Redstate

that Dick Morris is often described as "always interesting and usually wrong."

"a woman who reminds every male voter of at least one former significant other with whom things weren't always stellar."

Oh Boy, maybe thats why she evokes such a visceral reaction from, er, a friend I know... a brilliant line buddy.

I think for Romney's chances- 40 seems like a bit much.  However, I do think Romney would beat Hillary. primarily because I think he would flip Michigan, while holding onto the South, the Plains, and the Inter-Mountain West.  That right there is enough to win.  I think Romney would also probably shore up Ohio, and might flip Pennsylvania.

MI, PA, OH, WI, MN, and IA are all very similar culturally and demographically.  Romney's MI roots means that he'll be able to speak the language of the Rust Belt, and I would suspect that most if not all of those states would end up red.  The south and west would be solid, including the southwest with its heavy Mormon populations.  And NH was right on the edge last time, Romney as a neighboring governor would flip it.  

So that's 36 states, with the possibility that the light blue Pacific Northwest could also flip along with a surprise or two here or there (Maine?  Hawaii?).

Romney probably carries enough baggage with him from Massachusetts to make his pursuit of the Republican nomination futile. You cannot be elected governor of the People's Republic and hope to keep your positions conservative enough to win the Republican nomination.

To Morris it's evidently not about "flip-flopping" (who cares about that, really?) He's saying (without evidence) that Romney has too liberal a paper trail to win the nomination. That lets him off the hook so he doesn't need to consider whether Romney can beat Hillary.

I can see all those states go red, with the right candidate, except for MN.  Having grown up in MN, I really don't think any of the current republicans in the spotlight would turn MN red no matter what Dem runs.  

Why is everyone obsessed with Hillary Clinton.  It's not like she's enshrined in some God-like status by liberals.  Not to defend her, but I don't think she's as liberal as most RS'ers probably do and I could think of worse people to be president.  Will I support her for pres?  Hell no, I'd rather have Howard Dean :)  This obsession with Hillary running for president is going to be anti-climactic I'd bet.

But when looking at 95% of the politicians right now on the national radar, I think I'd rather have a poo throwing monkey as president.  

I think Romney's Minnesota ties could make up for that...Clinton will be able to mobilize black voters in a way unseen before which will make Florida very competitive and may put Pennsylvania out of play (Unless Swann wins --I've donated to his campaign and may even start a PAC for him...developing)...I can see Hill picking Richardson, Romney losing FL and NM, winning MN and NH along with one electoral vote from MAINE and finishing 269-269...we win when the house elects (each state delegation having one vote.) That would be great.

I admit that I've been guilty of it too...in the begining I saw MA GOV and thought "No Way!" especialy w/ the existence of stars like Giuliani, Condi, and Jeb Bush...now that it appears that those superstars are not running I have started to pay more attention to Mitt --and I like what I see so far...

~EC~

MN is completely winnable with the right candidate.

If Jessie Ventura could get elected..

You make a good arguement, but I'm not ready to give up on Rudy.

...Is that Hillary starts down 26 states and 225 electoral votes right off the bat.

Those states are: WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, IN, TN, KY, LA, MO, IA, TX, OK, NE, KS, SD, ND, MT, WY, CO, AZ, UT, ID, & NV.

Any GOP candidate needs only to pick up 45 more electoral votes to win.

That doesn't even include states that Dubya won in 2004 like FL, OH, & NM.

If you honestly believe that Hillary will flip those states I've got some investment property brochures I'd like you to take a look at.

If the nominee is Romney, throw MI into the GOP camp and you've got 27 states and 242 electoral votes from day 1 of the campaign.

And if you tell me that her veep candidate could throw a state into her camp, I've got two words for you: John Edwards.

He really hurt Dubya in NC didn't he?

 

...I guarentee that Minny would drop for McCain or Rudy by over 5 points.

Romney will be a toss-up.

George Allen would likely lose.

I'm thinking Hillary is one of the better case scenarios... I don't see how she wins unless we really screw things up. I'm still holding out for Gore, though. He's gonna make a comeback as his new moonbat self.

I beleive that Gore is more of a threat to Hillary than Warner, Richardson, or Bayh.

One big trend you have to factor into the election is that Hillary is just a senator.  The trend clearly favors governors to go on to the Presidency.  If my head is operating properly the last senator elected was JFK in 1960 (Ford was appointed).  Given the popularity of Congress right now (which is arguably lower than Bush's) I don't see the trend changing.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

Rasmussen has been running a series of "Hillary Meter" polls, where they ask whether people would "definitely vote for" or "definitely vote against" Hillary, or "depends who she runs against". Over the last three polls, Hillary's "vote for" has been 30% or less, "vote against" 40% or more, and "depends" in the mid-20's.

Hillary starts with a built-in handicap of 10%, and needs to capture 60% of the "depends" vote to break even. If the GOP nominates Senator McCain, who appeals strongly to Independent voters, Hillary is toast. Maybe some Red-Staters don't think McCain is conservative enough, but our eventual nominee needs to capture 40% of the "depends" vote to win. This is definitely possible, but our candidate has to be conservative enough to carry the "base" during the primaries, yet able to reach enough Independents to make Hillary seem extreme-left. Is Romney that candidate? Maybe it's too early to tell...let him campaign a little, and see how voters react.

As for Dick Morris, he seems intent on selling his book about a theoretical match-up between Hillary and Condoleezza Rice, which most polls show Hillary winning. Condi Rice is doing a great job as Secretary of State--why can't we elect another Republican President who will keep her at that job?

As for Dick Morris' predictions: he predicted on Fox News the day before the 2002 elections that Democrats would keep the Senate and take over the House. In fact, Republicans kept the House and took over the Senate. With that kind of track record, should we believe Dick Morris' predictions now?

I agree that the choice of VP seldom makes much of a difference, and that Edwards' choice is a prime example.  But remember that Edwards was a very unpopular Senator in NC who ran for President because he thought he would lose re-election for the Senate.  And NC went solidly for Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

Contrast that with NM, where Gore won in 2000, where Bush only lost by 6000 votes in 2004, and where Richardson is a fairly popular governor (who balanced the NM budget without raising taxes).  It's only a few electoral votes, but I think Richardson as VP could make a difference in that one state (although nowhere else).

And I believe Hillary would do well in many of the battleground states, not because of her ideology or her stand on the issues, but simply because she is a credible woman candidate.  I believe we would see a surpising number of swing voters who would vote for her because they want to see a woman on the ticket, and it might bring out certain people to the polls who might otherwise stay at home.

Ultimately, I conclude that the only two people who are likely to run and who can reasonably get the the nomination and beat Hillary are McCain and Romney.  I hope the primaries will be a head-to-head between these two (and I'm rooting for a Romney/Condi ticket).

#1 - If the choice is Romney v. Hillary, the case I'd make is this: Romney has led a life of executive excellence, in the private (Bain Capital), public (Massachusetts) and nonprofit sectors (The Olympics), and Hillary's never been an executive, period. Romney showed, as governor, an ability to reach across the aisle, and Hillary, well...

#2 - Do you think Dick Morris advises Markos on which candidates to support?

Morris has an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons.  

Hillary Clinton will not be the Democrat nominee for President in 2008.  

Who, among the field of potential Democratic nominees, do you think has a chance of winning the general election?

I know it's not directly relevant to Morris' piece about the Republicans, but I think he believes Hillary is the only Democrat that can win and he assumes the Democrats will be rational enough to nominate her. Assuming I'm reading him correctly, do you agree with him?

...a "co-governor" and a "co-president" who can claim more administrative experience than any other senator.  I have read that most senators tend to run less effective presidential campaigns than governors because they lack the organizational skills and the ability to delegate authority which are essential to being a governor. Whatever her faults, Hillary can run a campaign with the best of them.

...it's not as if Morris' clearly unhealthy obsession with the Clintons has "hurt" him, right?  Think maybe he's going to crank-out another book or two before Nov. 2008?  I sure as heck do.

I also think you're right about St. Hillary's electoral chances.  She's really just about the best-case for my side of the ditch.

Cheers.

Which Red states does Hillary pick up? I don't see it happening people. I am unconvinced. I just don't see Hillary flipping and Red states. Are her values really gonna play in the Midwest or Florida? That's what she needs. Ohio? That's the only state big enough to flip the election that we won by less than 5%. Are her values gonne play in Cleveland or Cincinnati? I just don't think so no matter who we nominate. Maybe if we revived and nominated Barry Goldwater or somehow got Pat Buchanan to run for us, but I think anyone to the left of those guys beats Hillary. Dick Morris again is a smart guy, but I would not reccomend that he quit his day job to become a fortune teller.

Bill Richardson, a Hispanic governor considered to be a "moderate", who has shown some tendency to be strong against illegal immigrants, would probably be a formidable challenger. He could probably win a lot of votes among Hispanics, who have been drifting gradually toward the GOP in recent elections. It would be a huge mistake to underestimate him.

Although, given the loud screeching we're hearing from Senator Feingold, Howard Dean, and the Kos Kids, maybe the Democrats will make the mistake of underestimating Bill Richardson, who could be their best hope for the Presidency.

Having touted her admin skills just above, I must agree with you about Dick Morris' obsession, and I also don't think Hillary has a lock on the nomination like she might have had in the past, because the Democrats are currently in such an unpredictable state of flux.

Remember Jimmy Carter?

The symbol of "honesty and integrity" in 1976 ... and in real life, a small-minded little control-freak with a big chip on his shoulder.

Ford was never a senator - he was in the House.

of potential candidates that would be CLEARLY better options.

John Edwards - Has name recognition from 2004.  Really went through that election largely unscathed and he can mount the kind of campaign he would like now.  

Mark Warner - Extremely popular is a reddish state.  Has executive experience and won't have to worry about his state playing partisan games on him during the campaign.  

Bill Richardson - This guy could really be an interesting choice because of his appeal in traditionally red strongholds.  Not the most photogenic person so that could be a problem.  I see him more as a VP type but who knows.

Russ Feingold - Calls for censure aside he is a pretty moderate Senator who has popularity on both sides of the aisle.

Wesley Clark - Depending on where the country stands he could be an intriguing candidate.  It was clear that he was nowhere near ready to run in 2004 and he probably shouldn't have tried.  But if he chooses to give it a go then he could be a really great option.

Although I like Barack Obama he isn't ready although a VP bid isn't out of the question.

Hillary simply isn't that popular with the rank and file Democrats.   She is generally loathed by the Howard Dean wing of the Party and the DLC side isn't likely to go to the mattresses for her. Without significant support from either side she is going to find it hard to get much support, politically or financially, for a primary run.

Hillary polls relatively well because we are still 2 years out and people don't really know the other candidates.  But I see her as Al Gore redux but with more baggage and less appeal, if you can believe that.

The scent of money is certainly what draws Dicky to the Clintons.  I think he fantasizes at night about a Hillary Presidency.  4 more years of hack books for him to write.

is starting to sound like he has monomania.

There is no way anyone can predict anything about 2008 except to predict that neither W nor Chaney will be running.

I hope Hillary Clinton never runs for President. She's actually not doing a bad job for New York. She's smart, and she has the reputation among senatorial colleagues of being a good listener. But too many Americans believe Clinton does everything for political reasons (her support of the war, her stance against the Dubai/port issue). They also won't be convinced she even has moral principles. Clinton is too divisive. Her candidacy would not be a good idea.  

I could see IN going for Evan Bayh as the VP (or Pres) candidate.

I think we've been lucky to get WV the last two elections; a non-Southerner Republican nominee could change that.

I also don't consider LA, IA, CO, and NV to be locks (we have to earn those states each election).

But I think we would have to run a really bad candidate (Kerry-bad) and/or a disastrous campaign for Hillary to win.  She just can't speak.  And when she tries to show intensity or energy, she just sounds worse.

and Hillary would energize the GOP base better than anything other than the resurrection of a healthy Ronald Reagan coupled with repeal of the XXII Amendment.

Since 2004 mnay states have or are in the process of requiuring photo IDs to vote which should reduce the maximum possible democrat vote. Population shifts favor the GOP in a number of states that Kerry carried by slim margins.

The Dem party is so weak on national security and so many of their potential candidates made such juicy swamp fever left statements during the late 2005 Mute-Bush rope-a-dop-e, that I find it hard to envision any democrat beating any republican, whether human or of the yellow dawg variety, but if their is ione that could, it surely isn't Hillary.

A liberal like Hillary has never won the presidency, even during the between war end of history 90's when Bill ran as a conservative, with an assist from Perot.

History shows that the GOP wins general elections with conservative candidates while the dems win with moderate candidates (or those masquerading as such). So Morris is backwards. Rudy, McCain, etc. would stand more of a chance of losing to Hillary as they would not excite the base. On the other hand, the conservative candidates would win fairly easily. There is a ceiling of 47-49% for dems and 51-53% for the GOP in popular vote in two-man Presidential elections. It wil be difficult for any dem to win the general in a two-man race. Hillary's high negatives make her even less likely. But, the GOP can help her by nominating a moderate. An Allen-Rice ticket is a slam dunk.

Warner, Edwards, Feingold, Richardson and maybe Clark are all potential winners in 2008?

I don't know anything about Warner. In regard to the others, you haven't convinced me. For what it's worth, I don't think we have any potential winners at all (among people believed to be running) except for McCain, and he can't be nominated.

The Democrats won't nominate Hillary at all; Morris is plagued by "conventional-wisdom-think."

her personality.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, the camera does not lie.  Under the glare of an actual presidential race, all her negatives - her temper, condescending attitudes, ideological liberalism- will be absolutely clear.

So the voters will have to decide if they are willing to put up with it.  That's an unknown at this point.

A good number of Democrats and many independents can't stand Hillary.  And then there's the question of Bill back in the White House feeling our pain, while Hillary rules the destinies of men.  This may be too gender-bending for the general public.

I do think Hillary is ruthless enough to be president.  That's actually a compliment.  But it remains to be seen if she can channel that into opposing our country's enemies, rather than hers.

2 years out almost anyone could win.  

So you're dodging the question. No problem.

I agree that a George Allen/Condi Rice ticket would be a powerhouse and probably trounce any Democratic ticket.

However, the Democratic Party's bulletproof ticket would be Warner/Bayh. Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa would all fall and there's no way we could make up that ground. Sure, Hillary will probably draft Warner or Vilsac to be her veep, but that won't cause those states to fall with Hillary at the top of the ticket. And luckily, no one can beat Hillary in the primary. We can count on Hill doing whatever it takes to knock out her opponants when liberals are the only electorate she has to worry about.

In the general election, though - I think the question is more like who CAN'T beat Hillary? :-)

I like Mitt Romney, too, btw.

How about this, between Allen and Romney I'll vote for the candidate who promises to slash the most spending out of the federal budget. :-)

You asked me who I thought could win.  I listed some potential candidates to which you said that they won't.  Ok.  Well I'm not clairvoyant.  

At some point in the nomination process someone in the Conservative evangelical base in the South Particularly will dig up odd quotes from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc and pin them on Romney.

Both JS and BY made many atagonistic anti-american remarks about the US gov't and system. (They did so in the context of intense religious persecution but that context won't come up)  It will be nasty, it will be unfair, it will be wrong.  But it will be done and it will work.

Romney will never be the nominee.

Simple as that.

And it's a good thing too, because if those quotes came up during the general election, it will paint him as member of fundamentalist religion that had an anti-american past.

I agree he could flip PA, MI, ME, NH, and maybe even WI and MN, retain OH, MO and others.  But he could lose VA, NC, FL, TX, states with increasing democrat demographics, and large populations of evangelicals that are suspicious of Mormons.

Russ Feingold - Calls for censure aside he is a pretty moderate Senator who has popularity on both sides of the aisle.

April Fool's Day is still a couple weeks away, you know.

...Dem contenders, only Hillary can win and she will be the nominee. So he's concentrating his attention of the Republican side. You said that Hillary can't even be nominated but said nothing about whether she could win the general. So my question is: of the other potential Dems, which are potential winners? You said two years out, no one knows. Fair enough, I'll take "I don't know" for an answer. For what it's worth, everyone on your list is a known quantity except for Warner and possibly Richardson, and (speaking for myself) I don't see any winners on the list. So as regards Hillary from two years out, I agree with Morris that she should get the Dem nod.

I can just see a GOP commercial with Hillary on a podium saying crazy things, and Clinton then dismissing it as "a right wing smear attack".  When a reporter asks her how it can be a smear when that is in fact her herself speaking, she will claim the Republican attack machine will stop at nothing.  When pressed further, she will then claim the Republicans faked that footage, just like the faked the moon landing.  When reminded Democrats were in charge then, Hillary will ask the reporter how much FoxNews is paying him.

If only Richardson was more telegenic, he would make an extremely formidable candidate.  But I doubt the Dems will nominate him.

By the way, I have been wanting to ask you for a long time about the "Z" in your moniker.  Every time I see your posts, I think of Steve Zissou from Life Aquatic, and I just laugh.  But of course, you could laugh at the small and humble stature of my moniker as well.

As a southerner, let me state that you are dead wrong.  This bit of anti-mormon conventional wisdom always seems to come from other people who assume (much like the democrats do) that southern voters are simpletons who simply follow whatever religious carrot is dangled in front of them.

Even if Romney's performance at the SRLC last weekend didn't dispell this silly notion, a good number of Evangelical/Christians on this board have stated that they have no problem with Romney's faith.  What is the other option?  Vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Democrat?

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are not going to be factors in this election.

I've started paying more attention to him since his showing in Memphis.  Interesting thinking about his reception in the states you mention.

Flipping channels, found him on Imus this morning.  Very impressed with his ease answering questions on the sticky issues with meaty answers and polished extemporanious good humor amid a rollicking St. Patrick's Day format.  

Rich Lowry, NRO, writes this morning that he and Allen are vying for "the non-McCain" nomination.

Lowry writes, "The governorship of Mass isn't a natural launching pad for a Republican presidential run. But Romney has shrewdly leveraged his position there into an ongoing social-conservative credential. He has been in fights with liberals on every social issue imaginable -- gay marriage, cloning, abstinence education, emergency contraception, gay adoption. At times, it's almost been as if the conservative capital of America has been in that tiny slice of Boston occupied by Romney's office."

He headed the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics which he brought from a deficit to show a formidable profit, sat on the board of Staples and supports Bush on the Iraq war.  I'm really learning from the ground up here, but I'm finding a lot more than just good looks (which frankly after the preening JOOOHHHN KERRY was a hurdle in my mind).

He'll be interviewed on C-SPAN Sunday night.

Two good March 17 articles (sorry, can't do links)  www.nationalreview.com, www.boston.com

But I think it's clever of you to choose a character from Lord of the Rings.

We just need to find our "Aragorn" before 2008!

She'll likely send Bill to OH, IA, MO, and AR to try and change minds among the working class and middle class voters that went for Bill but not Gore/Kerry.  Adding Richardson to the ticket could help tilt NV, NM, and FL.  Without a nominee who can put the light blue states into play as well, there will be about three ways Hillary could put together an electoral majority.

Voters in those states, of course, won't want to vote Hillary.  Neither will voters in the light blue midwestern states of MI, PA, WI, and MN.  The trick is finding a candidate who can capture their attention and imagination.  Someone who seems too much like GWB, considering that GWB lost those states and that GWB's job approval is well below majority levels, would start with a major disadvantage in all of these states and make the game about whether or not Hillary can win a few votes in Ohio, which is not the game I want to be playing.

with her is that she stumped for John Kerry  POSSIBLY THE WORST PERSON IN HUMAN HISTORY TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, a FANATIC and a PROTO-FASCIST!!!

As a Southern evangelical, I believe that Mormonism is a cult.  But most Mormons don't even know the kooky stuff that the church teaches, and in their personal lives are much the same as most nominal Christians.  Evangelicals are much more concerned about the moral stance of candidates than their religious beliefs, and would have no problem voting for a Catholic, Jew or Mormon, as long as they share traditional family values and are reasonably strong on pro-life and anti-gay-marriage issues.

Richardson is notable for being the only Democrat I can name who understands supply side economics, as evident by the fact he boosted revenues in his state by lowering, not raising taxes.

That being said, he's a DNC type of Democrat, meaning that well before 2008 he might be guillotined in the bloody purges Kos has promised us.

The Democrats skeletons are walking around today, many of whom hold elective office and are mentioned as candidates for 2008. In fact, the Democrat caucus resembles Night of the Living Dead.

When Dick Morris says there's little Republicans can do to prevent the return of the Clintons to the White House, he's right.  But he misses a significant point, we won't have to work to prevent her from winning the white house. Hillary will do all the necessary work for us!

 As Rove points out, she's too brittle and as we've all observed, too acerbic, to garner the trust of the American people.

Edwards -- lightweight, can't win nomination or general election.

Warner -- would give Republicans a run for their money in general election, but would have to get 100% of the moderate vote to win the primary, and Hillary's connections with the DLC will suck up much of that.

Richardson -- see comments on Warner

Feingold -- no natural constituency and shot himself in the foot with the censure motion

Clark -- no experience, no national exposure, fuzzy on the issues, bad on the stump -- no way

The bottom line is that no Dem to the right of Hillary will get enough moderate votes away from Hillary to be a contender in the primary (unless they all unite behind one moderate anti-Hillary, which I don't see happening), and no Dem to the left of Hillary can win the general election.

Its going to be interesting to what degree Bill Clinton will be involved in his wife's campaign, and how it will be received.  While Bill is a popular figure among many Americans in sort of an abstract, my-life-was-good-in-the'90's kind of way, seeing him petition to be let back into the White House might rub them the wrong way.

"Please vote for my wife, the woman I was unfaithful to throughout our marriage"

Who do you think will get the nomination, or perhaps a top 3? (likely nominees, not necessarily your choice)

In the classic "who would you rather have a beer with?" poll, her opponent would get about 95% of the vote.

Included in the 95% will be her husband, daughter, entire campaign staff, etc.

Do you see any problems cropping up (particularly if he was running against a female candidate) if some of the Mormon positions on women come out in an election?  I'm referring to things like the fact that they believe that women will only be resurrected at their husbands' behest.  (I'm not trying to be snide; I'm sincerely curious what you think the public reaction would be.)

I have actually predicted that the stress of the campaign, especially as all the evidence the Senate refused to make public during impeachment that detail the efforts of Bill and Hillary's smear campaigns against bimbo eruptions, including fbi files and targeted IRS tax audits, will cause an second, possibly fatal myocardial infarction.

Add to this the evidence that Bill has lost a step in off the cuff, LIVE on TV LYING, coupled with the more difficult task of explaining not only his, but also Hillary's contradictory statements on the war, with many of his being made overseas,

PLUS

the fact that we now live in a post 911 world dominated by a straight talking cowboy (who always looks better when compared to a liberal, as does his party, whose nominee will be a hawk that has been rock solid),

and I think the contrast of a couple of narcissistic babyboomer feel good spin merchants obviously playing word games beyond the word

"IS"

will repel 60% of America as being OH SO 9-10!!

...We lose if we nominate George Allen.

An "aw shucks" college jock type who doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer (yes I know he went to UVA Law School).

Talk about Dubya redux...

Ironically, in the last election, George W Bush won hands down "who would you rather have a beer with". And he no longer drinks beer.

Of course, after seeing what Hillary says when she's (presumably) sober, she might let out some real howlers if she has a few drinks!

in the hereafter. But seriously though, and this may come as a shock, I know MANY more democrats, both male and female, that would not vote for a woman, black or non-Christian that republicans.

If Hillary were to get the nomination, one of the biggest stories on election day will be the margin by which she loses the female vote and democrats that voted for Kerry. She would do about as well as Dukakis. Maybe a few  more states, but I doubt it.

...Nearly 200 years ago! I promise that anyone who tries to smear Romney based on his religion will have it come right back in their face.

Especially the Dems in the general!

is that he has a clear agenda.  The guy is All Clinton all the time.  So his claim that only Clinton can win is dubious at best.

Hillary WON'T be nominated and I think she would get crushed in the general election.  

As you said you don't really see any winners right now. It's way too early to determine who can win.  Right now the only thing we can try and determine is who CAN'T win.

...But we may not be able to survive it again after 3 more years of Dubya.

Don't get me wrong. I love Dubya, I have prayed for him more than maybe anyone outside of my own family. And I still think he will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

But his second term is adrift. Why in the world he continues to refuse to go on the attack and save his own administration is beyond me. The couple of speeches he made in January raised his poll numbers significantly. Why isn't he continuing to fight?

It just seems like he's trying to wait out the next three years.

When even my Republican friends are starting to bash Dubya, it's seems to me to be a bad idea to nominate the candidate who most closely reminds prople of him in 2008. I suspect that's why he did so poorly in Memphis.

If we as Republicans have to go with a compromise candidate in 2008, (over McCain or Rudy), let's go with Romney.

And don't think it's confined to Republicans, either.  I think both the right and the press are seriously overestimating Hillary's chances of getting the nomination.

Many are confusing early fundraising prowess and name recognition with solid support.  Remember that Joementum led the Dem field until mid-'03 on the latter alone.  Then the hothead populist and the savior general took the lead until the party settled on Mr. Well-Rounded Gravitas.

The octogenarian Truman-Democrat caucus chairmen in Iowa may have a nasty surprise for Hillary.  I believe one of Warner Clark , Feingold or Kerry will knock her off.  Which one depends on the national mood in 2 years.

A Romney nomination would be an absolute gift to the Democrats.  You think Hillary is bad?  You should have seen Shannon O'Brien, who Rommey could only get 52% of the vote against in the MA governor's race.  She was absolutely horrible, but Mitt was nearly as bad.  He's incredibly easy to not like.  Wooden, uncharismatic, smarmy.  

Mitt has the personality of Al Gore with the flip-flopping habits of John Kerry.  He's a complete and total dud.

in the 21st have all usurped Baseball as the national pasttime. All of this is so familiar, including during 2003 and especially all thru 2004. The only added factor is that Bush will not be on the ballot again.

The congenital problem is a GOP amnesia problem which occurs about 45-60 days after every election. We forget how we just won on conservative principles when contrasted with liberals and fall for the BETWEEN election polls of the MSM that compare us to an imagined perfect alternative.

This too will pass. How? Bush will speak for a few weeks and-or kill terrorists in a major way

and

here comes the best

Democrats will speak.

You know, I would woprry a little, if dems were to adopt a strategy of silence,

but they wont.

And I do not believe it possible for even our inept GOP to out sorry the democrats!!

Come November, we have all the dove and tax raising quotes on tape. The 2004 Bush rope a dope caused nearly all the dems to say things in imagined boldness that cant stand the light of day, esp when voters must choose between A or B, rather than tell a pollster how far Bush has to go to be FDR or LINCOLN,

both of whom were also hated by 40+ %.

Why Bush doesnt defend more? I hate it too, but I think its because he has found that it is so easy to recover with so little effort.

Plus, he knows history will judge him on the war, for which he needs little help from the GOP and because the GOP let him down (see FRIST esp) so many times on his domestic agenda (energy, anwr, soc sec, etc)

Bush is the Lion in Narnia

He will wake up in time.

And I think, as far as the GOP is concerned, we are back to the McGovern era for dems. Carter lied and said he was a cold warrior and then the war ended before Clinton was voted for.

These dems are on record as wimps.

dont worry

Now, could we do better, as in passing the agenda and winning bigger in 2006, if Bush would kiss a little GOP butt in congress and fight the public fight every day.

yes

Its not that I have anything against Allen, I just think it's time to change things up a little personality wise.  After 8 years of Bush (whom I also like) stumbling through speeches and press conferences, I want somebody like Romney who can dominate any debate without breaking a sweat.

Aw shucks and articulate explainer of GOP values and ideals, incl the wear.

This is not about who can beat Hillary or any other dem. Its about what we want.

This is just more of his Draft Condi stuff.  

What has me wondering is what about a Romney/Rice ticket?

Winning 52 percent of the vote as a Mormon Republican in Massachusetts against an Irish-Catholic Democrat only supports the idea that Mitt could win nationally, not detracts from it.

Further, one of the reasons I haven't supported Romney before was due to skepticism about his ability to connect with voters.  Any doubts I had were removed upon watching a few videos of his speeches to GOP crowds.  I would encourage anyone interested in this whole debate to go to the Road to the White House section of C-SPAN's website and listen to a few minutes of Romney's speech to SC Republicans.  He's both articulate AND engaging.  Sort of reminds me of Newt back in his prime.  Gingrich was never a "folksy" guy, but sure was interesting to listen to.  Romney is similar.

Good ticket.  Romney seems to be playing equally well to southern and midwestern Republicans.  He won't need to balance the ticket regionally.  He'll need someone to shore up the nat'l security gravitas of the ticket as well as someone who will bring in any soft Republicans who are miffed over McCain not being nominated.  Rice fulfills both categories, and she also helps neutralize the novelty of having a woman on the D's ticket.

Rudy would also be good for this role in theory, though some can't see him as a vice president.

...No racial demagoguery (Repubs are Racists) could be used...

Or vice president.  He did win a Homer Simpson lookalike contest though.

for those who don't want to search... RWH '08: Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) Speech in South Carolina click the first video. Warning it's 42 minutes long (speech doesn't start until at least 9 mins in)

The Democrats might just surrender to that ticket, to save their money for the midterms.  That's basically the two most educated politicians in the country on the same ticket.

Could win a general, but never a primary.  His best bet would be to run after being a VP.

...and not "DNC".

...either.  MO is moving right, but far from a lock for us.

If they don't now, they've changed their theology.

1. GOP corruption (The dems are equally corrupt in this state, see "Akron" city politics for an allnighter).
   
2. A Governor who acts like a dem (loves taxes)
   
3. Between the two senators includes gang of 14, vote against Bush's tax cuts, over the top criticism of points on Iraq, a snub when Bush visited Ohio, etc.

The GOP in Ohio is rapidly losing its message and infrastructure.  If they don't get on the ball quick it may be costly at the national level.  I fear this is a very under the radar story with massive implications.

...but one.

I believe the GOP broke some records for maxing out turnout more than the dems.

I used to be Mormon.  There was a temple ritual where the wife received a "secret" name that the husband whispered from the other side of the veil.  This name assured her entrance into the highest of the three kingdoms.  Maybe that was dropped since I was there.

Anyone who attacks someone's religion in a campaign creats a martyr.  See how Kennedy hurt himself after attacking Romney in the senate race a while back.  Kennedy lost some points for calling Mormonism an "exotic religion that doesn't allow women in the priesthood".  Had Kennedy been a practicing catholic he would have seen the irony in talking about women in the priesthood.

...would boost anyone's ticket.  She's great.

wouldn't win not one primary in the south.

1.  I'll ignore the double negative in your comment.
   
2.  Why do you think that?
   
3.  Do you have polling to show that?

He doesn't need polling.  It's a Known Fact™ that all southerners hate black people, remember?

I gotta say that she in no way reminds me of anyone I would characterize as a "significant other" past, present, or future.

I may have made some bad decisions along the way, but never that bad!

to me she reiminds me of a shrill old school teacher whom I despised.

But when looking at 95% of the politicians right now on the national radar, I think I'd rather have a poo throwing monkey as president.

Sorry, I dont think Senator Kennedy is running this time.

Wont allow someone like Richardson. the thing is, he is an old style Liberal, and I could see myself actually voting for him if he had a decent running mate. I have voted for republicans since Ronnies first term but that might change depending on who their candidate is. I am completely disgusted with the party.

I can't believe I went through all these comments about the 2008 election and saw nary a word about Iraq and Iran. How those things are going will have a huge impact on the 2008 election, in ways, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfield, that we know we don't know.

Here are two What Ifs:

-- Iraq has descended into utter barbarism and American troops have fled or are still being killed and wounded in large numbers. McCain and Clinton and virtually every leader with influence who supported the war and voted for it and campaigned for it are harassed by demonstrators -- not left-wing kooks, but a pissed off general public -- at every appearance and adopt haunted, hunted looks. They gradually become aware that they are modern Whigs, people whose support of a certain political agenda is now seen as hopelessly out of touch with reality and decency, people useful only as a guide to What Not To Do. The president's approval ratings will be in the low 20s-- he'll wish he had it as good as Warren Harding, historically speaking -- and the next president will be someone who has nothing in any practical sense to do with him, someone no one expects. Perhaps even someone from outside the two major parties. Or:

-- Iraq has a democratically elected president, no Americans are dying, and Iran has come crawling to the bargaining table. The Democratic Party, then, is the Whig Party; unable to deal with the success of the Bush policy in Iraq, the party will either nominate a doomed opponent of the war or unenthusiastically allow a candidate who supported the war to go down to defeat. The outgoing President Bush, his popularity ratings now in the 60s, inaugurates exactly the successor he wanted and retires to Dallas in triumph. Meanwhile, wallowing in gloom, the Democratic Party's  discredited, lightweight, feuding leaders realize they will never win another presidential election.

Anyone who can tell me with certainty which of those scenarios most resembles the situation on the ground in, say, March, 2008: that person can tell me who the next president will be.

One other note vis. Morris: his Rice fantasy is crazy. She's literally never run for elected office before. A presidential campaign is a brutal place to make the rookie mistakes that would inevitably come. And Morris's whole column rests on the assumption that McCain can't win the nomination, something he inroduces then moves quickly past, like a good three-card monte dealer. McCain is electable in the general, he'll have the most money, by all accounts he met the Loyalty Test in 2004, and he'll have the best staff. Depending on the situation in the Middle East, I'd say he's the prohibitive favorite.

. . .get ready to duck when you pick up the line."  ]:-)

Gore can get the nomination, I guarantee it.

He'll get beaten like a rented mule in the general, but he can win their primary.

world, from which the dems have retreated. The number of scenarios on the ground are infinite, but the weak, fever swamp left, defeatist, McGovernite statements of most all dem elected officials and expected candidates are on tape. Even Bayh and Warner have made statements that will be embarrassing on national security.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/16/223412/168/66#66

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/16/223412/168/76#76

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/16/223412/168/37#37

btw Harding's VP won. Nixon beat McGovern. Bush beat Kerry when things were at their worst on the ground in Iraq.

Vertigo Gore (the one that almost stumbled over W on the debate stage) being chosed as the VP candidate. The dems will lose partially due to the fact that tickets perform better with the VP as the angry attack dog. Vertigo Gore could go the way of Eagleton and be replaced by Sgt Sriver.

Heavy breathing Gore will be arrested under the new child porn laws.

Yeah, and "Mormons are the Devil," right RT?

Once again you've pulled me back from the ledge!

It did feel good to vent though.

Dobson, Robertson, Falwell all have been very vocal in their support of Romney and have not hesitated to team up with him...because their values, morals and political philosophies are the same.  Both are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-strong family values, etc.  Falwell even had many Mormon leaders in his Moral Majority group in the early 80's, which is now the Christian Coalition led by Pat Robertson.

I'm confident 99.9% of Christians understand a Presidential election is for a respected political leader, not a bishop or other religious leader (or they'd just automatically vote for someone who claimed to be their preferred religion, even Clinton, Feingold, or Kennedy). Finding those who would not vote for Romney because of religion is literally a needle in a haystack.

Ken Blackwell to the rescue!

This man is a true heir to Ronald Reagan. If he can get elected govenor of Ohio, I promise that we will be voting for him for POTUS in 2012 or 2016.

Bush is the Lion in Narnia

He will wake up in time.

Any candidate, including Romney, can't be all things to all people, and a minority of people won't like that person for whatever reason.  

Romney pretty much came out of nowhere with a conservative reputation and won in MA because they needed a fiscal savior.  He also pushed Chappaquiddick Kennedy to his closest race ever.

Romney is a pursuasive, charismatic, and an articulate speaker (so is Gingrich and Giuliani) by most anyone's standard.  I suppose you can find those who think Ronald Reagan was wooden, uncharismatic, smarmy too, but not many.

And Romney's stellar business and academic background backs it all up.

The main creatures that need to get off the ledge they flee to about 3 weeks into every new Congress are those that worry that keeping promises risks alienating those to whom they made the promises!

Believe it or not, I vent too, about W and the professional peanut gallery, and it would be nice to have an hero with a vocal chord but then I think about why W is heroic and I truly worry that 5 years from now we might pine for W like pine for Reagan.

Can you imagine what that man has had on him since 911 alone, not to mention to have to deal with the 24-7 slanders of the msm and an opposition party that reads the enemy their script?

And yet, this man has never waivered. NOT ONE TIME has he shown the enemy any weakness. Not a trace.

You know, its funny. I was democrat in 2000, although I called myself a Clintonian, imagining he was the more conservative, as I had long ago parted ways with the DC feminist enviro wacko tax raising race baiting libs!!

I watched those Gore debates and really grew to respect W as an adult facing a child, but, as I had done all my adult life, I got in that voting booth and, after Dukakis like hesitation, voted for Gore to reward Clinton!, I told myself. It takes a lot of such rationalizations for dems to eschew suicide.

Jesus come

But by the summer of 2001, BEFORE 911, I admired W so much, agreed with his policies, and loathed the dems so much, that I switched.

And I havent regretted it.

I think Bush is wiser than we know. I honestly think that there may well be a good reason for W's reluctance to suck up to Congress for reasons we dont know. And that W is squeezing every possible positive out of Washington, given the pathetic profiles in character and courage with which he has to deal.

I have really come to lose a lot of respect for the institution of congress and esp the senate. That city and that institution as it has evolved and operates today, corrupts.

I could go on , and on , ...

well, before I rant on MY GOP congress more,

let me step back from the ledge

I worry too

just not about dems

but you should have seen me the afternoon of election day!!!!

too worried to drink whiskey, I was

and my last name is the name of the biggest pub in dublin

We oft comment, and then comment again on other's comments! We make wisecracks, and occasionally bits of wisdom.

But this was a sharing of your soul. Thank you!

I'm betting money that Hillary never runs in 2008.

She is generally loathed by the Howard Dean wing of the Party and the DLC side isn't likely to go to the mattresses for her

Very cheeky to mention any Clinton and matresses in the same sentence!

That Mormons believe that all people will be resurrected- including single people.

You are talking about entering into the highest degree of the celestial glory which does indeed require that a woman be married... of course it also requires that men be married too.  I have never heard anyone suggest that the husband gets to decide whether the wife gets in or not.

It does not apply to the ressurection.

Yeah, she needs all that money she's raising to get re-elected against....what's that guy's name again?

Governor Warner never had to prove he could win re-election, though.

It's easy to have high approval ratings when you're not running for anything, and more importantly not having anyone running against you.

As I see Governor after Governor either run into trouble (Pawlenty, Owens) or pull out (Bush, Sanford, Barbour), it seems to me that Governor Romney is the only one left standing.

And as I see time after time Romney fight hard in that unfriendly state for decent principles, I'm impressed with him.

I want to like him. I'm hesitant to say I support him; I rarely like Republicans that liberal areas elect (I think of guys like Mayors Riordan and Guiluiani or Governors Schwarzenegger and Pataki).

So my position on him is 'trust, but verify,' but as of now Romney/Rice is a rare ticket I see floated around that I don't frown at.  So bring it on, please.

That or draft Bush.

dicky boy wants 'Hilldaguaed' too run so he can unlock her closet. The last few prediction Dick made he was way off. you have too hand it too him he gets in the new.

We do have too keep a close eye on the left though. they are sneeky

folks are hung up on him because he is the antichrist of MA, but come on the guy hasn't been effective on the social issues and this will be his demise. Dems will be all over him.

What is left / right with this picture...This picture needs exposure...FULL-EXPOSURE.

Perhaps Mike Huckabee(R) as a presidential candidate or as vice president, can / will provide full-exposure regarding Hillary.

Huckabee is the governor of Arkansas.

Huckabee, when serving as lieutenant governor, became governor of Akansas in 1996 when the Clintons' govenorship successor Jim Guy Tucker(D) resigned as governor of Arkansas after becoming a convicted felon as a result of the WhiteWater investigation.  Just another in Clintons' legacy of friendly living felons.

Governor Huckabee and his friends should on demand, not-as-needed, provide full exposure regarding the Clintons including Hillary.

Governor Huckabee has some issues that he must deal with, but if Hillary becomes the Dem's chosen-one then Huckabee if on the GOP's ticket could become a valuable asset for the GOP's side.

A Huckabee for president or vice president movement could gain serious momentum if opposing Hillary.

Huckabee vs Hillary would be a provocative and an eye opening race for America.

If Huckabee is inserted, directly, into the 2008 presidential race then Hillary may decide that she should move-on rather than face anything that resembles Arkansas style "full-exposure".

Coming to a computer near you:

www.hillarywhat.com

www.hillary101.com.

Cheers,

upordown@hillarywhat.com

upordown@hillary101.com

I'm wanting to learn here.  Given his positions and his being in one of the deepest blue states, the fact that his vetoes on the traditional value issues were overturned isn't surprising.  

I think that would be different in red states.  And after all, he was elected governor in that blue Catholic state.  

Tell me more where you are coming from, whose camp you're in and why.  What's the worst that the Dems will say?

Thanks  

What are you talking about?  He's been one of the most outspoken and articulate advocates for conservatism.  Can you give some examples please?  I think he's done the best he can with a legislature that is more than 80% Democrat.

some of you feel about McCain.  Not crazy about him...and I dont even think I'm willing to go to the mat to help him get the nomination.  If that means the clintons will be back in the WH, then, at least they balanced the budget.

...Romney stood up for religious freedom, supporting Catholic Charities' wish to not place adopted children in gay households, he issued a call to rein in entitlement spending, called on the Mass legislature to tighten the welfare rolls, and now he's on his way to the Vatican.

And that's just this week.

He's fought against same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and he turned around a $3 billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus wihtout raising taxes.

Fact is, this guy has been a tireless warrior for conservative issues in enemy territory, while McCain and Allen have been doing God knows what down in the glorified debate club, including busting the budget and growing the deficit while failing to take any action on any important social issues.

I don't even see how McCain and Allen are even in Romney's league.

Balanced the budget in MA, that is.

reading is one issue for sure that Dubya must be kept away from! Read Daniel (dream interpreter) and you may qualify for the job!

People, right or wrong, get political "fatigue", and Bush certainly has fatigued Democrats and Republicans for different reasons.  Condi will be seen as "more of the same", and everyone will impute each Bush foreign policy decision on Condi, and she'll have to own them.

With Condi on the ticket, you remove the benefit of "fresh faces and ideas" and you return to a detailed debate of each Bush foreign policy decision with Condi.

It'd be the same rehashed debate if Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, or other cabinet members ran for President.  While I'd love a Cheney presidency, I think fresh perspectives from strong, disciplined conservatives is best for this country.

Also...Can imagine a 2008 election that rehashes every meaningful vote McCain has cast during his 20 year tenure?  Ugh! (see John Kerry).  Please, there are many articualte and "Club for Growth" style conservatives that don't have this type of baggage.

and a woman who reminds every male voter of at least one former significant other with whom things weren't always stellar.

And I thought I was the only one.

she won't run unless she thinks she will win. I'm betting in about a year the Dem state people in Iowa and New Hampshire tell her point blank they won't support her.

www.clintontruth.com !

A book by the late, VERY great Barbara Olsen.  Read it.  She's MORE liberal than most RS'ers think she is, actually.

...since you guys only go for people that couldn't win an election against a bag of rocks (Dean: case in point). Those of us who worry about Hillary (and it's far from all of us) are worried about Hillary. She's been hostile all her life to the things we care about, but far more importantly, she can win the general election if she manages to get herself nominated.

Condi as VP would provide the assurance that Bush's foriegn policy will not be abandoned.

Most people, while displeased with Bush's foriegn policy, are not persuaded that rejecting his policy would be good for the US.

These people want a shift of a few degrees in foriegn policy, not a U-turn.

An outsider combined with Bush's Sec. of State would send just such a signal.

Hillary doesn't have a snowballs chance.   Out side of left wing whackos who is going to vote for her?

Agree with all of your points.  Add self-made black woman who has negotiated face-to-face with present day world leaders and speaks how many? languages.

Hillary would energize the GOP base better than anything other than the resurrection of a healthy Ronald Reagan

 At this point I would take a vampiric undead Ronald Reagan. We could feed him house democrats from time to time.

...has "retreated" since 9-11, or that Democrats who came out against the war are going to have any particular problems with the electorate, no matter how Iraq turns out. I think there are two groups of politicians, both contemptible in their own right, who will have problems though: Democrats who suspected that they were being sold a bill of good by the Bush Administration but went along anyway out of political cowardice, and Republicans who have supported the war down the line, haven't been able to find anything wrong with it long past it's "sell by" date, and can be found on tape challenging the patriotism of anyone who didn't agree with them.  

waged against us since 1993, esp since 2001 and understanding the danger of allowing a terrorist state to openly defy us esp after 2001, is one of the major reasons why dems weild no power in Washingtopn or in a majority of state legislatures and state houses,

just as failure to buy the danger of communism and the need for a strong defense generally since 1968 is why the dem party started its slow McGovern death that continues.

Love of high taxes and class warfare and PC moral and cultural relativism and equivalence blame america firstism also doesnt help.

Dems  just dont BUY into the whole true meaning of patriotism beacuse the amerika they love exists in their own mind and would have a better chance of becoming a reality after the america on the ground collapsed.

The America we love is the one that exists in rerality.

Heck, dems arent even good  liberals anymore given their callous indifference to people suffering under brutal dictators and the fact of their freedom gives them no joy.

Such people disgust me and is why I left that party. They are human waste, if they are even still human.

You know I can't figure this guy out unless it is all about the money.

Hillary can't win. Do you think she could take the southeast and southwest, where the population is shifting to at the present? No. In my opinion Kerry had a better chance at beating a Republican and for all of his Vietnam/Boat captain/purple heart hoopla he didn't pull it off. Tom Daschle was also finally dismantled as well.

What can Hillary run on? Education-well let's talk about the Arkansas/NY school system shall we? She hasn't done anything for either of them past or present. She sent her own daughter to private school!

Her concerns for America's security? Why was Slick Willy backdooring the UAE deal by saying 'go for it' while she was lambasted the proposal?

No Hillary will get votes in Los Angeles-San Fran and NYC.

Personally I would like to see Romney win. He is far more credible-conservative from a liberal state. Imagine that, by sheer hometurf he takes Mass? Get outside of Boston and you see where his support lies. Too many on the Rep. side to choose from for now but what does the left have? Hillary, Al Gore (who has become a maniacal nut), John Kerry (a cardboard doll who lost) and John Edwards (lost in 2004 and is an ambulance chaser). This is the best of the best for the Dems.

infinitespeculator.com

it is all about the money

to your whole post.

And yes, with Morris, it's all about the money.

this seems to be a big "if."

I love Blackwell as much as the next guy, but he needs our support NOW if he's going to get over the top.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

The idea that Mormon women can only be resurrected at the behest of their husbands is fatuous twaddle.  Say that to any Mormon woman and the most likely response is laughter.

But it's exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

Romney will have to answer an endless series of challenges.  He already has!  Everything form Mormon views on polygamy and Mormon undergarments.

I think he can and will handle these deftly, but there will be a critical mass of these after a while, and they will take their toll, no matter how well he answers or defrays them.

It's a distraction, and it will sink him.

Except...

Many early Mormon leaders made comments about the destruction of the US. gov't and the establishment of a politically independent Mormon State in its place.

Now all that is in the past some 100 years or more, but it will create enough doubt to keep some home and activate the opposition.

Travis

It might serve as a source of free publicity.

How many articles written about Mitt so far have focused on his Mormon faith?

I think the whole Mormon faith thing is just going to give Romney a sense of novelty that makes great fodder for the Press.  Whether Romney can win the nomination, and then the general will depend on whether he can show that he has substantive positions.

I think he has already made a good start.

About how it was the wickedness of America that had brought down this great calamity upon their heads?

I think most Americans are finally over the War Between the States.

But she would have to sweep New England, the West Coast, and the MidWest.   As usual, the Mid-West will be the deciding factor in the general. (Unless the Dems are smart and nominate either Warner or Richardson).  In such a situation, a Romney candidacy would be very helpful due to his strong roots in Michigan.

Also, his '50's father figure imagery will play well to the Reagan Democrats who are the deciding voters in the Mid-West.

will go in the opposite direction, as it apparently did in MA.  Romney is just starting to go national.  

Go to "I Want To Believe in Mitt" (another thread on this site).  

iamright

links to Romney's speech Sunday night on C-SPAN.  (You can view it.)  He answers the Mormon question and so much more.  

I wish I knew how to do links!

Romney will rise to be strongest on issues evangelicals care most about.  Particular doctrines of the Mormon church won't matter. When Kennedy was the first Catholic to run for president, people said that the Pope would be running our country.  

This country is past that stuff.

It's nothing to do with his faith, and everything to do with his perceived squishiness, that makes me think he won't get needed support in the South.

Neither of the scenarios you suggest are likely.  Instead, it will continue to be a mixed bag in 2008 just as it is now.  Iraq will have a stable, functioning government, our troops will be down to about 25% of what they are now, but there will still be a low-level insurgency with no end in site.  OBL will still be on the loose.  And Iran will still be in limbo.

That means that as much as American's will hate the fact that there's still uncertainty in the world, they will conclude, perhaps reluctantly, that they are better off with a Republican in the WH -- IF it's a credible and likeable candidate and IF the Dem candidate can be painted soft on national security.

That being said, at this point, I'm leaning towards Romney as being reasonably solid on the four issues that matter:  (1) national security, (2) judges, (3) fiscal conservatism and (4) social conservatism.

Down there, they call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

Kookie, there's an easy way to do links, that even a simple hobbit like me can do.  Simply go to the website you want to link to, highlight the URL (that is, the line at the top of your browser that starts either with "http:" or "www:") and then copy and paste it into your comment.

There's a better way to do it, that allows you to replace the URL with a simple English word or phrase in the text of the comment itself.  But despite the fact that I've seen it explained on this site several times, this simple hobbit hasn't figured it out yet.  Maybe someone can help me.

By the way, I agree with your comments about Romney.

that when he attended BYU, you could always tell the Mormons from the South becuase they would wave the Confederate Battleflag at Football games and yell out: "The South will Rise Again".

Thanks! I'll keep your directions handy and give them a good try.  So grateful for you smarties out there.  Wish me luck!

Whenever I get in computer trouble, my husband has his company computer hot-shot make a house call to bail me out.  He knows I'm a "monkey with a gun" with this thing and tries to hide/lock things up to keep me out of trouble.  

BTW Romney was interviewed by Brian Lamb.  It wasn't a speech Sunday night.  Watched it and was again impressed.  This time about his breadth of business background.

Thanks again!

"Lincoln? That thug!"

Perhaps I should point out that Brigham Young was condeming both the North and the South for their wickedness.

(Or does that just mean that I offended everybody instead of just the Southerners?) *grin

I need to know about Romney's squishiness.  What's that about?

Yes it is in dispute, as there are two camps on the issue- and both have significant evidence.

Some say that Romney is a squish:  They point to his comprimise on stem cell research, and his muddled retoric on abortion.

Others say that Romney is a solid rock-ribbed social conservative:  They point to his fierce defense of tradition marriage, and his pointed denouncement of activist judges and the "re-interpertation" of ancient traditions and constitutions.

I think it comes down a lot to deeds and words.  Some of us (like me) feel that altough Romney makes moderate noises, his actions show he is very conservative (ie Orrin Hatch with a {even bigger} smily face).  Other feel that his moderate words signal that he is untrustworthy, regardless of his actions- (although I have not figured out why they don't apply that same standard towards Allen).

I have not heard much dispute against the belief that Romney is an Economic Conservative.

I speak of the Relevant Squish.

I believe it was Jonah Goldberg who opined that, while being conservative does not inherently rely on opposition to abortion, you can get a feel for someone's conservative bona fides by getting his opinion on abortion.

Romney is a Rockefeller Republican on life issues. He's pro-choice until he starts a run for the Presidency on the GOP ticket. He's opposed to cloning people and raising them to adulthood, but apparently using them as research matter is fine by him.

By the way:

Others say that Romney is a solid rock-ribbed social conservative

Given the complete dearth of evidence on this, aside from his relatively popular, and politically meaningless, stand against gay marriage, when you say "Others," you mean "Kathryn Jean Lopez and I."

I think Allen is a squish, too. Just slightly more telegenic.

First- Rockfeller Republicans are "moderate" on economic issues.

Second Romney agreed to allow "excess" embryos that were going to be destroyed for reasearch purposes, but opposes the creation of embryos for research.  (Not my position, but not necessarily proof of liberalism.)

Thirdly, Romney's retoric on Abortion is muddled, but from what I've read it seems to come mainly from an attempt by Romney to assure the people of Mass. that he wouldn't restrict abortion more than Mass. already does, despite his personal pro-life beliefs. (Mass. already has parental consent laws).  Since his opponent was in favor of liberalizing Mass. abortion laws, I think Romney is probably simply a pragmatic pro-life politician.  He knows he can't drag people further than they are ready.  However, his comments about judges assures me that he would appoint judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade and return the issue to the states.  Most Americans would probably accept such an outcome.

To me, the two most important social conservative issues for a Presidential candidate are:

1: Judical appointments

and

2: Personal Morality

Others may think my second point is not essential, but I feel that the President serves as a moral exemplar and his personal behavior is likely to have a significant impact on societal concepts of morality.

Finally, there is no way you can say that Allen is more telegenetic than Romney.

First- Rockfeller Republicans are "moderate" on economic issues.

First, what I said was:

Romney is a Rockefeller Republican on life issues.

So I'm not quite sure what your point was.

Second, that depends on which Rockefeller Republican you ask, and how you define conservatism on economic issues.

Second Romney agreed to allow "excess" embryos that were going to be destroyed for reasearch purposes, but opposes the creation of embryos for research.  (Not my position, but not necessarily proof of liberalism.)

This is merely delayed abortion. Those children will be killed as "excess" anyway. To call this a principled stand is like calling John Kerry a principled fellow. Indeed, how it's anything but a squishy sop is lost on me: Let's slice and dice the kids who would have died anyway. How do we know they would have died anyway? We decided we were going to kill them.

I said nothing of liberalism per se. I spoke of squishiness. You've illustrated nothing to disprove that.

Thirdly, Romney's retoric on Abortion is muddled, but from what I've read it seems to come mainly from an attempt by Romney to assure the people of Mass. that he wouldn't restrict abortion more than Mass. already does, despite his personal pro-life beliefs. (Mass. already has parental consent laws). Since his opponent was in favor of liberalizing Mass. abortion laws, I think Romney is probably simply a pragmatic pro-life politician.

Read it any way you like. I judge a man by his words and deeds, and since 1994, when he made his shot at Kennedy, he's been adamant that he supports, and I quote, "the right to choose." There are three possibilities here:

1. He's an unprincipled politician who will betray his own convictions to win.
   
   
2. He's a liberal and is now pretending otherwise, because GOP primary voters will roast him over this. I'd take freaking McCain over him, because I at least know where McCain stands, and it's to the Right.
   
   
3. He's a squish who tacks with the political winds.

However, his comments about judges assures me that he would appoint judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade and return the issue to the states.

You'll pardon me if I'm unconvinced. All you've done is make assertions at odds with the man's public statements and acts.

To me, the two most important social conservative issues for a Presidential candidate are:

1: Judical appointments

and

2: Personal Morality

Others may think my second point is not essential, but I feel that the President serves as a moral exemplar and his personal behavior is likely to have a significant impact on societal concepts of morality.

What's funny is that most social conservatives feel that the most important social issue for a President to get right on is abortion. Which is missing from that list.

Finally, there is no way you can say that Allen is more telegenetic than Romney.

What can I say? I'm a sucker for a pretty face.

In fact, JOOOHHHN Kerry's preening and self adoration made the whole subject of Romney's good looks the first hurdle for me to get over.  Prior to efforts to find out about Romney, my early choice was Allen, who I still like.  I've just come to view Romney as stronger: His ability to spontaneously express his positions, his breadth of knowledge of the private business sector and his executive experience as governor.

I asked the "squishy" question and didn't get back here to see the discussion. Sorry. With the birth of our 8th & 9th grandchildren imminent-- well, I've been busy and will just say (as w/raising our 5) I keep my priorities straight. These are the joyous times! (news this week our 10th due in the fall!) Now back to business.

I'll start from here:

August 9, 2001

Fact Sheet: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

-- George W. Bush

Bush is staunchly pro-life and appoints judges that put Roe v Wade back on the table to be reviewed, discussed and subjected to scientific advancements (meaning 4D untrasounds).  I'm projecting here, but I think Romney wants to win these arguments in the same way. I think Romney dealt with the realities of his liberal state.  He pulled them as far on the conservative issues as he possibly could and was overridden.

So far, I don't see him as an unprincipled superficial politician. From what I know of Mormons (came in contact with three families thru my kids, one a neightbor I knew well) I frankly don't see how you can be a liberal and be a Mormon.  While I don't believe the religion, I certainly have the highest respect for dedication to family and their disciplined approach and view of daily conduct.