Saturday, July 05, 2008
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
We've Moved!
Happy New Year!
We've moved our blog site to: www.RightCuz.com
Be sure to check out our new digs soon!
dm & kn
We've moved our blog site to: www.RightCuz.com
Be sure to check out our new digs soon!
dm & kn
Monday, December 31, 2007
Romney Unifies the Republican Coalition
Here's a great article.
It sums up better than I could, why I think Romney has what it takes to be the face of the Republican Party and defeat the Democrats and win the White House.
Here's a couple of quotes from the article.
To hear the media tell it these days, one might think the three parts of the Republican coalition—military conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives—are distinct entities with irreconcilable agendas. In fact, the Republican coalition has worked together to propel GOP candidates to victory in 5 of the last 7 presidential elections—Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
and later....
In evaluating the candidates, I determined that Governor Romney is the best candidate to unify the Republican coalition—and therefore the most likely to defeat Clinton or Obama in November. He is a strong military conservative who has spoken eloquently and forcefully about the threat of radical Islam; he is a dependable economic conservative who wants to extend the Bush tax cuts and believes in the power of free markets and free trade; finally, he is a social conservative who understands the importance of family values and a culture of life. In short, he is a friend to—and a unifier of—all three parts of the Republican coalition.
Take a look at the "top-tier" candidates and you tell me who is all three "legs" of the Republican coalition (social conservative, economic conservative and military conservative).
Romney - Social Conservative, Economic Conservative, Military Conservative.
Giuliani - Economic Conservative, Military Conservative.
McCain - Military Conservative, Social Conservative
Huckabee - Social Conservative
And now the rest of the story:
The truth is, Mitt Romney will be anything you want him to be. He's a political chameleon who rivals Bill Clinton when it comes to pandering. If 51% of the Republican base wanted transvestites running the military, he'd be all for it after having flip-flopped from being against it while running for governor or senator.
With Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee, you may not agree with them on every issue. But you respect them because you know they really believe what they believe.
With Romney, we will never feel that way because the man has no core beliefs (with the possible exception of his Mormon faith). He'll say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes.
KN says: And you know this how????? You know this man via the internet? Not saying I know the man, just saying he's certainly saying the right things and those who get him elected won't let him forget it.
The truth hurts and that's the truth.
KN says: See below.... "just because you say it doesn't mean it's true"
dm
It sums up better than I could, why I think Romney has what it takes to be the face of the Republican Party and defeat the Democrats and win the White House.
Here's a couple of quotes from the article.
To hear the media tell it these days, one might think the three parts of the Republican coalition—military conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives—are distinct entities with irreconcilable agendas. In fact, the Republican coalition has worked together to propel GOP candidates to victory in 5 of the last 7 presidential elections—Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
and later....
In evaluating the candidates, I determined that Governor Romney is the best candidate to unify the Republican coalition—and therefore the most likely to defeat Clinton or Obama in November. He is a strong military conservative who has spoken eloquently and forcefully about the threat of radical Islam; he is a dependable economic conservative who wants to extend the Bush tax cuts and believes in the power of free markets and free trade; finally, he is a social conservative who understands the importance of family values and a culture of life. In short, he is a friend to—and a unifier of—all three parts of the Republican coalition.
Take a look at the "top-tier" candidates and you tell me who is all three "legs" of the Republican coalition (social conservative, economic conservative and military conservative).
Romney - Social Conservative, Economic Conservative, Military Conservative.
Giuliani - Economic Conservative, Military Conservative.
McCain - Military Conservative, Social Conservative
Huckabee - Social Conservative
And now the rest of the story:
The truth is, Mitt Romney will be anything you want him to be. He's a political chameleon who rivals Bill Clinton when it comes to pandering. If 51% of the Republican base wanted transvestites running the military, he'd be all for it after having flip-flopped from being against it while running for governor or senator.
With Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee, you may not agree with them on every issue. But you respect them because you know they really believe what they believe.
With Romney, we will never feel that way because the man has no core beliefs (with the possible exception of his Mormon faith). He'll say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes.
KN says: And you know this how????? You know this man via the internet? Not saying I know the man, just saying he's certainly saying the right things and those who get him elected won't let him forget it.
The truth hurts and that's the truth.
KN says: See below.... "just because you say it doesn't mean it's true"
dm
How Romney Won the Republican Nomination
Hard work pays off. Spending a significant portion of your personal wealth works well too.
A few years ago, then-Governor Mitt Romney decided he wanted to be president. He laid out a map showing the exact route there. At that point, Mr. Romney had a track record for being an ardent abortion-rights proponent who recognized the legitimacy of equal protection for gays and lesbians, and who held Liberal positions concerning guns restrictions, high taxes & fees, and an open-door policy on illegal immigration. He prided himself as being to the left of Teddy Kennedy.
But there was simply no way the Republican base would nominate an East Coast "Rockefeller Republican" like Mitt Romney.
So with millions of dollars in hand, Mitt set out to transform his image from being a liberal lightweight to Mr. Conservative. He has reversed his positions on so many issues, many of us wonder if there is anything authentic about the man. Are there any deeply held principles Romney won't eschew once the going gets tough?
Mitt Romney is so transparently opportunistic, it makes any objective political observer wince.
But despite all that, Romney is on the verge of winning the Republican nomination. GOP power-brokers are resigned to the fact that he's probably the only viable option our party has this time around. The others either carry too much baggage (Giuliani), have irked the Republican base one too many times (McCain), or are just unelectable or uninspiring (Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter, Paul, et al).
As I've previously speculated, Romney will win the Iowa caucus. He will go on to win the New Hampshire primary. His barrage of nasty ads against both Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire will see to that. With those victories under his belt, the Romney juggernaut will pick up wins in Michigan and South Carolina. He'll most likely blow through Rudy Giuliani's former firewall that was Florida. At that stage, only Ron Paul will probably still be in the race.
The downside for Mr. Romney is that there's no enthusiasm for his nomination. Republicans are not eager to vote FOR Mitt Romney. Most view him as the best out of a slate of bad choices. And this lack of enthusiasm will quite possibly translate into a loss come November to Hillary Clinton.
(To be fair, there would be no enthusiasm, no groundswell of support among the base for any of the other Republican candidates either. Evangelicals might like Mike. But the rest of the party doesn't. They may respect him but no one actually likes McCain. Giuliani, while likable, does make the base uncomfortable with his more liberal stances on social issues and colorful personal life. And Fred Thompson has the same effect as Ambien.)
There is one way Romney can win the White House: If New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg gets in the race as an independent. Bloomberg is a big Lib and with his endless supply of money he will pull more votes from Hillary than from Mitt. So write a letter encouraging Bloomberg to run. It's Mitt's only chance and our only chance to avoid 4 more years of Clinton mellow drama in the White House.
dm
Ok... now my turn.
Cuz.... just because you write it doesn't make it so.......
KN: Your opening paragraph on Romney is riddled with inaccuracies. You've painted a picture that simply isn't true. It's not as if Romney woke up one day and said "wait if I want to be President I need to do a 180". Simply didn't happen.
DM: And you know this because...? Countless positions he held up until just earlier this year were left of center - abortion, gay rights, gun control, high taxes/fees, illegal immigration etc. Suddenly he's reincarnated as Reagan Jr. - just in time for the '08 presidential election! What fabulous timing.
KN: Like most people Romney's political philosophy has evolved. Was he a pro-choice candidate in 1994? Yes. Is he now? NO. Not hard to figure out. What you are really struggling with is that he changed his mind on a set of issues. Somehow in American politics that isn't allowed. If we change our minds because someone presented us with new information or a perspective we hadn't thought of before, we somehow have no principles. That's a load....
DM: 1994? Try 2002. Still very much pro-abortion:
1994: Mitt Romney was pro-choice
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." (Joan Vennochi, "Romney’s Revolving World," The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
2001: Mitt Romney was not pro-choice
"I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
2002: Mitt Romney was again pro-choice
"I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney’s Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
2007: Mitt Romney acknowledges he was "effectively pro-choice," but says he "was always for life."
KN: Isn't the whole point of social conservatism and politics in general, to convince people that your position on a certain subject is the better position? Isn't that what happened to Romney? Someone or something convinced him that the pro-life position is the better position for our society. Why is that such a problem?
DM: Yes, that "something" was a burning desire to win the Republican nomination for president in 2008.
KN: Don't get me started on being an opportunist. Presidential politics is all about capitalizing on opportunities. As it stands in the Republican party no one was willing to take up the mantle of being a fiscal conservative, social conservative and strong on national defense. Romney had agreed to take up that cause and be the standard-bearer.
DM: Romney saw a vacuum and decided to fill it. Granted, he had to contort every important position on social and fiscal issues he ever held in the past to make it work. But you do what ya gotta do...
KN: Now come on... be optimistic. This pessimism doesn't suit you.
DM: It's realism, not pessimism.
A few years ago, then-Governor Mitt Romney decided he wanted to be president. He laid out a map showing the exact route there. At that point, Mr. Romney had a track record for being an ardent abortion-rights proponent who recognized the legitimacy of equal protection for gays and lesbians, and who held Liberal positions concerning guns restrictions, high taxes & fees, and an open-door policy on illegal immigration. He prided himself as being to the left of Teddy Kennedy.
But there was simply no way the Republican base would nominate an East Coast "Rockefeller Republican" like Mitt Romney.
So with millions of dollars in hand, Mitt set out to transform his image from being a liberal lightweight to Mr. Conservative. He has reversed his positions on so many issues, many of us wonder if there is anything authentic about the man. Are there any deeply held principles Romney won't eschew once the going gets tough?
Mitt Romney is so transparently opportunistic, it makes any objective political observer wince.
But despite all that, Romney is on the verge of winning the Republican nomination. GOP power-brokers are resigned to the fact that he's probably the only viable option our party has this time around. The others either carry too much baggage (Giuliani), have irked the Republican base one too many times (McCain), or are just unelectable or uninspiring (Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter, Paul, et al).
As I've previously speculated, Romney will win the Iowa caucus. He will go on to win the New Hampshire primary. His barrage of nasty ads against both Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire will see to that. With those victories under his belt, the Romney juggernaut will pick up wins in Michigan and South Carolina. He'll most likely blow through Rudy Giuliani's former firewall that was Florida. At that stage, only Ron Paul will probably still be in the race.
The downside for Mr. Romney is that there's no enthusiasm for his nomination. Republicans are not eager to vote FOR Mitt Romney. Most view him as the best out of a slate of bad choices. And this lack of enthusiasm will quite possibly translate into a loss come November to Hillary Clinton.
(To be fair, there would be no enthusiasm, no groundswell of support among the base for any of the other Republican candidates either. Evangelicals might like Mike. But the rest of the party doesn't. They may respect him but no one actually likes McCain. Giuliani, while likable, does make the base uncomfortable with his more liberal stances on social issues and colorful personal life. And Fred Thompson has the same effect as Ambien.)
There is one way Romney can win the White House: If New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg gets in the race as an independent. Bloomberg is a big Lib and with his endless supply of money he will pull more votes from Hillary than from Mitt. So write a letter encouraging Bloomberg to run. It's Mitt's only chance and our only chance to avoid 4 more years of Clinton mellow drama in the White House.
dm
Ok... now my turn.
Cuz.... just because you write it doesn't make it so.......
KN: Your opening paragraph on Romney is riddled with inaccuracies. You've painted a picture that simply isn't true. It's not as if Romney woke up one day and said "wait if I want to be President I need to do a 180". Simply didn't happen.
DM: And you know this because...? Countless positions he held up until just earlier this year were left of center - abortion, gay rights, gun control, high taxes/fees, illegal immigration etc. Suddenly he's reincarnated as Reagan Jr. - just in time for the '08 presidential election! What fabulous timing.
KN: Like most people Romney's political philosophy has evolved. Was he a pro-choice candidate in 1994? Yes. Is he now? NO. Not hard to figure out. What you are really struggling with is that he changed his mind on a set of issues. Somehow in American politics that isn't allowed. If we change our minds because someone presented us with new information or a perspective we hadn't thought of before, we somehow have no principles. That's a load....
DM: 1994? Try 2002. Still very much pro-abortion:
1994: Mitt Romney was pro-choice
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." (Joan Vennochi, "Romney’s Revolving World," The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
2001: Mitt Romney was not pro-choice
"I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
2002: Mitt Romney was again pro-choice
"I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney’s Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
2007: Mitt Romney acknowledges he was "effectively pro-choice," but says he "was always for life."
KN: Isn't the whole point of social conservatism and politics in general, to convince people that your position on a certain subject is the better position? Isn't that what happened to Romney? Someone or something convinced him that the pro-life position is the better position for our society. Why is that such a problem?
DM: Yes, that "something" was a burning desire to win the Republican nomination for president in 2008.
KN: Don't get me started on being an opportunist. Presidential politics is all about capitalizing on opportunities. As it stands in the Republican party no one was willing to take up the mantle of being a fiscal conservative, social conservative and strong on national defense. Romney had agreed to take up that cause and be the standard-bearer.
DM: Romney saw a vacuum and decided to fill it. Granted, he had to contort every important position on social and fiscal issues he ever held in the past to make it work. But you do what ya gotta do...
KN: Now come on... be optimistic. This pessimism doesn't suit you.
DM: It's realism, not pessimism.
Friday, December 28, 2007
A True Leader Speaks
While Mitt, Huck, and McCain slash each other with nasty attack ads, a true leader clarifies what's most important.
dm
Iowa: Romney's Juggernaut or Undoing
With the assassination of Pakistan's pro-western leader, Benazir Bhutto, yesterday, the ramifications - if any - on the presidential campaign have yet to be known. There's was speculation by chattering pundits yesterday that Iowa caucus-goers tend to be quite insular and isolationist. As such, it's presumed Bhutto's murder and the reminder that we live in a very dangerous world will have little impact on the Iowa caucus.
I tend to believe Iowans are as American as the rest of us. They were impacted by 9/11 the same as the rest of our countrymen and yesterday's terrorist attack in Pakistan will have some kind of an impact. No one knows but a logical assumption would be that Mr. Huckabee could see his support wane a tad.
Since Iowa is all about organization and Mr. Romney has poured millions of his own dollars into winning that caucus, it's my prediction he will win this contest. Mr. Huckabee will come in second (roughly 5-8 percentage points below Romney) and Mr. McCain will come in a surprisingly strong third place finish.
Romney and his friends will hail his victory as nothing short of miraculous. Huckabee will put the best spin on it he can realizing his moment in the sun has just ended. Having been written off as dead by me and many others several months ago, McCain should leave that contest feeling especially victorious.
Five short days later is the New Hampshire primary. Current polling suggests McCain and Romney are essentially in a tie but the momentum is said to be with McCain.
The margin of Romney's victory in Iowa will have a huge impact on what happens in New Hampshire. If Romney squeaks out a narrow victory and McCain places a strong third, Romney will be in serious trouble in New Hampshire. By contrast, if Romney wins decisively in Iowa (by 8 percentage points or more), I would expect Romney to win New Hampshire as well.
If Romney were to lose Iowa - even by only a percentage point or two - it could have a devastating impact on the rest of his race. McCain will be seen as continuing his surge and a win for the Senator in New Hampshire coupled with a loss for Romney in Iowa will effectively end Romney's campaign.
A Romney loss in Iowa assumes a Huckabee victory. But I really do not see the former governor of Arkansas winning too many victories after that (maybe South Carolina).
Next Thursday, January 3 might well be the beginning of a Romney juggernaut or the beginning of the end of his campaign.
dm
I tend to believe Iowans are as American as the rest of us. They were impacted by 9/11 the same as the rest of our countrymen and yesterday's terrorist attack in Pakistan will have some kind of an impact. No one knows but a logical assumption would be that Mr. Huckabee could see his support wane a tad.
Since Iowa is all about organization and Mr. Romney has poured millions of his own dollars into winning that caucus, it's my prediction he will win this contest. Mr. Huckabee will come in second (roughly 5-8 percentage points below Romney) and Mr. McCain will come in a surprisingly strong third place finish.
Romney and his friends will hail his victory as nothing short of miraculous. Huckabee will put the best spin on it he can realizing his moment in the sun has just ended. Having been written off as dead by me and many others several months ago, McCain should leave that contest feeling especially victorious.
Five short days later is the New Hampshire primary. Current polling suggests McCain and Romney are essentially in a tie but the momentum is said to be with McCain.
The margin of Romney's victory in Iowa will have a huge impact on what happens in New Hampshire. If Romney squeaks out a narrow victory and McCain places a strong third, Romney will be in serious trouble in New Hampshire. By contrast, if Romney wins decisively in Iowa (by 8 percentage points or more), I would expect Romney to win New Hampshire as well.
If Romney were to lose Iowa - even by only a percentage point or two - it could have a devastating impact on the rest of his race. McCain will be seen as continuing his surge and a win for the Senator in New Hampshire coupled with a loss for Romney in Iowa will effectively end Romney's campaign.
A Romney loss in Iowa assumes a Huckabee victory. But I really do not see the former governor of Arkansas winning too many victories after that (maybe South Carolina).
Next Thursday, January 3 might well be the beginning of a Romney juggernaut or the beginning of the end of his campaign.
dm
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Pakistan: What's Next?
Update: 4:39 pm, 12/27/07
With reference to the political impact here in America on the presidential campaigns, several pundits are chiming in on this issue now.
Of all the presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani was the first to issue an eloquent statement to help keep things in perspective. "The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. ... Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.”
Mike Huckabee made a bee-line for the cameras shortly thereafter and displayed why he really isn't ready for primetime. Huckabee wondered “what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan.” Considering martial law was disbanded almost two weeks ago, this statement makes clear Huck doesn't have a grasp of any kind on international affairs.
***************************************************************
With the assassination of Benazir Bhutto earlier today, we're getting reports that Pakistan has "erupted." Civil war there seems a greater possibility today than at any point in recent memory.
For those of you wondering why we should care, you might want to consider the 100+ nuclear weapons Pakistan has in its possession.
Should Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf lose control of his country and its nuclear weapons, the United States and the world would be in grave danger.
Since Pakistan is widely considered the home-base for al Qaeda, it's hardly a stretch to believe these weapons could end up in the hands of these blood-thirsty terrorists. And given our porous borders with Mexico and Canada, it is not paranoia to envision such weaponry slipping into this country and detonated in one (or more) of our major cities.
With the speculation of loose nukes originating from North Korea and the former Soviet Union already a concern, today's developments in Pakistan must have our security experts and officials on edge.
It's apparent that Mr. Musharraf will have to employ stiff measures to get his country back under control. It won't be pretty but it is necessary if there is any chance of maintaining stability in that country and keeping Pakistan's nuclear arsenal under tight control.
Today's tragic assassination of a woman considered friendly to The West also reminds us how important it will be to have a solid Commander-in-Chief in the White House who understands first-hand the serious threats we face for many years to come.
What impact, if any, will today's events have on the Iowa caucus one week from today or the New Hampshire primary the following Tuesday? It might seem a callous question to ask considering Ms. Bhutto was gunned downed just hours ago.
Nevertheless, will caucus-goers and primary voters take any of this into consideration? This is a stark reminder that we live in a very dangerous world in which Muslim extremists want to bring about the end of The West.
Will the thought of Islamofacists armed with nuclear technology wake up the voting public?
dm
Breaking: Pakistan Leader Benazir Bhutto Assassinated
From The Sun/UK:FORMER Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a bomb attack.
At least 20 people were killed when the bomber struck after opposition leader Mrs Bhutto addressed a political rally, witnesses said.
A witness at the scene said he heard two shots moments before the blast.
“As party leaders, including Bhutto, started coming out a man tried to go close to them and then he fired some shots and blew himself up,” said a police officer, at the scene.
Police said about 15 people had been killed in the blast.
Earlier, party officials said Bhutto was safe.
Body parts and flesh were scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park, in Rawalpindi, where Bhutto had spoken.
Police official Abdul Karim had said Bhutto had already left the area in her vehicle when the blast went off, just minutes after her speech to thousands of supporters.
Another police official, Saud Aziz, said it was a suicide attack.
The road outside was stained with blood. People screamed for ambulances. Others gave water to the wounded lying in the street.
The clothing of some of the victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The Big Hoax
Why do I get the feeling the past few weeks of headlines blaring the results of polling data showing surges for both Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama have been just a bunch of contrived - if not flat out false - hoo-eee?
By the way, I trust your Christmas was fabulous. At least I hope it was. Mine was great.
Now, moving onward and upward...
CNN is reporting the latest polling out of Iowa shows Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 point percentage lead over Barack Obama. How is this possible? We've been told by those whose interest it is to sell newspaper, radio, and television advertising space that Mr. Obama was surging in both Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina. Today we're told that Mrs. Clinton suddenly has a commanding lead in Iowa polling.
Likewise, we've been hearing for the past month or so that Mike Huckabee has been surging in Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida, and California.
Given the motives of those whose prerogative it is to gin up interest in these campaigns, I'm beginning to suspect the validity of these story lines.
How many readers, listeners, or viewers would they have lost had the storyline all along been that Hillary was still inevitable and the Mitt would unquestionably win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan? BORING!!!
We will all know one week from tomorrow who won the Iowa caucuses and by how much. The proof is always in the pudding. I fully expect both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney to win their respective Iowa races by rather convincing margins. The only thing interesting will be on the Republican side and who came in second and third place and by what margin did Mr. Romney win his caucus? Beyond that, it'll be zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
What Happens Next?
Expect Mr. Romney to win decisively in New Hampshire (despite McCain's reported surge in polling), Michigan, and with that momentum, quite possibly South Carolina and even Florida.
However, after Iowa and New Hampshire, which Republican candidates stay in the race and which get out will have a dramatic impact on the primaries that follow. I would expect Fred Thompson to get out of the race after poor showings in both Iowa & New Hampshire. But you never know. Maybe he's holding out for a miracle in South Carolina. After Michigan and South Carolina, it's probable Thompson and possibly Huckabee and McCain will be gone too. That leaves Mitt and Rudy. To whom will Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain's supporters go?
Since Mitt can write a check to buy this nomination and there are reports of fund-raising struggles for all the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul), I'd give the edge of winning this nomination to Mr. Romney. Unfortunately, this also means the Clintons will be occupying the White House for at least 4 more years. There simply is no way Mitt Romney will beat Clinton, Inc., next November. But at least you'll feel good about nominating the unelectable.
dm
By the way, I trust your Christmas was fabulous. At least I hope it was. Mine was great.
Now, moving onward and upward...
CNN is reporting the latest polling out of Iowa shows Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 point percentage lead over Barack Obama. How is this possible? We've been told by those whose interest it is to sell newspaper, radio, and television advertising space that Mr. Obama was surging in both Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina. Today we're told that Mrs. Clinton suddenly has a commanding lead in Iowa polling.
Likewise, we've been hearing for the past month or so that Mike Huckabee has been surging in Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida, and California.
Given the motives of those whose prerogative it is to gin up interest in these campaigns, I'm beginning to suspect the validity of these story lines.
How many readers, listeners, or viewers would they have lost had the storyline all along been that Hillary was still inevitable and the Mitt would unquestionably win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan? BORING!!!
We will all know one week from tomorrow who won the Iowa caucuses and by how much. The proof is always in the pudding. I fully expect both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney to win their respective Iowa races by rather convincing margins. The only thing interesting will be on the Republican side and who came in second and third place and by what margin did Mr. Romney win his caucus? Beyond that, it'll be zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
What Happens Next?
Expect Mr. Romney to win decisively in New Hampshire (despite McCain's reported surge in polling), Michigan, and with that momentum, quite possibly South Carolina and even Florida.
However, after Iowa and New Hampshire, which Republican candidates stay in the race and which get out will have a dramatic impact on the primaries that follow. I would expect Fred Thompson to get out of the race after poor showings in both Iowa & New Hampshire. But you never know. Maybe he's holding out for a miracle in South Carolina. After Michigan and South Carolina, it's probable Thompson and possibly Huckabee and McCain will be gone too. That leaves Mitt and Rudy. To whom will Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain's supporters go?
Since Mitt can write a check to buy this nomination and there are reports of fund-raising struggles for all the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul), I'd give the edge of winning this nomination to Mr. Romney. Unfortunately, this also means the Clintons will be occupying the White House for at least 4 more years. There simply is no way Mitt Romney will beat Clinton, Inc., next November. But at least you'll feel good about nominating the unelectable.
dm
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
