A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

blatham wrote:

McCain and Romney looks likely.

That is what I think too, blatham. That is one thing that McCain can do to hopefully unite the party somewhat and to have a chance in the general. Left to his own preferences, he wouldn't pick Romney, but McCain will do anything that he figures will help him win.

If that would happen, the joke would be on Huckabee, who assumed he could cuddle up to McCain, and perhaps get on the ticket. That is still a possibility, but I think very slim. And now, Huckabee looks a bit of a loner out there still running, in my opinion, but who knows.

All of this will be a test of McCain's intelligence, or perhaps the intelligence of his advisors.

In regard to Romney's thinking, he is a practical guy. He looked at all the numbers and concluded little or no chance. I am imagining also he figures he is young, has plenty of time, McCain may be a one term president, and it is also in his best interests to quit and try to mend fences in the party. This is the patriotic thing to do, and is always something necessary to endear you to the party in the future. If he is offered the vp, I would imagine he would take it. I think the timing of Romney was supurb, and shows him to be smart, practical, and balanced. It also shows an ability to make decisions in a timely manner when the situation warrants it. He looked at the big picture and did not allow himself to be caught up in the frenzy of the moment, and probably made the right decision at the right time.

It is no secret that I have come to think Romney was the cream of the crop, not perfect, but one of the best we've seen in a while that could represent the Republicans. I was disappointed when his campaign did not catch fire, it just never did, given the money spent. Truth is though that he was a relative unknown compared to McCain, and this was one of a couple of factors that hindered the campaign.

Also, this is important, I concluded this long before the talk show guys, either Rush or Hannity, concluded the same thing. Hannity initially seemed to support Giuliani, and Rush claimed Thompson was the only conservative, and sort of sang his praises until he saw no chance there. I say this to prove again the myth that some people are rubber stamps of Rush, Hannity, etc., just because we listen to them. I can't speak for all, but I catch maybe half of their shows when possible, and I find them informative and correct most of the time, something that can't be said for many other pundits.

0 Replies

okie,

I think your assessment is insightful and very likely correct. Frankly I would prefer Romney to McCain, but never felt that he was likely to win the nomination.

I believe that Huckabee is merely yet another Arkansas huckster; this time merely with a different veneer from the last one (Baptist minister vs Georgetown, Yale & Cambridge). We have had one: we don't need another. I hope he fades very quickly.

I also find the smug eagerness of Evangelicals to make their religious principles a direct part of their political rhetoric - and doing so without even an effort to connect their principles of others not of their inclinations, quite offensive. What, for example, would result if a Catholic, or a Mormon, or an atheist did the same thing?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Nothing would unite the democrats more in this country than Mike Huckabee on a presidential ticket.

That's pretty much how I look at it too, maporsche.

0 Replies

George, I pretty much agree, and although I don't speak for all, some of us defy another myth held out there that conservatives vote religion. The religious right its called, I'm sure there are some, but how many people listent to the Falwells of the world, I certainly don't. I personally think a person should be moral, often due to their religious belief, but if they carry it on their sleeve, then that isn't what we need or want.

When I heard or read Romney's speech on religious faith and politics, and the link and non-link between the two, I thought it was superb and showed a very deep insight into what America is and should be, and the roll of religious faith in this country. It was one of the best explanations of that issue that I have ever read.

I agree I think Huckabee will probably very quickly fade and will be toast. And he runs the risk of being a total non-player and maybe almost forgotten. Maybe that is more my preference than reality, I'm not sure.

0 Replies

And I too mourn the loss of Romney. Of all the candidates running, and that includes Thompson and Hunter, the two true conservatives in the race, he had the vision, a palatable agenda, and the credentials for administrative expertise and management skills that would have greatly enhanced his ability to trouble shoot and get things done. I suspect he would have surrounded himself with people of like expertise rather than rely on excessive patronage appointments to political cronies.

And he is probably the best choice for Veep that McCain can make.

0 Replies

I actually like Huckabee okay, he is funny, and a nice guy I think, but he showed himself to be kind of whacked out on a couple of issues and perhaps just not the right balance needed to be president.

0 Replies

Quote:

Who's neo-conning whom now?

There's a line in Road to Perdition where a little kid at a funeral sees a smile on the face of the gangster played by that new James Bond guy, and he asks him what's so funny. "It's all so [bleepin'] hysterical," he says.

So if Rush is right, and Mother of Mercy this really is the end of Rico the Conservative, we here in Hollywood agree with Daniel Craig: After all, you've managed to parlay two presidential elections into the loss of both houses of Congress, a cratering stock market, a real-estate meltdown, and a looming recession. And now that you have a guy who could actually win, you don't want him.

It's all so bleepin' hysterical."

q=Y2E1YTNjNTYxNmI3MzQ2YjAzNjllMGJiZjczNDY4YzQ=]YOU CONSERVATIVES MAKE ME LAUGH[/URL]

0 Replies

george wrote:

Quote:

I believe that Huckabee is merely yet another Arkansas huckster; this time merely with a different veneer from the last one (Baptist minister vs Georgetown, Yale & Cambridge). We have had one: we don't need another. I hope he fades very quickly.

You latte drinking, elitist San Francisco/New York intellectual snobs! You think you are sooooo much better than the simple, honest, hardworking real Americans of the heartland...the people who made America...the people who's values shaped this great nation...people like George Bush and Ronald Reagan. I hope al quaeda comes to knock on your door when you order up your French wine and your perverted sexual aids and your all-salad pizza.

0 Replies

Oops the link should be

YOU CONSERVATIVES MAKE ME LAUGH

0 Replies

It's far too early to be lining up VP candidates. First, lets see which of the Democratic candidates is able to grab off their nomination. That probably won't happen until the convention, and then the Super Delegates will make the final choice.

I rather expect that both Romney and Huckabee will hold on to their delegates until the convention as bargaining chips. Huckabee has proven popular with fundamentalist Christians, and most of those voters wouldn't vote for Clinton or Obama against anyone short of the antichrist. Huckabee's continued campaigning won't hurt McCain. The idea of a McCain/Huckabee ticket is just Democratic wishful thinking... again. Romney is well positioned for a run in 2012, and he has enough delegates to insure a strong conservative platform in the general election. Frankly, I doubt that we'll see a McCain/Romney ticket.

Though it ain't gonna happen, I'd love to see a McCain/Powell ticket.

Choosing a VP running mate is both an art and a science. We want to balance strengths and weaknesses, appeal to all parts of the country, and countless other issues need to be weighed into the decision. Ultimately, the decision is made by our candidate, and John McCain has demonstrated his good judgment repeatedly throughout a long life in public service. I trust he'll make the best choice when the time comes.

0 Replies

second oops... who's should be whose

0 Replies

Quote:

I'd love to see a McCain/Powell ticket... Though it ain't gonna happen,

No kidding.

0 Replies

And during this brief intermission, I would like to offer the song sylist, John McCain: Smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTD7FP1mAYk

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It's just a matter of how much a risk you want to take. Romney came pretty close

He came "pretty close"? How do you argue that? He regularly outspent his rivals by a magnitude of 2:1 or 3:1, and was still clobbered in most of the primaries.

I mean, he ended up with 278 delegates from the states, against 721 for McCain - more than two and a half times as many.

All in all, he won less than a quarter of the delegates that were elected so far - 23% of them.

Meanwhile, Huckabee, who spent about one-thirtieth of the money Mitt spent, won 16%.

Romney did win about a third of the states - dont know if that counts as "coming close" - but those were overwhelmingly sparsely-populated states out West, including the likes of Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Utah.

The biggest prize he won was Colorado...

Meanwhile, in 11 of the 29 states that voted so far, Romney didnt just lose, but lose by double digits. And those include powerhouses like New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona, Tennessee and Alabama.

In almost half the states he contested, he won less than a third of the votes..

I dont think that's "pretty close" exactly

Maybe not, but I do.

I'm sure Romney and McCain think so too.

If he had stayed in the race he would have come closer still - but its highly unlikely that he would have won.

Who has gotten closer?

Who (other than Obama, Clinton and McCain) was still considered a viable candidate after Super Tuesday.

Sure, the pundits we're saying that he had an uphill battle, and that McCain's position was pretty solid, but I didn't hear any of them say Romney had no chance and his pulling out of the race surprised everyone.

The Radio Conservatives rear action is not over (yet) and if Romney had not pulled out it would have heated up further still. I don't think, in the end, it would have derailed McCain but it would have brought Romney closer still.

The amount of money he spent is in no way a measure of how close he got. If he had won the nomination spending twice what he spent, I doubt he would have gotten on the podium at the Republican Convention and announced: "I know I've won more delegates than any of my opponents, and I know I've won enough to have the nomination, but I just have to apply my good friend Nimh's calculation of success and recognize that I paid a lot more per delegate than John or Huck, and therefore I cannot accept the fact that I won. Give it to one of them."

And....as I've already suggested, his consolation prize as heir apparent is pretty valuable.

Cool

0 Replies

Quote:

And....as I've already suggested, Romney's consolation prize as hair apparent is pretty valuable.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

second oops... who's should be whose

Send your complaint to the NRO.

Since I've only quoted what they have published, perhaps they will give a sh*t that you caught their error.

Cool

0 Replies

Yes, but how long will he be perfectly poised, with dark hair and silver temples? Will the silver have taken over in 4 years? Will he retain that Florida tan long enough to pull off silver, if so?

These are the important questions.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
second oops... who's should be whose

Send your complaint to the NRO.

Since I've only quoted what they have published, perhaps they will give a sh*t that you caught their error.

That was my error in my post I was referring to. Fiber. Try to get more each morning.

0 Replies

Here's a headline from Rush's site followed by a transcript portion (which carries a different head:

Quote:

Conservative Voters Still Upset, as Politicians Calm Down and Line Up

Quote:

All of these wannabe important people are trying to figure out ways for Senator McCain to be that conservative which he has repudiated for years. You can't miss it, National Review Online, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, other places, "Please, John, say this. Please, Senator, do that. Please, Senator, really mean it this time." Al Regnery, he has a good piece, "He needs to sign a no-tax pledge. He needs to sign a pledge that he won't nominate judges like Souter, that he'll nominate judges that have a proven record." When you start asking somebody to sign pledges that means you don't trust them. True. Many of these same people continue to condemn us and those of us on talk radio and conservatives generally with name-calling and mischaracterizations and so forth, and it continues today. There must be three stories where my name is, one is Washington Post, one's Wall Street Journal, forget the third one, maybe The Guardian, three stories today where my name is the first two words of the story. (interruption) What story? Talk Show Hosts Voice Alarm at McCain, yeah, yeah, yeah. But, Snerdley, my name doesn't lead. I'm talking about three stories where my name leads.

So, anyway, so here's what's happening. McCain goes to CPAC this afternoon at three o'clock, conservative wannabe is advising him how not to blow it, how to sound sincere, "Here John, say it this way, do it this way, really mean it this time, Senator," and those same people are telling me and others in my talk show brethren how not to be what we are.

Rush thinks of himself as a.... maverick.

0 Replies

Well McCain hit a home run--hit it way out of the park--at CPAC yesterday. And if he can remain as convincing so that the base believes he really meant it all, that will go a long way to solidifying the base, including Limbaugh et al, in support of his candidacy.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know