February 15, 2007
Line of the Day
From a column in the Politico discussing Mitt Romney's telegenic appeal:
"Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up."
I doubt Romney himself would embrace that comparison, but it made me laugh. And the topic of the column is of interest. Candidates with charisma are much preferred in the era of the 24-hour news cycle. Romney and Rudy Giuliani seem like the only Republicans that fit such a description right now in this writer's eyes.
Read the whole column.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 15, 2007
06:30 PM | Email This
1. And Newt doesn't have charisma?
Newt doesn't make the hearts of the female type go all a-flutter (not that conservative women are swayed by looks over substance).
If Romney's as squeaky-clean as the physical image he presents, then he's going to present a bit of a problem for the Demonrats. And, he's a much needed swing back to right of center.
3. Just what we need. Another Bill Clinton! Boy is he right about that! Major case of a swollen ego! I'm not persuaded.
4. Mitt Romney right of center? Only when compared to Red Rudy.
Red Rudy! That's a scream.
I followed those links to MittTV. Here's the truth: Mitt comes across as very credible and serious. And stiff. And humorless. To be sure, he has a real gravitas that the Democratic frontrunners completely lack. He might match up well against each of them. But first he's going to have to out-gravitas McCain and out-charisma Rudy. And that's a tall order.
And, what's more, he's only at 10% in the polls now, which means he'll have to make a REALLY compelling case why he should win. "I'm more conservative than they are" won't wash with Brownback and Huckabee on his tail.
Good news for Mitt: I've heard that he'll announce a HUGE warchest when financial disclosures are due in March. Which should give him a bump in the polls going into the spring. And maybe even put pressure on McCain to withdraw (I've heard his fundraising hasn't been so strong). But, then, Phil Gramm rose a ton of money back in 1995, and look what that got him.
6. @4: What exactly makes Guiliani "Red Rudy"? Can you please educate us? Being pro-choice does not make one a leftist. Many in the Republican party are pro-choice.
Anyone catch HA's big story about Luke Esser double dipping? Seems he didn't do a search for news: Esser resigned the job with the AG's office after being elected to the top Republican job.
Talk about sloppy reporting. And he wants us to believe he has credibility as a journalist!
Goldy is slipping, with no Darcy to pimp he is back to being the obscure little punk he always was. He down to taking shots at his Sugar Daddy Dave Postman.
I saw the thread you are talking about Janet, all of the liberals over at HA couldn't come up with any Double Dippers from the Left in Olympia.
Gee how about Ed Murray, Highly Paid Port of Seattle Consultant and Head of the Senate Transportaion Committee. Senator Kohl-Wells works for the University of Washington, last time I checked that qualifies as a Double Dipper Status too. Anybody else have more?
DJ at #5,
Mitt's 10% number in that poll is more than likely do to lack of name recognition that both Rudy and McLame both have. I say wait and see how the polls change as the year goes by and see where each of the candidates are as they all get more recognition, and with the MSM jumping all over Mitt's Mormon background that could actually help him more than hurt him when it comes to name recognition. I personally feel it is too early to jump into any one of the candidates camps yet as it is only the beginning of 2008. I want to know more about each of the candidates and their positions and actually hear it from them, instead of from a press release. I am glad to see that most of the talk radio stations are starting to invite each of them on so we can get that first hand information. I feel that this is going to get pretty interesting in about another six to ten months as things really start to shape up.
Clinton with his pants up--?? Haaaaa....
Actually, from what I hear on Michael medved's show, those pants still aren't staying up too well. There was some discussion that Clinton continues to seek "help" for his "problems". I think we can do without all that in the Whitehouse. So please, people, keep that "2-fer" outta the Whitehouse this time around. Besides, Hillary lacks the instincts to protect this nation from bad guys. She's more in the blame-America "we had it coming" crowd like her husband. We need much better.
11. Janet, I think it may have to do with his stance on gun control. Also, I don't know what his opinion is on immigration. Anyone?
Peggy - Guiliani's gun control stance is out of the mainstream for Republicans, but I attribute it to his years of living in NYC.
As for his views on immigration - I'm not sure either side of the argument is an indication of left or right. As far as I can tell, reasonable arguments can be made on either side, and have been made by both parties. Obviously there is no concensus in the Republican party or some kind of legislation would have been passed before our guys lost control.
So maybe we need to wait until he states his position. Can you tell me what position Brownback or Huckabee have? Or McCain? Except for Tom Tancredo and GWB, the rest are not really specific.
13. Brownback and Huckabee are with Bush on illegal immigration. So are McCain, Giuliani and Romney. Hunter and Paul share Tancredo's position.
14. NOBODY cares about your idiot mormon candidate Romney. Quit wasting valuable space on this blog with your garbage about how great he is
Talk to me in 10 months when this means something! Between now and then Biden will drop out, Obama will flame out, Hillary will be annointed, Obama will re-emerge and Gary Hart might actually jump in. Then Rudy will be the lead dog, until New Hampshire when he will fail and Brownback will come strong. But it won't matter because Romney, Rudy, Brownback and McCain will all be the leader 2 or 3 times each according to the press.
This is really all one big press self-importance rally. And the bloggers are playing into it. Nobody has anything to report on so they talk about the '08 race. Eric admitted as much a week or two ago.
People just need to RELAX and stop the horserace BS. Talk to me in 10 months and THEN we can compare positions. Until then it's meaningless.
While I admire Guiliani for his hutzpah after 911, I think his overall stance on the major issues is bit left of where I think American should go.
McCain, come on! This guy scuttled any real immigration reform last year. Have you all forgotten?
And pretty face Romney will have to adopt a little solidity in his positions before I think he is ready for prime time.
The Republican Party eventually is going to have to understand that the only candidate in 2008 who has any chance framing the debate rather than reacting to and responding the democRats is Newt Gingrich.
If it weren't for Gingrich orchestrating the takeover of Congress in the 1990's do you really think we as a country could have survived the Clintons?
The man is a spellbinding orator, a historian, and brilliant tactician. Who better to run against the empty but oddly appealing rhetoric the Dems under CLinton's banner will deploy.
17. Newt's got major baggage! Brilliant, he is. Trustworthy, he's not.
18. Baggage? What, he got divorced?
I'll grant you that Gringrich is intelligent and articulate, but his negatives with non-hard core conservatives are astoundingly high. Moreover, he showed in the '90's he's a terrible negotiator. He consistently got whipped by Clinton in high profile battles. That's not the makings of a good president to me.
Also, he does actually have to get in the race at some point. This wait-until-September game is a huge gamble.
There's a pretty good article in today's "Investors Business Daily," page A13, concerning disidents in Islam. There's actually going to be a conference in Florida next month where a lot of Muslims, especially women Muslims, crticize Islamic fundamentalism.
There may be hope for this religion to turn away from its crazy hatred and violence. I hope the media will give it some fair coverage because these Muslim ladies are risking death and torture to call attention to the abuse of Islamic fundamentalism.
Ginrich is essential for the Republican takeover in 2008. His ideas and method of presentation are what Rs need. While their ideas of things are infinitely better than the Ds (no ideas), Gingrich is 10 times better than the Rs and his insertion into the dialogue will only help the Rs.
And deadwood, do you want your red meat alive or dead? Unless you are a troll, let the Ds do the torching.
And Liber, while off-topic, it was the best world news I have heard in a long, long time. Thank you.
22. I'm afraid that the Republicans only chance to hold on to the White House in 2008 is for the Democrats to be dumb enough to nominate Hillary. all of you Republicans out ther should be encouraging this to your Democrat and "progressive" friends.
Copied from www.laceylibertarian.us:
A cannibal was walking through the jungle and came upon a restaurant opened by a fellow cannibal. Feeling hungry, he sat down and looked over the menu:
Broiled Missionary $10
Fried Explorer $12
Baked Politician $130
The cannibal called the waiter over and asked, "Why such a price difference for the politician?"
The waiter replied, "Have you ever tried to clean one?"
I've been posting here for the last three years using the same psuedo. Like many here my position in the political spectrum is somewhere between libertarian and conservative.
I was a Ross Perot supporter in 92 and 96, but only because Bush Sr. and Dole were such idiotic choices. On rare occasions I might agree with centerists democrats, but I am more comfortable with centerist republican.
While Bush II has been a disaster at communication, I believe history will be kinder to him than it will be to the last president. The Iraq war is both necessary and right.
In my mind the enemy is not just al queda, its islam. This is a war that has been going on since 700 AD. There have been lulls, but the war has not stopped.
Bush's rhetoric on the war is often confusing, but with the PC crap necessary in today's America to say anything controversial, I can sympathize.
The botton line to me with any Republican standard bearer is that they MUST understand the concequences of surrendering in Iraq. Surrender will not end the war, it will only intensify it and bring it home to America.
Rudy is acceptable. McCain is acceptable. Romney is not known. Gingrich however, is more than acceptable. He not only knows who the enemy is, he also knows the history of the conflict between islam and the rest of humanity, and most importantly, he can communicate this to American people like no other modern politician.
So swatter, if these views make me a troll in your estimation, fine. Believe what you want.
Form and flash over substance. Have the republicans sunk that low?
I can understand us dems doing that and looking for anybody who could win regardless of their substance. We've been out for a while.
But you republicans have had a pretty long run. Do you want to hang on with a lousy republican president just so he can kowtow to a few conservative hot buttom issues. Wouldn't it be better to forge your candidates and new consevative ideas in opposition where you have the freedom to try something new, rather than be stuck defending republican business as usual.
BTW Giuliani's main problem is that tempermentally he is an egotistical assh*le.
"If Giuliani's stances on babies, guns, and gay marriage do not sink him in the Republican primaries, he will probably suffer in a general election campaign from the fact that there is so much evidence in the public record that he is a total jerk.
Yes, that's right. Most Americans love Rudy, but it's not just because they don't know where he stands on issues. It's also because they know nothing of his pre-9/11 self, and the more they learn, the less attractive they will probably find him."
Rudy the Rude
Giuliani was mean enough to be New York's greatest mayor. Is he too mean to be president?
By David Freddoso
deadwood, chewie is a troll and helps fire up the conversation.
For you, I thought I started the sentence, "if you are a troll"; if not, let the trolls like chewie try to eat the candidates.
The 11th commandment and all is very important coming up. Of course, you are not an R. I, too, voted for Perot once, but not twice. I realized my folly. My dislike of Bush I was not anything political, but he never stood up to the Clinton torching and I didn't think he had the belly to run an election in '92. Simple, he didn't want my vote so he didn't get it.
Wow, good to see some common sense being displayed on this website.
1. No is going to elect Mitt because mainstream America is still a bit uncomfortable with Mormonism.
2. No one in the South is going to pick Rudy, he's way too lefty on Gun Control and Gay Rights. Civil Unions will definitely not fly in the South.
3. McCain may be the anointed heir to the throne but he's kind of old now. He's right-wing enough to appease most people.
4. Gingrich is the GOP goto guy, the man is right-wing, a good speaker, an established leader, and an has a good grasp on the issues the GOP base is interested in. Right now he's just popping up now and then, he needs to declare his candidacy and make himself much more visible.
Gingrich, always liked his positions and intelligence, but if you have Ross Perot supporters backing Gingrich, then we need to realize that he shouldn't be backed. Everyone knows that Perot cost the Republicans the white house, at least once if not twice. We knew it back then. We can all sign up on polls saying we love Hillary in an attempt to get the Dem's to mistakenly vote for her so that they can't win the white house. Same thing the other way around, if you don't want the Republicans to win the white house, so much so that you would support Perot, then tell us that. Just say, Gingrich is our man because he is the smartest, most articulate, most conservative man that is in the race, and that he would be the biggest anchor for the republican party to win the race and you'd be happy with that.
Gingrich should be a vice president and should be on the ticket as such IF Hillary is the democratic nominee, he shouldn't be the headliner.
As for Rudy not being able to win the south, he doesn't really have to. In the General it's a no brainer if Hillary or Obama are the nominees, Conservatives and moderates alike will have to vote for him. As for the primaries, he is so far out in the large Northern states with their winner take all primaries (and will be), a few close defeats in the south will ensure him the nomination.
29. Ross Perot did not cost the Republican Party the presidencey. Bush I and Dole were bad candidates. Both lack principles and intelligence, as did the party when it allowed these two men to represent them. Its a hard truth, but after more than a decade the party needs to accept it and learn from it.
I've been a supporter of Romney for quite some time due to his experience as a governor, his business experience & because I think he's smart.
He handles himself well on TV & in person.
I don't care if he's a Mormon; I don't know where he stands on abortion nor do I care. I don't know that I'd describe him as having some of the characteristics of Clinton; that's really not a very flattering comparison in my estimation.
I would not support either McCain or Gingrich but if Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee, I would probably support him too, even though he would not be my first choice.
When push comes to shove, I follow the ABCs, i.e., anyone but Clinton (Hilary that is).
Romney is also the architect of using Open Source standards in government...leading the ODF effort in MA.
He gets a plus in my scorecard for that.
32. deadwood @29 - even with the quality of the candidates, Perot still cost Bush1 the election. Perot got almost 20% of the vote, most of which came from Rs. But as far as Bush1 being a weak candidate made Perot a more interesting vote.
33. deadwood @29 - even with the quality of the candidates, Perot still cost Bush1 the election. Perot got almost 20% of the vote, most of which came from Rs. But as far as Bush1 being a weak candidate made Perot a more interesting vote.
Wrong Fred. What cost the Republican party the presidency in 92 and 96 was choosing weak candidates - very weak candidates.
If they has chosen men (or women-who knows) of substance rather than party insiders who knoew how to play party games, Perot would not have had enough support to run, let alone get enough votes from right and center to make a difference in the lection outcome.
I call 'bull' on that deadwood. Just admit you made a mistake on Perot and move on. I actually thought he had a chance the first time around.
In '96, you just voted to spite the rest of us and allowed Clinton a second term because Dole was a bad candidate? You didn't follow the ABCs then did you, and it seems you still don't. Good luck because we are parting company.
Personally, I'm hoping for a Giulianni/Gingrich ticket. Win win, as far as I can see.
Libertarian: I kind of wondered when the Muslim women would get wise. It might just have to do with homicide bombers. The guys have been promised 72 virgins and all that jazz in the great after life if they martyr themselves for Allah. Ever wonder what the gals have been promised? There have been a few of them, and the phenomena seems to be growing. I think they may have just woken up to the possibility that THEY are the virgins, and are saying whoa, wait a minute...
What good is having Gingrich in the VP slot? Besides Cheney what have VP's really done but be a world diplomat? Occasionally they go on to become PUSA.
Gingrich/Romney ticket might be ok, you get the Mormon vote as well as the conservative vote.
Gingrich/Giulianni ticket would be better because 9/11 will only get you so far. Rudy would be a great diplomat, don't see him as much as a President. Though I don't see him Rudy taking second place either. Up to President Newt to decide. =P
In my mind, it comes down to Ohio, Florida, New York and California. Whichever of the guys can get two of those states, I am for them.
You have to look at the electoral map. That is why Obama is so attractive in Illinois/Ohio. As a VP, he can get that swing state.
Then, can Giuliani carry New York? Can Romney? Can McCain get California? Just saying.
In 92 I voted against Bush I and in 96 I voted against Dole. Its as simple as that.
I just can't help but shake this feeling that the Republican party is just banking on history. Executives have an insanely better track record of getting into the White House than Senators do. That being said, these two are only left of center on social issues, which the Republican party would do well not to depend on in the next election.
Abortion and gay marriage are divisive issues which in a general election rarely pull people from the other side of the aisle to vote for you.
By the way, added you to a list of "Washington Bloggers" (aren't you fricking flattered?) Forming a sort of ad hoc "Senate" of those who are on top of local and State politics in their respective locales.
Come see us.
"B" I found your comments short and to the point. I have no problem with you calling Romney an "Idiot." You can even call me an idiot...or even a scoundrel. But "Mormon Idiot"? Ouch.
Do I assume correctly that your nome de gere, "B" proudly stands for Boggs? If that is the case, sounds like you haven't let go of the religious cleansing your 'granpappy, Govnr' Lilbern started in Missouri with an official extermination order for the state militia to kill every Mormon they could find. I'd sure be proud of a linage like that!
Come on...It's been a 150 years. Time to put away your tar and feathers and bull whip sitting next to your white sheet and hood.
Speaking of Mormon idiots...
What's Harry Reid up to these days?
Oh, that's right. Mormonism is no threat when there's a D after your name.