- Posted by Christopher Estep on January 11, 2008
And I think it's going to be bust and here's why:
Mitt's pinning most of his hopes for winning Michigan on it being his "home state". That's a load of bullplop. Mitt may have been born here, but it's no more my "home state" than America is the "home country" for Mel Gibson. Mitt will always be identified with MA because, oh I don't know, he was governor! My daughter was born in Tallahassee and we moved a few months after. Can she say that Florida is her home state? Another daughter was born in Michigan but only lived there for 2 years. Is that her home state, too?
He also thinks that name recognition will get him elected because his dad was governor there. Let me tell you something. I grew up in Michigan and spent most of my life there (24 of 41 years). I of course knew the Romney name and even then I knew that he'd been a Mormon. I can't remember why, but I did and I was a Baptist. But that's all I knew was the name. I don't remember Governor George Romney at all. That's probably because I was only 2 when his term ended. And to be honest Romney's term as Secretary of HUD until 1972 doesn't stick in my mind.
But won't having the name help? Ask Ronna Romney, his ex-sister-in-law who tried to capitalize on her married name (though already divorced) to run for the Senate? She lost to a 1-term senator who had never held elected office.
So who does Mitt think that his name being associated with Michigan will make someone choose him? As I said, I'm 41 and I don't remember him at all. I remember Bill Milliken then Jim Blanchard, but that's it before we entered the administration of a real governor, John Engler (who remains one of my favorite politicians of all time). But Romney? His name alone doesn't do anything for me and I'm 41. But then, if Ron Reagan were running for POTUS, his name wouldn't help there either. Basically, the only people who are going to remember George Romney are senior citizens and even if every Republican senior came out for Mitt, it wouldn't be enough to balance out everyone 55 and younger who has no idea what George Romney did.
Mitt does have one thing going for him in Michigan that his father's name does help with. People do know that his dad was the head of American Motors. Having grown up in that home certainly would have given Mitt a better understanding of the automotive industry and its unique challenges that it places on the people of Michigan, both positive and negative. Michigan voters can likely be sure that CAFE standards won't go anywhere under Romney nor would the environmentalist anti-SUV crowd have any traction for a while.
Mitt's problems aren't his Mormonism. That's a red herring. Mitt's problems are that he can't be trusted. Do I believe Romney would keep his word when he says how he would govern? I actually do. That's where his Mormonism sways me. I think Romney's a very good and honorable man. But though he will live up to promises doesn't mean that he passionately embraces them.
I think Romney would make a good President, ultimately. I just don't think he's the best person for the job.
But if he loses Michigan, it's over. Romney's a very good businessman. If he loses Michigan, I hope he will save his money and drop out of the race because he's done anyway. As an aside, I thought he was merely ok in the debate last night. I got tired of hearing him laugh loudly off camera every time someone said something funny though. He meandered in positions but then again, so did McCain.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on January 8, 2008
I can't stand Paul's position and I think he's the #1 RINO in the party not simply because he's anti-war, but because he is just like Neville Chamberlain.
Even so.
Last night, Ron Paul appeared on Jay Leno because Leno invited him after Fox News (correctly, in my opinion) excluded him from the debate Sunday night.
Leno asked Paul about a number of the candidates and when Romney came up, Paul volunteered that he felt some of the reason that Romney was beginning to do poorly was because of religious bigotry and that he hated to see that be the reason Romney gets rejected.
I agree and that is an admirable stance for Paul to take. Religious liberty does not get defended enough in this country and when it's evangelicals doing the slinging (*cough* Huckabee) that seems to be easier to excuse.
No, Romney should not be defeated because of his Mormonism. He should be defeated because he has never met an audience he didn't try to emulate. We don't need a chameleon in office.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on January 4, 2008
Campaign Carl at FoxNews says:
Christian conservatives do not explain the whole Mike Huckabee win.
And technically that's true, but it's not as true as Carl Cameron thinks.
Now that Huckabee's won Iowa, the media and its pundits want to ascribe a reason to Huckabee's win to anything other than the fact that he's the Evangelical darling. It's not that there are Christian conservatives, but that there are Evangelical conservatives. There are some very specific reasons that are unique to Iowa and Romney as to why Huckabee won.
- Iowans have an inflated view of their clout. In spite of decades of varied results for candidates that won or lost in Iowa and whether or not they became president, Iowans are regularly made to believe that they "make or break" a candidate and that's simply not true. Because the media always want something to report, they naturally report the heck out of Iowa because it's the first. As a result, Iowans believe they are more important than they are. It's like when a mother tells a child that she's prettier than everyone and ultimately she realizes that she really isn't. In this case, the media is the mother and the child is Iowa.
- Iowans like to punish candidates that they feel are too negative. This is an effect of the "spoiled brat" mentality I mention above. Because they feel their role is so great, they expect people to cater to them. The candidates demonstrate their obedience and submission by not "going negative". It's the faux-utopian ideal that has no basis in reality, but since Iowa is the first and only game in town, they are indulged.
- Romney dared to say things that needed to be said, regardless of whether they played to Iowans' sensibilities or not.
- Evangelicals make up 40% of the GOP electorate. Huckabee on nearly 40% of the GOP caucus vote. Do the math.
- Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister. To many evangelicals, that's a position akin to "Deputy Jesus".
- Romney was the prominent religious conservative in Iowa until Huckabee, but Romney is a Mormon.
- Evangelicals really hate Mormons. This cannot be underemphasized. Evangelicals really, really hate Mormons. I was one of them and I'm a Mormon now. Many evangelical churches have classes and speakers devoted to running down Mormonism, calling it a cult, and generally bashing it it. That Mormons are called non-Christian is barely the tip of the iceberg. Until your church has protesters (who are almost always Evangelicals) on a regular basis, you can't really understand how deep their hatred runs. Whether an Evangelical would call it "hate" or "exposing Mormonism", the result is the same. They have a great dislike for anyone and anything related to Mormons.
- Huckabee is personable and he also has a very quick wit which makes him extremely quotable.
- Huckabee has not undergone the scrutiny that the other candidates have.
When you look at all of these together, you see begin to see how Huckabee won. It had nothing to do with his "man on the street" or "one of us". It doesn't have to do with his "populist" message because he doesn't have one. He has a message of "I'm a Christian and I want to take back America for Christ" and that is what resonated combined with the inability of candidates to point out his flaws without being "punished".
(via Fox News)
- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 13, 2007
Bill O'Reilly asked the question, "Would you waterboard someone to save American lives?" in last night's Talking Points on his broadcast. I heard that question and asked it of myself.
The answer was easy. Of course I would. But then I pondered further and decided...
I would not only waterboard someone to save lives, if that person were a Democrat, I'd do it to save my country. Heck, depending on the person, I'd waterboard him or her for a toothpick after dinner.
FOXNews.com - Would You Waterboard Someone to Save American Lives? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor