better (though not as well). In any case Kerry is not seen as a Vietnam WAr hero. He's seen as a jerk who slimed American troops, who threw away his medal, and who joined the "we hate America at any cost"/Jane Fonda brigade. And then there's the fact that George Bush (who isn't supposed to be popular) beat John Kerry in 2004 by a nifty margin. So will he be the Veep? WE WISH!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Money Matters
From the WSJ Blog--this piece about McCain helping Giuliani, and Romney and Giuliani helping McCain. And Huckabee helping Huckabee...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/mccain-campaign-directs-donors-to-aid-giuliani/?mod=WSJBlog
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/mccain-campaign-directs-donors-to-aid-giuliani/?mod=WSJBlog
Thoughts on the Mitt vs Mike/ Mitt vs Mac dynamic
As we all know, one of the things that is keeping Mitt Romney from being the definitive VP choice for McCain is the fact that he and Mitt didn't get along well during the primaries. At all. There was that contentious debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Some of the famous lines ran somthing like this....
Mitt:..and I guess if the NYT endorses you, it means you're not a conservative."
~
Mac: I have you know, your home paper, the Boston Herald endorsed me, my friend."
And then there was the highly publicized spat about McCain saying that Romney was calling for Iraq-pullout timetables.
So it wasn't exactly a professional rivalry. On the other hand, Mitt Romney and John McCain seem more likely to get over their differences than Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
What's the difference between their rivalries? For one thing, I got the feeling that Mike Huckabee was not competing for the nomination as he was against Mitt Romney. Even when Mitt dropped out, Huckabee stayed in. Why? Not because he was competing for the nominating or giving the "voters a choice." What he was really doing was catching up with Mitt Romney's delegate numbers.
Mike Huckabee made it personal against Mitt. What's my evidence? Consider these words uttered through-out the primaries...
1. “I wouldn’t know which – let’s see, do you hold this end, or this end?. I’d be like Mitt Romney eating fried chicken."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry3764319.shtml
2. "If a man is dishonest to obtain a job, he'll [be dishonest] on the job." ~Huckabee in the infamous Huckabee Iowa Ad.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/31/540416.aspx?p=2
What's my thesis? McCain hated Romney because he was getting in the way. But Mike Huckabee hated Romney because he was jealous of Romney.
Now we're seeing a continuing Huckabee vs. Romney war: the recent petition (www.nomittforvp.com) by Huckabee supporters to openly oppose Romney as a VP pick.
Further narrative that Mike Huckabee is trying to outdo Romney: rumor has is that the "clock" on Mike Huckabee's website is announcement of a creation of a conservative group by Huckabee. Of course, Mitt Romney has said (before Huckabee) that he was working on a similar idea.
Mitt:..and I guess if the NYT endorses you, it means you're not a conservative."
~
Mac: I have you know, your home paper, the Boston Herald endorsed me, my friend."
And then there was the highly publicized spat about McCain saying that Romney was calling for Iraq-pullout timetables.
So it wasn't exactly a professional rivalry. On the other hand, Mitt Romney and John McCain seem more likely to get over their differences than Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
What's the difference between their rivalries? For one thing, I got the feeling that Mike Huckabee was not competing for the nomination as he was against Mitt Romney. Even when Mitt dropped out, Huckabee stayed in. Why? Not because he was competing for the nominating or giving the "voters a choice." What he was really doing was catching up with Mitt Romney's delegate numbers.
Mike Huckabee made it personal against Mitt. What's my evidence? Consider these words uttered through-out the primaries...
1. “I wouldn’t know which – let’s see, do you hold this end, or this end?. I’d be like Mitt Romney eating fried chicken."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry3764319.shtml
2. "If a man is dishonest to obtain a job, he'll [be dishonest] on the job." ~Huckabee in the infamous Huckabee Iowa Ad.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/31/540416.aspx?p=2
What's my thesis? McCain hated Romney because he was getting in the way. But Mike Huckabee hated Romney because he was jealous of Romney.
Now we're seeing a continuing Huckabee vs. Romney war: the recent petition (www.nomittforvp.com) by Huckabee supporters to openly oppose Romney as a VP pick.
Further narrative that Mike Huckabee is trying to outdo Romney: rumor has is that the "clock" on Mike Huckabee's website is announcement of a creation of a conservative group by Huckabee. Of course, Mitt Romney has said (before Huckabee) that he was working on a similar idea.
Tom Tancredo endorses McCain. Sorta.
The Story Can Be Found Here...
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/05/tancredo-reluctantly-offers-hand-to-former-foe/
The funny thing about Tancredo is his surprising willingness to go with the party. The media had portrayed him as some kind of hard-right lunatic, and you got the feeling he'd be one of those who was in it for his ego (well, all politicians are egotistical, you but you know what I mean). In any case, it came as a surprise to me when Tancredo left the race and endorsed Mitt Romney. A hard-liner like on illegal-immigrating like Tancredo, I thought he would have endorsed Thompson or fellow congressman Duncan Hunter. Conversely, everything I didn't expect of Tancredo, I expected out of Hunter. I was so sure he would endorse Romney when he left the race. He really surprised me when he endorsed Huckabee instead. I guess he thought Mitt was too friendly with Chinese business. Ah well.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/05/tancredo-reluctantly-offers-hand-to-former-foe/
The funny thing about Tancredo is his surprising willingness to go with the party. The media had portrayed him as some kind of hard-right lunatic, and you got the feeling he'd be one of those who was in it for his ego (well, all politicians are egotistical, you but you know what I mean). In any case, it came as a surprise to me when Tancredo left the race and endorsed Mitt Romney. A hard-liner like on illegal-immigrating like Tancredo, I thought he would have endorsed Thompson or fellow congressman Duncan Hunter. Conversely, everything I didn't expect of Tancredo, I expected out of Hunter. I was so sure he would endorse Romney when he left the race. He really surprised me when he endorsed Huckabee instead. I guess he thought Mitt was too friendly with Chinese business. Ah well.
Yeesh!
1. Via The Club For Growth's Veep Blog, I found Wonkette's blog about Karl Rove supporting Mitt Romney for VP. (Very snooty). Here...
http://wonkette.com/378727/rove-backs-romneys-push-for-vp
2. Another bit on Rove's choice, from New York Magazine. (With snotty headlines et al...). Here...
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_rove_and_poppy_bush.html
3. RealClearPolitics has an article about the continuing Mitt vs. Mike (Huckabee) war. Very Interesting. Here...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2008/04/a_tale_of_two_veeps.html
http://wonkette.com/378727/rove-backs-romneys-push-for-vp
2. Another bit on Rove's choice, from New York Magazine. (With snotty headlines et al...). Here...
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_rove_and_poppy_bush.html
3. RealClearPolitics has an article about the continuing Mitt vs. Mike (Huckabee) war. Very Interesting. Here...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2008/04/a_tale_of_two_veeps.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
