Redstate

We need to win in '06 before worrying about '08.

That being said, Huckabee is not underrated he is another "Big Government Conservative" like President Bush.  The Club for Growth is already gunning for him.  I don't see how he has any chance.  He is a preacher from the South who raises taxes, all of those qualities upset different groups.  I would have slotted Pawlenty in your last place.

Loved your analysis of Romney especially.

You make a great case for McCain as the favorite, esp given that Sanford and Graham support him, but I simply cannot see the conservative base swallowing his maverick diversions, esp since it now includes his insulting rhetoric on amnesty for illegals, including statements that praise illegals at the expense of native citizens and give them greater rights with respect to taxes, ID fraud, etc.

But I could be wrong. Mccain actually worries me, what with his temper, temperment, advocacy for lawyers for illegal enemy combatents, opposition to the right to pass on one's property to one's heirs, and gleeful backstabbing that has left him with few friends ...

If only he were a maverick on other issues!

Rudy and Allen have been rock solid on the war.

I do think that Rudy could win the conservatives over before Mccain ever would.

But I think the liklihood is that it will come down to Allen vs Romney. I don't see any of the allegations against Allen sticking, and his conservative credentials are as good as anyone's. Romney may rise and fall on his health care plan in Massachsetts, and how it is received by consrvatives there as it is implemented.

Gingrich wont run.

more later

...when I said underrated, I'm meant as far as his chances of winning the GOP nomination goes.

Lost a bit of thunder with the online crowd with that TNR piece, but don't underestimate him.  He is a very popular ex-governor and a strong victory in the Fall would cement him as a serious contender for 2008.  I somehow doubt that revelations that he whupped up on his sister and wore a Confederate flag on his lapel in high school are going to torpedo him.  I myself would happily disavow everything I said and did before my 21st birthday...and I'm only 24.  He is fairly well-spoken and his conservative bonafides are as good as anyone in the field.  Can he come across as a bit ridiculous at times?  Sure, but it would be a mistake to underestimate him.  

Great analysis Bij.  The only things I'd add are that

1. Romney's unpopularity in the uber-northeast will actually help him in the Republican primary.  What primary voter actually wants to see crowds of MA residents with "go-Romney" signs?  I'm guessing Romney will continue to distinguish himself from the democrats he governs.
   
2. I was surprised to see no serious mention of Romney's reputation as Turnaround King.  If you can mention fiscal restraint for Newt, the same goes for Romney.  Newt and Romney are the only hopes I see for balancing the budgets AND keeping down taxes.

McCain will be hammered in S.C. and on Super Tuesday for his against the Marriage Protection Amendment...unless, of course, he dramatically flip-flops on the issue when it comes up for a vote again the summer prior to the 2008 election.

In addition to his church membership, Romney's past but emphatic support for Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, homosexual Scoutmasters, and other elements of the homosexual agenda -- all anathema to his own church's values -- are also anathema to GOP primary voters in S.C. and on Super Tuesday.

Rudy and Pataki fare no better on these issues.

Allen's flip-flop on adding "sexual orientation" to federal hate crime laws -- promised to oppose, then voted for, then admitted voting for was a mistake -- the exact same kind of language used to threaten Christians with prosecution for daring publicly disagree with homosexual behavior, will no doubt be widely discussed among social conservatives.

Huckabee and Brownback have solid records on issues of concern to Southern social conservatives, but both are weak on immigration and apparently the Club (which I support) has problems with Huckabee.

Here's hoping that some other alternatives present themselves in the next two years.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but i know graham has pretty much endorsed Mccain this time around but i thought sanford was reserving judgement?  I know one of the reasons he supported him was b/c of pork in 2000.  I for the life of me can't remember where but i think i remember sanford saying he was nuetral at this point.  

I also remember that sanford and allen are also friends.

At this point we know graham is in mccain's pocket for SC, Demint is on Allen's side i beleive, and sanford is in the air.

I doubt McCain will suddenly support another MPA in 2008.  More likely, he'll explain his vote against it as a vote for states' rights.  Depending on how emphatic he is against gay marriage, he might succeed in convincing many that the states are the right place to battle this.  (and he would have far more credibility on this than democrats would)

I'm not against the MPA, that's just how the story will be told.

First of all, Romney never supported homosexual scoutmasters.  You repeating this mantra over and over will not make it true.  What he's said is:

1. He believes everyone should be allowed to participate as scouts
   
2. He supports the BSA's right to do whatever it wants on the matter

Secondly, he is solidly against Roe vs. Wade as a "one-size-fits-all" solution.  He's on record in favor of a federalist approach to abortion,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4362623183954478320&q=romney

and voters will trust his track record of keeping his campaign promises.

3. Third, Romney walks the walk on family values in a way that other GOP nominees cannot.  Voters will see this and take note.

GG,

You can't possibly be against ALL of the potential GOP nominees, can you?  

You've picked them apart for one reason or another to such a degree that it shows you won't be happy with any electable conservative candidate.  Your kind of politics is the best thing Hillary can hope for.

Sanford has said he won't endorse until later.

"I am not committed at this point," said Sanford, who acknowledged that "a long list of characters" considering the 2008 race have reached out to him. "I am really going to look very hard at somebody who will espouse that notion of fiscal discipline and financial stewardship. That would be at the top of my list."

Sanford said he has every intention to pick a candidate in the '08 field at some point. "I'm gonna get involved," he said. "I am in the process of governance because it gives you leverage in terms of trying to push for the ideas you believe in. One of the biggest debates on ideas and where they go next is obviously the presidency."

Assuming he is reelected to a second term this November, Sanford will emerge as one of the two most important GOP political powerbrokers in the state not aligned with a 2008 candidate. Sen. Lindsey Graham is backing McCain. The other uncommitted lawmaker in a statewide post is Sen. Jim DeMint. (Rep. Joe Wilson is with Sen. George Allen (Va.)

Don't expect a Sanford endorsement the day after the November election. He said he wants "to take a complete inventory of who best matches up with where I'm coming from" before declaring support for a 2008 candidate.

I would still be quite surprised if he does not support McCain.  There are cabinet or VP positions in a McCain Presidency that Sanford would probably fill quite well.

I wonder where DeMint will end up and if he will decide he really wants to take on Sanford and/or Graham by going his own way.

Anyone tracking the correlation between DeMint and Graham in the Senate or is DeMint so much more conservative than Graham that they are on differing sides of things.

They are not big fans. Neither am I from what I know of the guy.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. You are quite correct on Mike Huckabee. For those of you basing your opinions about Huckabee solely on what The Club for Growth says, you really need to please take time to learn the facts for yourselves. The Club for Growth is not giving you the correct picture. Huckabee is a fiscal conservative working in a state with a legislature controlled entirely by Democrats. Arkansas' Governors have very little veto power, and 95% of the state's budget is tied up in prisons, Medicaid and education. Prisons and health care costs are exploding and the state is under Supreme court order to massively increase spending on education. Huckabee also inherited a state with a horribly neglected and crumbling infrastructure (highways) that was significantly impacting the state's primary business (tourism). Huckabee fixed it all on time and within budget in less than 10 years and the state's economy is health and growing once again. There is now a surplus in Arkansas approaching $300 million and Huckabee is championing a rebate of these funds to the taxpayers AND a total reform of the state's tax system. He's a leader and fantastic executive.

BSR

For Huckabee facts and information:

http://www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com

Thanks!

You mean Romney's campaign promise to do nothing about abortion? Wow. I'm impressed.

BSR

I think he's talking about his promises to:

-Balance the budget and create a surplus without raising taxes. Check.

-Make Massachusetts the nation's leader in education. Check.

-Create a conservative solution to the health care problem without increasing the size of government. Check.

Yeah, things like that.

The Baxter (Ark.) Bulletin Nanny statism. The state telling pregnant women what they can and can't do.

The Arkansas News Bureau More nany statism. Banning smoking.

The London Times More nanny statism. A "fat report" for kids.

The Club for Growth Links to an Ark. Dem. Gazette ($) piece where Huckabee lambastes oil companies for their profits.

The Club for Growth is wrong about him? How? These are not bills that were forced through. These are all his words supporting a Nanny State. He obviously favors government dicta over the people's ability to choose their own behavior. This does not bode well for a presidential candidate.

If "Huckabee is..in a state with a legislature controlled entirely by Democrats," and "Arkansas' Governors have very little veto power," then how can you attribute the credit to Huckabee for "fixing it?" Either he gets credit for the success and blame for the failure or he gets neither.

Romney has inherent advantages when you look at the expected primary schedule. Early states include New Hampshire, where Romney gets a lot of coverage; Michigan, where Romney's father was once governor and where Romney is expected to base his campaign; and Arizona, which has a large Mormon population. He also has big support in Iowa and has campaigned significantly in South Carolina.

I have little problem with your well-reasoned post, but I would put Romney at #3, at least.

Demint is much more conservative than graham is.  He's one of the few people who ran on the flat tax i believe.  

These are the same value voters and family groups whom romney told to stay away from him in his 1994 candidacy for senate.

Could you give a source on that statement of Romney's where he told values voters to stay away?

Sorry if this is pressing you too hard to back up a statement...

I think its perfectly OK for people to choose their own negative behaviors when they foot the bill for the consequences all by themselves. Unfortunately thats not the case. Hundreds of thousands of people in Arkansas, and millions upon millions around the country, have taxpayer funded health care (Medicaid, Medicare) and their negative behavioral choices lead to serious preventable medical conditions like heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and low birth-weight babies as well as procedures like knee and hip replacements, gastric bypasses, neo-natal intensive care, and back surgeries. Not to mention special equipment like wheelchairs, buggies and special beds and toilets for obese folks. The grand total estimated cost to the taxpayers (like YOU) is in the BILLIONS PER MONTH. And if these costs are not brought under control, your children and grandchildren will be footing the bills for these folks to a degree that causes them to have a lower standard of living than the previous generation for the first time in American history.

So yes, under these circumstances, I think its time to start defending the interests of the taxpayers -- and save a few million lives to boot.

BSR

On a number of occasions Huckabee has gone around the legislature to get a public vote to approve his plans for righting the sinking ship he inherited. Examples: public vote to approve his plan for rebuilding Arkansas interstate highways with a bond issue (ledge wanted to raise taxes or put in toll roads to do it) and public vote to approve his plan to spend Arkansas' tobacco settlement money only on health improvement programs (ledge wanted no restrictions on how it was to be spent).

Is it legal to post the article from a lexis nexis search? If not i can just PM it to you.

Michigan, where Romney's father was once governor and where Romney is expected to base his campaign;

Do you have any information to back that statement?  And I really doubt Romney has any more support in Michigan than he would in any other state just because of his father.  I have never seen a Michigan 08' poll where he's placed higher than fourth, and I can think of one in specific of a recent Michigan GOP Convention where he placed eigth.

And also, the Michigan primary is the fourth primary/caucus, and the race will be for the most part over by then.  Iowa will limit it to four, New Hampshire probably to three, with South Carolina probably claiming it.  So why would the Romney campaign ever base itself in Michigan?

I don't disagree that Romney is a terrific politician and executive. But I do strongly disagree with the fact that a supposedly pro-life person in a position of leadership and influence willingly stood by and did nothing while literally hundreds of thousands of human babies were aborted around him. He's either not really pro-life or he's such a callous political opportunist that he was unwilling to even try. Whether or not he thought he had a chance to make a difference, I believe he was obligated to at least try. Those defenseless babies deserved at least that much. I believe you will find that most Republicans will put the value of even a single human life far above the value of Romney's successes in other areas.

Romeny's weakness and Romney's strength is one and the same.

Romney is 80% to 90% of what everyone wants, but none of the Republican sub-groups get a 100% of what they want.  (They only possible exceptions are pure fiscal conservatives).

Everybody is intrigued by Romney, and he makes perfect sense as the compromise candidate, (even better than Allen I think), but how often does a compromise candidate win a primary?

Will people be willing to settle for 80% of a loaf?  Or will people insist on their "perfect" candidate?

I guess I am one of Romney's supporters around here, but only because my first two choices (Condi and Jeb) are not running- and that may be why Romney could win.  The perfect social and fiscal combination (Jeb Bush) is not running.  The inspiring libertarian-type Condi Rice is not running.  Both of the other potential marque candidates (Rudy and McCain) have major problems with the Republican base.  I don't think Allen will take off, and I don't think Rudy can win, (though he could be a major disruption and win 30% of the delegates).  So I think the frontrunner is McCain, and we will see who will be the challenger: Newt, or Mitt?

BSR,

What would you have him do instead?

1. Campaign in 2002 on a promise to restrict abortions.  He'd lose to Shannon O'Brien, leading to even more liberal abortion law in MA.  Not only that, conservatives abandon all other political fronts as well.
   
2. Campaign in 2002 on a promise to make no change to abortion law, while secretly planning to break that promise.  This would still have no change in the numbers of abortions since the legislature is 85% democrat.  
   
3. Not run for office in such a liberal abortion happy state in the first place.  This has the same effects as #1.

So again, what would you have him do differently, bearing in mind that he is governor and not King?

But Mass. has pretty strict restrictions on abortion compared to most liberal states.  Mass. requires parental notification (or was it parental permission), and this was the main way abortion entered into the Governor's race.  Romeny campaigned on maintaining that restriction, the Democrat campaigned to remove that restriction.

By the way, any Mass. natives out there, if I got this wrong please say so.  I am not an expert on Mass.

I'm not really sure where this supposed conservatism is supposed to come in. I can hear all the same arguments from laundry list of liberal Democrats. You aren't exactly making the case for Huckabee.

public vote to approve his plan for rebuilding Arkansas interstate highways with a bond issue (ledge wanted to raise taxes or put in toll roads to do it)

Sounds like Arnold. Arnold equates bonds with free money too. That the guy likes to borrow money to pay for things doesn't seem like much of an argument in his favor.

public vote to approve his plan to spend Arkansas' tobacco settlement money only on health improvement programs (ledge wanted no restrictions on how it was to be spent)

What a great idea. So it can be wasted on things like anti-smoking PSAs? As opposed to being used to build the previously mentioned roads?

How many people are 100% pleased with any of the choices? Very, very few. If someone is 100% pleased with any of the candidates, they are probably a relative or an employee.

Romney...In fact you dissed every candidate. Who pray tell DO you support...or are you only into mud?

Fascinating stuff. Don't disagree with a word.

If Rudy runs, a McCain-Guiliani ticket is a distinct possibility, isn't it? Somehow I can't imagine McCain as the jr. partner on a ticket. But I can imagine Rudy capping his career as the VP nominee. That would be one high-wattage ticket. Ain't no way they wouldn't at least be competitive in New York and California, even against Hillary, I reckon.

and I started a Mitt Romney website.

I don't think your in a position to speak on behalf of values voters. Are you there leader?

From the July 3rd issue of The Weekly Standard:

"Both candidates realize how important Michigan is, and they're acting accordingly. Romney's national campaign headquarters is currently under construction in Oakland County. McCain is also active on the ground; his PAC recently announced it was giving over $120,000 to county and local parties in Michigan."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/368gtpeb.
asp?pg=2

Because basing himself in MA gives him nothing, as does basing his campaign in Utah.

He has no connection to SC whatsoever. His moving there would be totally transparent.

He was born and raised in MI. His name is known by everyone in the state. By basing his campaign in MI he puts this critical wing state in play in the general election.

BTW, don't believe any poll from the American Research Group. McCain 10 points up on Hillary in CT? Please!

Please take a look at the blog at www.race42008.com whenever you get a chance.

Shoot me an email and let me know what you think.

...wasn't Graham on the gang of 14?

I don't think that any of the touted candidates are what GOP voters are looking for. There is room for somebody to come in from nowhere and take the nomination. Maybe a Rick Perry or Haley Barbour or Bill Owens.

a lot of weight in Michigan. His father was a very popular Governor. I think his numbers in this state will rise significantly.

McCain, Giuliani, and Allen are to us what Lieberman, Clark, and Kerry were to the Democrats.

Don't we have someone who represents us better?  Of course Gingrich would be our Dean (in terms of inability to win the primary or the general), so I don't want him, but still...

...Governor Sanford?

Gosh I wish he'd change his mind!

There are some definite CW favorites, but a dark horse cannot be ruled out. Barbour's a distinct possibility. As is Brownback. As is Tancredo. I don't know Perry's going to get by Kinky Friedman -- I'm dead serious. If the convention were deadlocked -- people talk about this every four years, and, though I know it's a loooooong shot, one of these years it may happen -- I think Jeb and Condi would definitely be in the mix.

Isn't he pro gay marriage, anti death-penalty? I can't see that playing well in Texas.

...but Arkansas' roads had to be re-built after decades of neglect. It was not an option. Their roads were ranked among the worst in the nation, bridges were becoming unsafe to use..all of  which was hurting trucking and tourism. And Arkansas' tobacco tax settlement would have covered only a tiny fraction of the cost to rebuild the roads. Instead, Huckabee wanted it spent on programs that to help people quit smoking and incentivize them to lead healthier lifestyles, which serves to lower the cost of the state's #1 expense line item: publicly financed health care.

He was.  The sad thing about graham was that he used to be one of the good guys, he ran with sanford and coburn back in the day.  Of course as soon as he was elected to the senate he got stars in his eyes and went rino on us.

Thanks especially for getting me to take a 2nd look at Romney.  Sean & Rush have been pumping Allen but I've just not found any passion for the man.  I watched the clip from Rose with Romney; I've seen him in the past and been impressed and the clip added to my interest.  

As a southern evangelical I can tell you that liberalism is the religion that gets our side out to vote against it. The problem will be if there is only a choice between two liberals.  If you have both a Democrat & Republican who are not sincerely pro-life, our side will NOT turn out; mark it down right now.  Neither McCain nor Giuliani will get many southern evangelicals out to vote unless Hillary is running, which I believe is not likely.  Kerry against either of those guys would be close (but our side would likely win).  I believe Al Gore would win the general election against either of those guys unless they took solemn and highly public vows to install only pro-life judges and justices.  Remember that Gore is a southerner, and a small town southerner will take a liberal Democrat from the south over a moderate Republican not from the south (see G.H.W. Bush and Bob Dole).  And most southerners are from small towns.  

IF the Democrats really get smart and nominate Mark Warner, we're sunk without a guy like Romney, and even then it would be tight. It would take Allen in the 2nd spot to pull that ticket together (I wish it could be Newt, but alas, I fear he'll always be the Grinch).  The good news is the Democrats are probably too liberal and brain dead to actually nominate Warner (let's hope and pray).

That being the case I believe once Romney becomes known, if he's as good as I saw on Charlie Rose, he'll make a hit in the south.  He is articulate, attractive and persuasive.  He can move miles to the right from where he had to campaign in Massachusetts.  Mormonism will not be an issue with evangelicals as long as he downplays his denomination (which is considered a cult in evangelical circles).  Again, the cult of liberalism is by far the greater Satan.

Romney just may be the guy.  Thanks for the education!

Strategic Vision Poll(June 16-18):

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/21/154030.shtml

Asked whom they would support for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, 39 percent chose Arizona Sen. John McCain, 22 percent selected former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and 15 percent chose Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Other potential candidates received less than 4 percent of the vote.

The source of this quote was from http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/michigan_poll_062106.htm

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

John McCain 39%

Rudy Giuliani 22%

Mitt Romney 15%

Newt Gingrich 3%

George Allen 3%

Bill Frist 3%

George Pataki 1%

Rick Santorum 1%

Chuck Hagel 1%

Undecided 12%

Look for these numbers to go up as the younger crowd gets to know Romney (George Romney was governor back in the 60s)

For an interesting analysis of the MI GOP '08 battle check out

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/368gtpeb. asp

Can't speak for GG, but I guess I'm against them all.  As we get closer, maybe one of them will seem less stinky, but right now I feel like I'm paying the price for mocking the seven dwarfs the Ds put up in 2004.

There were no good choices then for the Ds, and now I don't like my choices now.  Sigh.

he can't even get the name of Romney's church right.  The correct name of the church is "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".

"The LDS church" is somewhat more acceptable, although it is inaccurate.

But calling it "the Church of Latter-Day Saints" is like calling Assemblies of God "the Church of Assemblies" or calling the Roman Catholic church "the Roman church".  It may have been unintentional, but it reveals a common prejudice against the church as being a non-Christian denomination.

It is not "the Church of Latter-Day Saints".  It is "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".  We even refer to it as "the Church of Jesus Christ" (although that does tend to create confusion until the word "Mormons" is added).

"LDS Church" is more acceptable than "the Church of Latter-Day Saints (I don't know why it is more acceptable, but it is), although it is slightly inaccurate.

But I have to confess: I am far more willing to compromise than you are.

I'd love to see Newt Gingrich as president.  Tom Coburn would be my ideal president.

But when I look at the playing field, I just don't see either one of these guys getting through the MSM/internet minefield.

Swing voters want a candidate who is not too liberal or too conservative.

The trick is winning the swingers without selling out your base so much that they stay home.

And I think that only McCain and/or Romney can do that.  

Bill Owens?

One word. TABOR.

I'll admit I dont know much about Lindsay, but I would stop short of calling him a RINO.  He does manage to pick certain issues to side with the Dems on, but calling lumping him in with Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter is a bit much.  

Remember how great and important he was during the Alito nomination.  I would argue he used his credentials as a consensus builder to remind Americans we were discussing the nomination of a supremely qualified and honorable man.  Without his candor, I'm not sure things would have gone so smoothly.  I think his unfledgling support shifted Alito from a potentially divisive campaign issue into a boost for Republicans.

In my opinion, Huckabee (and the AR leg.) has been more responsible than most states with the tobacco money, using it for the purpose intended, in a public and accountable way. While other states were using the one-time tobacco money to plug holes in the state budget, Arkansas has continued to use the money for its intended purpose.

Huckabee may not pass muster with the Club for Growth, but the fact remains that he has been among the more fiscally responsible governors around, leaving the state with a current budget surplus. This, despite increasing spending on education.

There are reasons to criticize Huckabee to be sure (from both the left and the right) but his fiscal policy is not one of them.

...I can assure you I meant no offense regarding the correct name of the Mormon Church. I went to Wiki specifically to make sure I got the name right (serves me right for trusting them). Anyone can edit Wiki-you should head on over there and change it if is indeed incorrect.

I have nothing but respect for your religion and would gladly pull the lever for Romney if he won the GOP nomination.

The political model that Karl Rove has set with Bush is a social conservative, foreign policy hawk and tax cutter who doesn't mind throwing money around.  Bush on an ideal day appeals to the Religious Right and the neoconservatives, and gets by with fiscal conservatives while satisying people at-large (like seniors) with spending programs.  He's also moderate, even liberal, on immigration, trying to appeal to Hispanics.  In Rove's mind, he forges a conservative governing majority.

This model sounds potentially an awful lot like Mike Huckabee.  He certainly has the social conservative stamp as a former Southern Baptist minister.  He certainly throws money around and is not conservative on immigration.  It won't be too hard for him in the primaries to define himself as a tax-cutter and foreign policy hawk.  Huckabee is also a southern Governor, similar to Bush and before him Clinton.

If Huckabee exploits the Rove model on all these things, I think he has a chance in the primaries, provided he raises the money.  In my mind, he's the darkhorse of this race.

During the Alito nomination...not a RINO; has a lifetime 86 from the ACU...(Spector/Chaffee below 50)

Er, Myers and Saad?

As many have said, no one is 100% with each faction of the party.  However, I think one person you haven't listed comes closest -- Tim Pawlenty.  He's a fiscal and social conservative and (presumably) a hawk, without being perceived as far-right (after all he's governor of a purple state).  I see him as essentially a compromise candidate like Romney, but someone who's not a mormon, comes from a blue state that he could swing red, and can't be labeled a flip-flopper by his opposition.  For these reasons I think he's strategically the best choice for the GOP (provided he wins reelection in 06).

I assumed as much, based on previous posts of yours.  The name is long, so it's not surprising to find abreviations.  

Unfortunately, people who try to spread the belief that mormons aren't christians intentionally leave out the "Jesus Christ" from the church name.  

Since mormons get more than their fair share of this, it can sometimes cause them to assume the latter reason instead of the former.  

Sure, post the link.  Or perhaps the relevant quote (not taken out of context).

...we can get a Sanford/DeMint/Thomas Ravenel/(insert best possible presidential nominee here) coalition together to defeat both Graham and McCain in the South Carolina primaries in 2008. :-)

So how the heck is he going to run for president?

If Mike Pence ran for President, he would solve all of our problems. No more agonizing over who we should nominate. He thinks like Newt - except without the baggage.

Specifically, President Bush has been hardnosed in his dedication to cutting taxes.  Huckabee has raised them.  I think the Bush model falls pretty closely to a Allen type (sans confederate flag history) although Brownback isn't too far off either except the Senator is more vocal on pro-life issues.  On solely a policy front, Sen. McCain is probably the closest to the President except for CFR and a difference on whether cuttting spending should happen along with tax cuts (McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts because spending wasn't being cut at the same time).

is a big McCain fan.  They are two of the biggest anti-pork Republicans in the country and it would very much surprise me if Sanford doesn't endorse McCain.  In fact, I think Sanford should make a McCain shortlist for VPs who agree with him most of the time but have credentials with conservatives and Southerners.

He's been on my shortlist for over a year now.  But I really doubt he runs unless McCain drops out way early.

That's one reason he was on everyone's shortlist of dark horses.  But then he turned on it afterwards.

As is Buchanan.  As is Falwell.

Let's at least keep the list to people who don't advocate nuking Mecca.

"Neither McCain nor Giuliani will get many southern evangelicals out to vote unless Hillary is running, which I believe is not likely.  Kerry against either of those guys would be close (but our side would likely win).  I believe Al Gore would win the general election against either of those guys unless they took solemn and highly public vows to install only pro-life judges and justices."

You do realize that one of those Republicans has a 20 year record of voting pro-life, against the Harkin Amendment, for Judges like Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  And the other has been one of the leaders of the pro-choice Republicans.  There may be legitimate worries about McCain, but he has a long track record on abortion with only one quote that could be construed as having any sympathy with pro-choicers.  He once said he thought the country wasn't ready to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Compare to Rudy and there is a huge difference on this issue if it is what matters to you as a voter.

So he is for states making decisions on abortion but when it comes to same sex marriage he is for the federal gov't intervening???  Please someone explain this to me.

...and unfortunately, he's being called a flip-flopper right now by members of his own party due to his caving in to the state Dems over the cigarette "health fee", which people believe violated his no tax pledge.

He's had a stellar record otherwise.  

Romney defines the difference between being against gay marriage nationally (FMA) and against Roe vs. Wade nationally (federalist position) here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4362623183954478320&q=romney

Take it straight from the horse's mouth.

In the above video, Romney explains it this way: (paraphrasing):

The act of abortion is a singular event with no continuing legal afterthought. The status of marriage is a singular event with continuing legal afterthought. An example: If a mother-to-be in N. Dakota wants to have an abortion, post Roe, and it is illegal in her state, and she travels to another state to have the procedure performed, she will not, in all likelihood, try to have that procedure recognized in N. Dakota. However, a gay couple from Colorado could get 'married' in a state where such a status was legal, then try to get Colorado to recognize the union.

In short: Abortion laws can be specific to each state, while gays and lesbians could sue to get one state's marriage laws imposed upon another. Thus the need for the uniformity of an amendment.

Watch the video. Romney says it a whole lot better than me.

but I was referring to the perception of typical hard-working, Jesus loving, non-college educated, salt of the earth, sweet, patriotic and trustworthy small-town southerners who have the perception that McCain is for abortion.  They are not Red-State bloggers (or even readers; heck, they've got a dial-up connection best case) and they don't know who Rush Limbaugh is (a plus for McCain); the small town AM markets don't carry his show, at least in the southeast.  I've employed hundreds of these people over the years; I know and love them well.  Their perceptions are often shaped at church and by way of osmosis via what local candidates say about national candidates.

It is hard to overstate how little the average middle-class small town southerner (median household income $35-40K tops) knows about national candidates that are not southerners.  Certainly there are political junkies at all levels of the socio-economic  spectrum.  But most are busy living life; that includes voting, but it's not an obsession.  The perception is that a southern candidate is "one of us" so they will take the time to learn about them, but if the candidate is not from the south, they might as well be from Mars.  They are not trusted and assumed to be godless until they come to the area and win them over, or win over their local politicians.

Now I agree McCain has a wonderful military record.  But he's not from the south.  He trash-talked Bush while he was in Greenville talking to those good kids at Bob Jones.  So he has, Sherman-like, burned a bridge that is hard to forget.  Cozying up with the Democrats has not helped him either.  It's difficult to overcome a bad first impression (Bob Jones).  The perception is "...that guy must be for abortion since he attacked the President and good Pastor Bob!!!

Personally I'll take McCain over any Democrat; same for Rudy, even with his pro-choice problem.  But my friends (I live in FL but am an NC native and have business there and in all the SE states for many years) in the small town south have to be educated.  If McCain wants to beat Gore or Warner, he's going to have to go speak at some small town churches, go eat some real barbecue in the small town joints (I recommend Lexington, NC and Spartanburg, SC) and let people know he values life.  Understand that abortion is legalized murder with those people (me too).  It is a turnout issue; if you've got one that is pro-abortion (Gore) and southern and one who is mushy on the issue and from the west, the pro-life vote may not show up.

The point:  McCain has got to overcome his negative perception which includes abortion issues to win over evangelical southerners.  It's going to require some groveling, and that is not John's long suit.

that could convince me someone could be elected directly from the House of Representatives to the Presidency. Yes for Senators, Governors, Vice Presidents.....and perhaps a Secretary of State.

I trust you don't think I favor a Tancredo candidacy. But he has threatened to run. And, I don't think his chances could be entirely written off. Although I doubt his particulary nutty brand of  xenophopia could win a majority of even paleoconish, GOP primary voters (much less a majority of the American electorate as a whole), I'd never say never. In a post-911 world, fear's a big seller.

Could be. He's quite a character, though, and strikes me as having enough of an air of authenticity and maverick-ness about him for a lot of Texas voters to forgive his more liberal leanings. I'm not a Texan, though, so perhaps I'm way off base. I had gotten the impression Perry had a bit of a fight on his hands --but I can't say I've followed this particular race enough to speak with even a modicum of authority.

Was from the state chairman, Saul Anuzis, not the American Research Group.

I don't think he mentioned Newt

If a house rep. managed to win the primary, as a voter I'd sit up an take notice: "Who the heck is this whiz kid?" I'd say.

Most voters don't pay attention until after the conventions anyway.

...if it's embarrassing to the candidate you're supporting.

In each case, I've cited documentable evidence of the various candidates own words and/or votes.

Opinions are interesting.  Facts count.

...and I've simply expressed my opinion that many values voters will not support Romney based on his consistent support of Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, and elements of homosexual activists' political agenda over the last decade.

Spoke to the prominent leader of a national pro-family organization last week in D.C., who agreed Romney won't win the support of values voters.  This national leader said he'd sat in meetings in Boston last year in which Romney had to be pressured to take a stand at all on the marriage issue.  (Romney's managed to take three different stands on that issue, actually.)

Obviously, he will win the support of some such as you, Bonham, who (1) are unaware of his long pro-Roe, pro-abortion on demand record, or (2) believe, as you apparently do, that his sudden conversion on the issue -- conveniently timed to coincide with a presidential candidacy -- is sincere.

But his own political consultant Michael Murphy -- who may well be the murphy who posting on this page -- told National Review that Romney "has been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly" governor.

Given that his own guy testifies that Romney's  willing to "fake" his convictions, how do we know when he's faking and when he's not?

Apparently, some cultural tutoring is required for those such as neodanite who -- presmably out of simple ignorance -- accuse others of religious bigotry.

In fact, neodan, the full and correct name of Romney's church is the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (The "d" in "Day" is not capitalized, as you mistakenly wrote in accusing me of making an incorrect reference.)

Further, "the LDS church" is precisely the shorthand used by its own members to refer to their church.

And not to swing a sledgehammer too hard down on your head, though you deserve it for making false accusations of religious bigotry, the URL of the official web site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is...

www.lds.org

Neo, unless you yourself are a member of the correctly-referenced LDS Church, I've probably managed or consulted more LDS candidates for public office then you've ever even met.

Don't accuse others of religious bigotry when you obviously ain't got a clue what you're talking about.

As for Romney, it's his record of support of Roe and abortion on demand and his personal disapproval of the Boy Scouts' position that homosexual behavior is incompatible with the Scouts moral standards, that's at odds with the moral values of the LDS Church.

Neodan, now I feel bad about slamming you so hard on the "LDS Church" thing, since Tom Coburn would also rise immediately to the top of my list if he could be persuaded to run.

People used to say that it was impossible for a person to get elected Governor or US Senator without prior political experience.   Now it happens all the time.

I suspect that the reason people used to work up 'through the ranks' as it were, was that political parties worked more like machines, and you had to build up the personal acquaintanceships with the right people to get the nomination, and that took time.

Now though with wide open primary processes, anyone can run and win by appealing to the voters directly.

Be still my heart.

But you're right, of course.  That's exactly how McCain is selling his vote this month against MPA.

I thought he might flip and vote for MPA this month, which would have removed a substantial obstacle he'll have in winning social conservatives.  Instead, he was the only GOP outside the lefty NE to vote against the amendment.

Saw him in suburban Detroit last night.  His stand on immigration didn't go over real big either.

Murphy: "First of all, Romney never supported homosexual scoutmasters.  You repeating this mantra over and over will not make it true."

I have the benefit of repeating the truth, and your denying the truth will not render it any less true.

In context, Romney was asked about the Scouts' all-inclusive ban on homosexuals: "gay" Scoutmasters, lesbian Den Mothers, bisexual  Quartermasters, "light in the wing" Eagles, or "bear" Cubs.

And he said in response: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

This is diametrically opposed to the BSA's official policy, which is strongly supported by Romney's church.  

Your claim that Romney's reference to "all people" didn't include adults wanting to serve as Scoutmasters is clearly disingenuous and further, you provide absolutely no substantiation of the disingenous claim.

That he supports letting the Scouts decide the issue is also irrelevant to his personal view that the Scouts are wrong to prohibit homosexual adults or teens.  My point all along has simply been that this will signal social conservatives that he does not share their worldview.

Murphy: "Secondly, he is solidly against Roe vs. Wade."

Earth to Murphy, or more appropriately, Romney to Murphy:

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."

Please explain for all of us again, Murph, by what interpretation of plain English -- other than George Orwell's -- this definitive statement by Romney can be interpreted as "solidly against Roe v. Wade."

It occurred to me after my initial post that even if McCain did flop in the summer of 2008, when the next marriage amendment vote is likely, the nomination fight would pretty much be over by that time.

So he's pretty much locked in to his two votes (2004 and 2006) against the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

Romney's balanced budgets (probably mandated by Massachusetts law) and specious healthcare plan will not persuade social conservatives to support him once they learn of his decade-long support of Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, homosexual Scoutmasters, taxpayer-financed homosexual benefits, appointment of homosexual activists to the court, etc., etc.

You've authored 75 posts on Redstate.  Every single one of them is a Romney Bash.  Furthermore, most of these posts have been a regurgitation of the exact same tired talking points, which have at this point been refuted to death, such as your gay scoutmaster meme, and other gross and intentional misrepresentations.

Do you have any other interests in life?  Hobbies, perhaps?  A family?  What are your thoughts on other issues of the day?  Surely there are other races, other aspects of the conservative/Republican agenda you have opinions on?  Because at this point I'm pretty much assuming you're actually a shell script that generates pre-written rants when the word "Romney" is detected.

You've authored 75 posts on Redstate.  Every single one of them is a Romney Bash.

If I remember correctly, he had another username before. Different letters in front of it but the same last part.

He just had the account renamed.  He's not trying to fool anybody or anything like that.

Please, Bama, cite your sources for the alleged "gross and intentional misrepresemtations."

In context, Romney was asked about the Scouts' all-inclusive ban on homosexuals: "gay" Scoutmasters, lesbian Den Mothers, bisexual  Quartermasters, "light in the wing" Eagles, or "bear" Cubs.

And he said in response: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

This is diametrically opposed to the BSA's official policy, which is strongly supported by Romney's own church.  

Any claim that Romney's reference to "all people" didn't include a