Y-Ted-K.Com
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Who's Red After Fred?
Doug Gibbs of Political Pistachio gives us a few thoughts on that very subject:
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Remaining for a Red November
With the loss of Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson from the Republican Presidential race in Election 2008, the Republican Party has left little remaining for America's Conservatives. As the Florida Primary approaches on Tuesday, January 29, it is becoming clear that the battle has narrowed to Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani.
Rudy has placed everything on Florida, and a poor outing in that state will force him out of the race. Ron Paul never had a chance. Mike Huckabee has not campaigned in Florida due to a lack of funding, and his comment that he wishes to close Gitmo knocked him out of my support circle.
This leaves Mitt Romney and John McCain.
I have not forgotten McCain's Congressional record and his band of fourteen. I have not forgotten the fact that he was against Bush's tax cuts, and voted against just about every conservative item to cross the floor. He has produced bills with Kennedy, Feingold, and Leiberman. McCain supports amnesty, and believes in the Global Warming lie. He is hardly a conservative.
Though Romney is a Mormon, he has shown that he is a fiscal conservative that is in full support of the tax-cuts. Mitt was a successful governor of Massachusetts in a hostile, liberal environment. Romney has shown that he supports the surge, and the war against the Islamic Jihad. Although he has changed his position on a few issues, they have been in the right direction, and he has not flip-flopped back.
As much as I hate to say it, the remaining candidate that I am willing to support is Mitt Romney.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Remaining for a Red November
With the loss of Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson from the Republican Presidential race in Election 2008, the Republican Party has left little remaining for America's Conservatives. As the Florida Primary approaches on Tuesday, January 29, it is becoming clear that the battle has narrowed to Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani.
Rudy has placed everything on Florida, and a poor outing in that state will force him out of the race. Ron Paul never had a chance. Mike Huckabee has not campaigned in Florida due to a lack of funding, and his comment that he wishes to close Gitmo knocked him out of my support circle.
This leaves Mitt Romney and John McCain.
I have not forgotten McCain's Congressional record and his band of fourteen. I have not forgotten the fact that he was against Bush's tax cuts, and voted against just about every conservative item to cross the floor. He has produced bills with Kennedy, Feingold, and Leiberman. McCain supports amnesty, and believes in the Global Warming lie. He is hardly a conservative.
Though Romney is a Mormon, he has shown that he is a fiscal conservative that is in full support of the tax-cuts. Mitt was a successful governor of Massachusetts in a hostile, liberal environment. Romney has shown that he supports the surge, and the war against the Islamic Jihad. Although he has changed his position on a few issues, they have been in the right direction, and he has not flip-flopped back.
As much as I hate to say it, the remaining candidate that I am willing to support is Mitt Romney.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Marie - On the Latest Primaries
Well, Fred Thompson didnt exactly come in the way this FredHead wanted, but he did come in 3rd which isnt to darn bad. Fred gave a speech which all us FredHeads held our breath while listening to it, he never said he was out of the race and really didnt give much of a reason for the press conference to begin with, but he didnt declare he was out of the race so I'm not to worried yet!
Duncan Hunter dropped out of the race.
John McCain seems to have won the Primary, which was probably a consequence of the Vet Vote. Dont get me wrong, I Love McCain for his service to this Country, being held as a Prisoner of War for over 5 years, and I dont think he should be denegrated for his service to this Country. However, he sucks on the home front! With the exception of knowing he was right about the "Troop Surge" and the Iraq war, he sides way to much with the Liberals on a whole host of issues. Amnesty, voting against the Bush tax cuts, etc..That's the one thing that bothers me about McCain.
Mitt Romney won the Nevada Caucuses, and he somewhat skipped the SC Primary so I am not sure where he placed.
Rudy Giuliani, same thing. He is to busy campaigning in Florida which may or may not be a bad move for him we will see at the end of this month.
Ron Paul and his maniacs came in 2nd in the Nevada Caucuses, and placed like 5th in the SC Primary, lacking the Blimp this time. (Who really cares he's a nutball)
Mike Huckabee Came in Second I believe, and that was pretty much due to the Evangelical Vote. Huckabee isnt a bad guy, I like him but he also sucks on the homefront. Tax increases in Arkansas, all sorts of wishy washy things he did as Governor. Ya just cant tell about the Huckster. I dont think he is Presidential Material, but he talks a good game.
Alan Keys? Who Knows!!!!
Well I think I covered everyone, if I didnt I will update.
I still say this FredHead will continue to back Fred Thompson until Fred Thompson decides to call it quits. After that? I will be lost and I will have to pick a new candidate. I dont want to but I may have to because if Fred calls it quit's I will be devistated and lost. But I will pick myself up, dust my Jeans off, and keep going.
We will have to see the fallout from all this tomorrow.
And dont forget tommorrow is a new day, and the GOP race is still up for grabs and ya never know, Thompson could make a comeback, or another candidate may be someone I can at least live with, with the exception of Ron Paul because he is nuttier than a fruitcake.
Well that's my Two Cent's. What's your opinion?
If you missed the Live Blog/Chat tonight, the Next Live Blog/Chat will be in around 10 Day's from now! Keep Checking In for Updates!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Daniel Ruwe Gets Behind Fred!
Daniel Ruwe of Right Minds breaks down the Republican contenders and announces his candidate:
The Conservative Choice
It is growing very close to the point at which the Republican Party will be forced to make a definitive choice of their Presidential nominee. The conventional wisdom was not correct—it turned out that the early states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, did not give a huge momentum shift to any candidate. At this point, the race for the GOP nomination is pretty wide open.
This race started almost a year ago. We know everything there is to know about the candidates. We know everything imaginable about their positions, past and present. We know everything about their past lives. Their past records are open books. We have all the information needed to make a good, informed choice.
The longer this race has dragged on, the more I feel as if the only acceptable conservative in the race is Fred D. Thompson. The rest of the field would spell disaster, both ideologically and electorally (with one exception).
The flaws of the other candidates are hardly worth pointing out, as they are well-known. Rudy Giuliani’s pro-abortion beliefs disqualify him from consideration in many people’s minds (including mine). In addition, his beliefs regarding the Second Amendment and global warming should seal his fate.
Mike Huckabee is not ready for the White House. He does have some very strong points (he is great on abortion), and his weak points are often overstated (he wasn’t a disaster in Arkansas), but his statements on the campaign trail tend to call into question his judgment. He calls for the FairTax, which is a weak and shortsighted tax reform scheme, has called America’s foreign policy arrogant, and has exhibited many big government tendencies. I like Huckabee better than most conservatives, and would like to see him in Washington. Just not in the White House.
John McCain, to give him his due, is very, very good on the War on Terror. There is no denying that George Bush horribly mismanaged the war. Had McCain been President, the Iraq War would almost certainly have been better managed. (This is not to say that McCain would have been a better President than Bush. He would have been much weaker on other issues).
However, his weaknesses are as significant as his strengths. He supports amnesty, which most conservatives agree would be disastrous. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, and believes in government action to prevent global warming. He is no conservative.
John McCain is not a conservative, but he may have the best chance of any GOP candidate of winning the general election. While most polls have little predicative value, virtually all polls taken show McCain with the best chance in the general election. Were he to get the nomination, the Republicans would have their best shot at keeping the White House. The question is: is it worth giving up conservatism in order to keep a socialist (any of the Democrats fits the bill) out of the White House? I would argue that it is not worth it. We should be defined by who we are (conservatives) rather than who we are not.
Like McCain, Mitt Romney is an interesting case. He holds nearly all the positions conservatives do. However, his sincerity has been called into question. It is hard, when watching Romney, to believe that his conversion on social issues, such as abortion, is sincere. He seems to have switched purely because of political expediency. He doesn’t seem to be a closet pro-choicer—he just doesn’t seem to much care either way.
In addition, he has shown weakness on immigration in the past. He still supports the Brady Bill. He may not have opposed the Bush tax cuts, but he certainly didn’t vocally support them. He seems to have picked his conservative positions simply to market himself to conservatives—he does not seem to feel passionately about his beliefs.
This brings us to Fred Thompson. He is conservative on every issue important to right-wingers. The sole exception is his support of the McCain-Feingold Act, which severely limited free speech in this country. With that exception, however, he is a nearly perfect conservative.
Without sounding like a Ron Paul supporter (Paul fans think their guy is the best politician since Jefferson or maybe even Cicero), I think it is safe to say that Fred Thompson is a remarkable, once in a decade candidate. (Ronald Reagan is the once in a lifetime candidate).
He won’t play by the established media rules. His “No hands shows” line was good—you really had to be watching it live to fully appreciate it. For the whole course of that debate, and really, for the whole course of the full schedule of debates, all of the candidates had simply accepted any silly questions the moderators had forced on them. Ridiculous YouTube questions, queries about evolution, hand shows, whatever the moderators asked of them, the candidates did. After Thompson did the unthinkable—disobeyed the Moderator—the differences between him and the other candidates seemed very apparent.
Thompson’s policies, in addition to being impeccably conservative, Thompson’s policies are also by far the most in-depth. Most of the candidates rely on one paragraph policy positions on their websites; in contrast, Thompson lays out detailed, reasonable principles.
Conservatives have been complaining about their bad choices for President for years. Fred Thompson is the man they have been searching for. If they reject him (which looks very likely at this point) they will not be able to complain when President McCain (or worse, President Clinton II) is sworn in. In 2012, when they have no good conservative options, they will not be able to find fault. Because they will have had their chance to vote for one, and failed to take it.
Fred Thompson is by far the best conservative choice. He deserves conservative support. He will have my vote, and I suggest he should have yours as well.
The Conservative Choice
It is growing very close to the point at which the Republican Party will be forced to make a definitive choice of their Presidential nominee. The conventional wisdom was not correct—it turned out that the early states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, did not give a huge momentum shift to any candidate. At this point, the race for the GOP nomination is pretty wide open.
This race started almost a year ago. We know everything there is to know about the candidates. We know everything imaginable about their positions, past and present. We know everything about their past lives. Their past records are open books. We have all the information needed to make a good, informed choice.
The longer this race has dragged on, the more I feel as if the only acceptable conservative in the race is Fred D. Thompson. The rest of the field would spell disaster, both ideologically and electorally (with one exception).
The flaws of the other candidates are hardly worth pointing out, as they are well-known. Rudy Giuliani’s pro-abortion beliefs disqualify him from consideration in many people’s minds (including mine). In addition, his beliefs regarding the Second Amendment and global warming should seal his fate.
Mike Huckabee is not ready for the White House. He does have some very strong points (he is great on abortion), and his weak points are often overstated (he wasn’t a disaster in Arkansas), but his statements on the campaign trail tend to call into question his judgment. He calls for the FairTax, which is a weak and shortsighted tax reform scheme, has called America’s foreign policy arrogant, and has exhibited many big government tendencies. I like Huckabee better than most conservatives, and would like to see him in Washington. Just not in the White House.
John McCain, to give him his due, is very, very good on the War on Terror. There is no denying that George Bush horribly mismanaged the war. Had McCain been President, the Iraq War would almost certainly have been better managed. (This is not to say that McCain would have been a better President than Bush. He would have been much weaker on other issues).
However, his weaknesses are as significant as his strengths. He supports amnesty, which most conservatives agree would be disastrous. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, and believes in government action to prevent global warming. He is no conservative.
John McCain is not a conservative, but he may have the best chance of any GOP candidate of winning the general election. While most polls have little predicative value, virtually all polls taken show McCain with the best chance in the general election. Were he to get the nomination, the Republicans would have their best shot at keeping the White House. The question is: is it worth giving up conservatism in order to keep a socialist (any of the Democrats fits the bill) out of the White House? I would argue that it is not worth it. We should be defined by who we are (conservatives) rather than who we are not.
Like McCain, Mitt Romney is an interesting case. He holds nearly all the positions conservatives do. However, his sincerity has been called into question. It is hard, when watching Romney, to believe that his conversion on social issues, such as abortion, is sincere. He seems to have switched purely because of political expediency. He doesn’t seem to be a closet pro-choicer—he just doesn’t seem to much care either way.
In addition, he has shown weakness on immigration in the past. He still supports the Brady Bill. He may not have opposed the Bush tax cuts, but he certainly didn’t vocally support them. He seems to have picked his conservative positions simply to market himself to conservatives—he does not seem to feel passionately about his beliefs.
This brings us to Fred Thompson. He is conservative on every issue important to right-wingers. The sole exception is his support of the McCain-Feingold Act, which severely limited free speech in this country. With that exception, however, he is a nearly perfect conservative.
Without sounding like a Ron Paul supporter (Paul fans think their guy is the best politician since Jefferson or maybe even Cicero), I think it is safe to say that Fred Thompson is a remarkable, once in a decade candidate. (Ronald Reagan is the once in a lifetime candidate).
He won’t play by the established media rules. His “No hands shows” line was good—you really had to be watching it live to fully appreciate it. For the whole course of that debate, and really, for the whole course of the full schedule of debates, all of the candidates had simply accepted any silly questions the moderators had forced on them. Ridiculous YouTube questions, queries about evolution, hand shows, whatever the moderators asked of them, the candidates did. After Thompson did the unthinkable—disobeyed the Moderator—the differences between him and the other candidates seemed very apparent.
Thompson’s policies, in addition to being impeccably conservative, Thompson’s policies are also by far the most in-depth. Most of the candidates rely on one paragraph policy positions on their websites; in contrast, Thompson lays out detailed, reasonable principles.
Conservatives have been complaining about their bad choices for President for years. Fred Thompson is the man they have been searching for. If they reject him (which looks very likely at this point) they will not be able to complain when President McCain (or worse, President Clinton II) is sworn in. In 2012, when they have no good conservative options, they will not be able to find fault. Because they will have had their chance to vote for one, and failed to take it.
Fred Thompson is by far the best conservative choice. He deserves conservative support. He will have my vote, and I suggest he should have yours as well.
Friday, January 11, 2008
John McCain: GOP Frontrunner?
So asks Daniel Ruwe at Right Minds:
Monday, I wrote that the media should consider the fates of other presumptive Presidential nominees before anointing Barack Obama the Democrat nominee after his impressive Iowa caucus victory. I pointed out that there have been many candidates who win a surprise victory, build up momentum, and are crowned their party’s nominee. Usually, they ultimately lose their momentum, and then their Presidential bid.
I pointed out the examples of John McCain and Howard Dean, among others. And as it turned out, Obama’s drive for the nomination was seriously impeded by his amazing loss in the New Hampshire primary. Before the votes were counted, the only question among literally all political observers was the question of how badly Hillary would be defeated. She came away with a victory. For a week, pundits on both the left and right predicted the fall of the Clintons, and the ascendancy of Barack Obama. They were dead wrong.
One such mistake is explicable. However, the very same pundits and media figures who were so wrong about Obama are now making the precise, identical error yet again.
It involves the other party, but the principle is the same. John McCain is now seen as the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. It is undeniable that his New Hampshire win gave him a great deal of momentum, and that the polls do look good for him. However, a quick look back at the last two months show an amazing degree of votality in the Republican race.
After Rudy Giuliani’s campaign started to fizzle, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner. Then came the “Huckaboom”, the rise of Mike Huckabee. Then the “Huckabust”, which came after his series of bizarre gaffes—such as his anti-Mormon innuendo, his foreign policy blunders, and the strange episode in which he aired an attack ad against Mitt Romney while simultaneously sanctimoniously declaring his abstinence from that sort of thing.
However, Huckabee’s fall existed only in the minds of over analyzing pundits. He won Iowa easily, and became the new frontrunner. Then, of course, came McCain’s win in New Hampshire, giving him the frontrunner title, and naming him the probable nominee.
With wild momentum shifts like those noted above, it is foolish to declare anyone the inevitable nominee. However, it is not as if this is a first time this has happened. In 2000, McCain won New Hampshire, and was hailed, while possibly not as the frontrunner, certainly as a very serious challenge for Bush. When the South Carolina primary came around, McCain sank.
It is hard to see where all of McCain’s support for the nomination will come from. Most hardcore conservatives see him as a moderate and a sell-out, and have never trusted him. In addition, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens will also seriously damage his campaign. He does not have the natural base the other candidates have—Thompson and Romney are going after the conservative vote, Giuliani is trying to parlay his post-9/11 performance into a nomination (nothing wrong with that, by the way. He has every right to be proud of his performance on 9/11), and Huckabee is looking for the evangelical vote. McCain will get some votes from those concerned about nation security, but all the candidates (with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee) can look for votes from that group, as their foreign policies are all fairly homogenous.
Even factoring in the above obstacles, John McCain does have a good shot at the nomination. It is simply that his nomination is not inevitable, or anything like it. The media’s insistence on crowning a new nominee after every minute shift in public opinion is absurd. I doubt whether it has any effect on voting trends—in didn’t in New Hampshire. It just makes the media look silly. John McCain may end up winning the GOP nomination. However, if he does, it will come after a few more ups and downs for his campaign, and in spite of the media’s arguments for his “inevitability”, not because of them.
Monday, I wrote that the media should consider the fates of other presumptive Presidential nominees before anointing Barack Obama the Democrat nominee after his impressive Iowa caucus victory. I pointed out that there have been many candidates who win a surprise victory, build up momentum, and are crowned their party’s nominee. Usually, they ultimately lose their momentum, and then their Presidential bid.
I pointed out the examples of John McCain and Howard Dean, among others. And as it turned out, Obama’s drive for the nomination was seriously impeded by his amazing loss in the New Hampshire primary. Before the votes were counted, the only question among literally all political observers was the question of how badly Hillary would be defeated. She came away with a victory. For a week, pundits on both the left and right predicted the fall of the Clintons, and the ascendancy of Barack Obama. They were dead wrong.
One such mistake is explicable. However, the very same pundits and media figures who were so wrong about Obama are now making the precise, identical error yet again.
It involves the other party, but the principle is the same. John McCain is now seen as the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. It is undeniable that his New Hampshire win gave him a great deal of momentum, and that the polls do look good for him. However, a quick look back at the last two months show an amazing degree of votality in the Republican race.
After Rudy Giuliani’s campaign started to fizzle, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner. Then came the “Huckaboom”, the rise of Mike Huckabee. Then the “Huckabust”, which came after his series of bizarre gaffes—such as his anti-Mormon innuendo, his foreign policy blunders, and the strange episode in which he aired an attack ad against Mitt Romney while simultaneously sanctimoniously declaring his abstinence from that sort of thing.
However, Huckabee’s fall existed only in the minds of over analyzing pundits. He won Iowa easily, and became the new frontrunner. Then, of course, came McCain’s win in New Hampshire, giving him the frontrunner title, and naming him the probable nominee.
With wild momentum shifts like those noted above, it is foolish to declare anyone the inevitable nominee. However, it is not as if this is a first time this has happened. In 2000, McCain won New Hampshire, and was hailed, while possibly not as the frontrunner, certainly as a very serious challenge for Bush. When the South Carolina primary came around, McCain sank.
It is hard to see where all of McCain’s support for the nomination will come from. Most hardcore conservatives see him as a moderate and a sell-out, and have never trusted him. In addition, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens will also seriously damage his campaign. He does not have the natural base the other candidates have—Thompson and Romney are going after the conservative vote, Giuliani is trying to parlay his post-9/11 performance into a nomination (nothing wrong with that, by the way. He has every right to be proud of his performance on 9/11), and Huckabee is looking for the evangelical vote. McCain will get some votes from those concerned about nation security, but all the candidates (with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee) can look for votes from that group, as their foreign policies are all fairly homogenous.
Even factoring in the above obstacles, John McCain does have a good shot at the nomination. It is simply that his nomination is not inevitable, or anything like it. The media’s insistence on crowning a new nominee after every minute shift in public opinion is absurd. I doubt whether it has any effect on voting trends—in didn’t in New Hampshire. It just makes the media look silly. John McCain may end up winning the GOP nomination. However, if he does, it will come after a few more ups and downs for his campaign, and in spite of the media’s arguments for his “inevitability”, not because of them.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Welcome Aboard!
The Red November Initiative welcomes John Fielding of Berks Conservative to the mix!
John found the RNI through Doug V Gibbs Political Pistachio!
John found the RNI through Doug V Gibbs Political Pistachio!
Friday, January 4, 2008
Politcal Pistachio's Take on Iowa
Doug is still looking for the true conservative here:
As the Iowa Caucus approaches in a little more than a day the most widely asked question regarding the 2008 Republican presidential race is whether or not the conservative movement remains. It seems that the surfacing candidates have lost touch with the GOP's grassroots. How else can it be explained that according to mainstream media polls Rudy Giuliani, essentially a social liberal, is the front-runner and possible heir to the party that Reagan led?
Economically, Rudy Giuliani is essentially a fiscal conservative, a committed tax cutter, and strong on national security in the sense of the war on the Islamic Jihad. However, Rudy is far from being what I would call a "social conservative." Though he has made it clear he is not fond of abortion, he supports the pro-choice side of the issue. He eliminated a lot of crime in New York as the city's mayor, but is also a gun control supporter.
Is there a conservative choice remaining?
Duncan Hunter and Tancredo have been nothing more than bookends throughout the entire race, and though they are obviously the most conservative of all the candidates, they have no chance, and are dropping out of the race. Tancredo later directed his endorsement in the direction of Mitt Romney.
John McCain, though a war hero with a good attitude toward the war, has moderate positions on issues that conservatives find to be important, such as his pro-amnesty position when it comes to illegal aliens.
One of my biggest complaints about Bush, aside from his blatant globalism, is that Bush is a big spender. I have never understood why whenever there is a problem, Liberals and some Republicans resort to throwing money at the problem - money, I am compelled to remind you, that does not belong to them, but was entrusted to them by the American taxpayer. Mitt Romney is touch on spending, perhaps even rivaling Ronald Reagan, and has pledged that he will chop away at big government with the consistent use of the veto pen. His tax-cut agenda is the tops of the entire Republican field, and it promises to take the tax-cut agenda to the next level. But I wonder if Romney can be trusted. After all, he has changed his opinion on a large number of issues. If he is being honest, he may be the right choice for the GOP, but for some reason, I don't believe him when he says, "I was wrong, now I believe. . . "
Huckabee is the most socially conservative, but it turns out he's a big spender, has too big of a hangup regarding illegals, and thinks that we "broke Iraq." Mike, Iraq was already broken before we got there.
Fred Thompson is that "conservative blogger" favorite that used to be a Tennessee senator. However, his voting record makes me think he may lean toward the socialized medicine idea, and backing the pro-incumbent campaign finance law which was despised by the conservatives wasn't a good move in my eyes either.
I don't even think I need to go into the freakiness that is Ron Paul.
As I see it, if he is being honest, Mitt Romney is the best bet for a Red November in 2008. However, if Mitt is the slimy, lying piece of lard I think he is, then Fred Thompson, even with his lackadaisical attitude, is the best choice.
Iowa is the first stop. Perhaps something will surface to change my mind on Thursday.
One thing is for sure, however. The true conservative continues to elude the Republican Party.
As the Iowa Caucus approaches in a little more than a day the most widely asked question regarding the 2008 Republican presidential race is whether or not the conservative movement remains. It seems that the surfacing candidates have lost touch with the GOP's grassroots. How else can it be explained that according to mainstream media polls Rudy Giuliani, essentially a social liberal, is the front-runner and possible heir to the party that Reagan led?
Economically, Rudy Giuliani is essentially a fiscal conservative, a committed tax cutter, and strong on national security in the sense of the war on the Islamic Jihad. However, Rudy is far from being what I would call a "social conservative." Though he has made it clear he is not fond of abortion, he supports the pro-choice side of the issue. He eliminated a lot of crime in New York as the city's mayor, but is also a gun control supporter.
Is there a conservative choice remaining?
Duncan Hunter and Tancredo have been nothing more than bookends throughout the entire race, and though they are obviously the most conservative of all the candidates, they have no chance, and are dropping out of the race. Tancredo later directed his endorsement in the direction of Mitt Romney.
John McCain, though a war hero with a good attitude toward the war, has moderate positions on issues that conservatives find to be important, such as his pro-amnesty position when it comes to illegal aliens.
One of my biggest complaints about Bush, aside from his blatant globalism, is that Bush is a big spender. I have never understood why whenever there is a problem, Liberals and some Republicans resort to throwing money at the problem - money, I am compelled to remind you, that does not belong to them, but was entrusted to them by the American taxpayer. Mitt Romney is touch on spending, perhaps even rivaling Ronald Reagan, and has pledged that he will chop away at big government with the consistent use of the veto pen. His tax-cut agenda is the tops of the entire Republican field, and it promises to take the tax-cut agenda to the next level. But I wonder if Romney can be trusted. After all, he has changed his opinion on a large number of issues. If he is being honest, he may be the right choice for the GOP, but for some reason, I don't believe him when he says, "I was wrong, now I believe. . . "
Huckabee is the most socially conservative, but it turns out he's a big spender, has too big of a hangup regarding illegals, and thinks that we "broke Iraq." Mike, Iraq was already broken before we got there.
Fred Thompson is that "conservative blogger" favorite that used to be a Tennessee senator. However, his voting record makes me think he may lean toward the socialized medicine idea, and backing the pro-incumbent campaign finance law which was despised by the conservatives wasn't a good move in my eyes either.
I don't even think I need to go into the freakiness that is Ron Paul.
As I see it, if he is being honest, Mitt Romney is the best bet for a Red November in 2008. However, if Mitt is the slimy, lying piece of lard I think he is, then Fred Thompson, even with his lackadaisical attitude, is the best choice.
Iowa is the first stop. Perhaps something will surface to change my mind on Thursday.
One thing is for sure, however. The true conservative continues to elude the Republican Party.
Next Step for Giuliani?
Karl from PA for Hizzonor offers some commentary on Rudy's chances after Iowa:
IA Results: They’re Just More Important Than Me
Well, the good voters of IA have caucused, and have selected a moderate evangelical democrat from Hope Arkansas, and an even further left wing cipher.
Now, I generally like organic tradition, a la Russell Kirk. I also generally like heterogeneity and quirkiness. It is somewhat refreshing that rural Iowans and grumpy Granite Staters have such a large say in our electoral system, especially since so much of what goes on in this country seems predetermined in some well-funded conference room full of people mildly afraid and hugely disdainful of average Americans.
So from that perspective it is gratifying to find those candidates most obviously designed in those conference rooms– Romney and Clinton– dealt a demoralizing defeat by just those Americans over Swedish meatballs and warm cider in a hundred high school gyms and living rooms in the IA caucuses last night
But…
Why, exactly, should the votes of a few hundred Iowans matter so much to the future of our country? One is reminded of the famous speech in the movie Bull Durham, which I’ve mentioned here before in a different context, about the difference in baseball between a career minor leaguer and hall of famer being one hit a week. Should the course of our country be based on such obviously fickle vicissitudes? A couple family crises and a broken-down bus on the way to a caucus site could have made all the difference last night for any number of candidates. Now we’re stuck with the withdrawal of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden!
It is well established on this site that I think it is an absurdity verging on a representative miscarriage that the people of Pennsylvania– and many other states– have little say in the presidential primary process. That miscarriage seems all the more obvious when the two winners out of IA are so similar, and so similarly wrong.
In purely parochial concerns, one of my commenters recently suggested GOP bigwig Bob Asher has been recently spotted genuflecting in Mitt Romney’s direction. Wouldn’t it be funny if such a consummate insider had to find a way to explain that away because his new favorite candidate never got a chance to even run in PA?
Finally, we should note in this space that last night’s result was pretty much ideal for Giuliani, given the fact that Team Rudy chose to skip IA altogether. Romney is dealt a huge defeat, and Thompson and McCain do OK, thereby keeping the field wide open. McCain appears poised to win NH. SC will be a scramble. Then FL comes around, where Rudy still polls on top.
It’s white knuckle time over at Team Rudy. Their “national strategy” is about to be tested. They’ve been quiet, letting the other candidates spend time, money, and moral capital over two early states with not many delegates at stake. They plan to plant their flag in FL, then roll up delegates in NJ, NY, CA, and IL on Tsunami Tuesday.
So they have to win FL. Then on Super Duper Tuesday, if they win MO, they will be in the cat bird seat. If the Feb. 5 results are more mixed, maybe we will get to cast a vote that matters here in PA. If Rudy can’t win FL, though, it’s looking like McCain or Huck. Who knows, though?
IA Results: They’re Just More Important Than Me
Well, the good voters of IA have caucused, and have selected a moderate evangelical democrat from Hope Arkansas, and an even further left wing cipher.
Now, I generally like organic tradition, a la Russell Kirk. I also generally like heterogeneity and quirkiness. It is somewhat refreshing that rural Iowans and grumpy Granite Staters have such a large say in our electoral system, especially since so much of what goes on in this country seems predetermined in some well-funded conference room full of people mildly afraid and hugely disdainful of average Americans.
So from that perspective it is gratifying to find those candidates most obviously designed in those conference rooms– Romney and Clinton– dealt a demoralizing defeat by just those Americans over Swedish meatballs and warm cider in a hundred high school gyms and living rooms in the IA caucuses last night
But…
Why, exactly, should the votes of a few hundred Iowans matter so much to the future of our country? One is reminded of the famous speech in the movie Bull Durham, which I’ve mentioned here before in a different context, about the difference in baseball between a career minor leaguer and hall of famer being one hit a week. Should the course of our country be based on such obviously fickle vicissitudes? A couple family crises and a broken-down bus on the way to a caucus site could have made all the difference last night for any number of candidates. Now we’re stuck with the withdrawal of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden!
It is well established on this site that I think it is an absurdity verging on a representative miscarriage that the people of Pennsylvania– and many other states– have little say in the presidential primary process. That miscarriage seems all the more obvious when the two winners out of IA are so similar, and so similarly wrong.
In purely parochial concerns, one of my commenters recently suggested GOP bigwig Bob Asher has been recently spotted genuflecting in Mitt Romney’s direction. Wouldn’t it be funny if such a consummate insider had to find a way to explain that away because his new favorite candidate never got a chance to even run in PA?
Finally, we should note in this space that last night’s result was pretty much ideal for Giuliani, given the fact that Team Rudy chose to skip IA altogether. Romney is dealt a huge defeat, and Thompson and McCain do OK, thereby keeping the field wide open. McCain appears poised to win NH. SC will be a scramble. Then FL comes around, where Rudy still polls on top.
It’s white knuckle time over at Team Rudy. Their “national strategy” is about to be tested. They’ve been quiet, letting the other candidates spend time, money, and moral capital over two early states with not many delegates at stake. They plan to plant their flag in FL, then roll up delegates in NJ, NY, CA, and IL on Tsunami Tuesday.
So they have to win FL. Then on Super Duper Tuesday, if they win MO, they will be in the cat bird seat. If the Feb. 5 results are more mixed, maybe we will get to cast a vote that matters here in PA. If Rudy can’t win FL, though, it’s looking like McCain or Huck. Who knows, though?
Marie Still Backs Fred Out of Iowa
Marie offers her weekly Two Cents with this post:
Way To Go Fred!!!!
Coming in 3rd in Iowa aint bad, aint bad at all!
I'm still with Fred :-)
Git 'er Done
Fred Thompson Post Caucus Address To Supporters
Help Send Fred To New Hampshire To Win Ticket To The Next Dance!!
Way To Go Fred!!!!
Coming in 3rd in Iowa aint bad, aint bad at all!
I'm still with Fred :-)
Git 'er Done
Help Send Fred To New Hampshire To Win Ticket To The Next Dance!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
