It looks like I overestimated one of the candidates and underestimated the other… I should have been more careful on a candidate who had such a little campaign and suddenly hit a HUGE bump. But sadly it was short lived.


If you haven’t figured it out already, I am speaking of Huckabee. Had he won in SC, then he would have probably stayed as front runner and definitely had a chance of winning Florida and the nomination. Sadly, he was running on pure adrenaline, and it completely wore out after his loss in SC. This is such a huge loss because it was a state with such a large evangelical vote. With his many years as governor I expected the campaign (after he became a frontrunner) to shift to a message about being more experienced and about the economy and similar social issues. Sadly he continued to play in his home court, moral issues, which he would have won no matter what. I think this was dumb, but who am I to say…


I would just about call Huckabee out of the race now. His chances of winning Florida are very slim, and after losing Florida he has little chance of winning the nomination. He would still play well in many states (especially evangelical ones), but he wouldn’t have much of a winning strategy, only a doing well strategy. Thompson ought to just drop out and endorse McCain. He has no chance of winning…


Giuliani still has put all his chips on Florida, but he’s not exactly winning it. And with the boost McCain will get from SC, I think he has the best chance of winning. And if Giuliani loses Florida, he might as well drop out also. He has no future without that win.


Lastly, Romney, to my chagrin, has done better then expected. Although you may not be able to purchase a win from the more popular early states like Iowa, NH, and SC. Clearly you can buy such states as Wyoming, Nevada, and Michigan. Although I still don’t expect him to win the nomination, I expect he’ll get 2nd or 3rd in Florida and then do surprisingly well on Super Tuesday thanks to the endless amount of money he can spread across all the states remaining no matter how badly he performs previously. I definitely see him as the runner up to McCain for the future.


As for McCain, he is the frontrunner and has the momentum to win it all. I expect he’ll win Florida and from there use that momentum to carry himself to the national convention. After all of these years, it looks like he might REALLY do it this time around!

By the way, my title rhymes…

Recently it looked to me like the Republican nomination was virtually sown up – as long as nobody messed up in an incredible way. Huckabee has made incredible gains and as usual if he wins the early states he most likely wins the nomination. But after looking more closely at the polls, I’m not as sure anymore…

Huckabee definitely seems to have Iowa sown up: the Times/Bloomberg poll (12/20/07) puts Huckabee in first with 36% to 2nd place Romney at 28%. And clearly if he wins Iowa, he’ll get a boost in all the other states as well as the momentum.

New Hampshire currently is with Romney with the same pollster (12/20/07) putting Romney at 34%, Huckabee at 12%, and McCain is at 20%.

South Carolina according to SurveyUSA (12/17/07) has Huckabee at 28%, Romney at 18% and McCain at 16%.
Lastly Michigan is currently Romney’s, although Huckabee has made such a large surge and is so close that after winning Iowa and South Carolina he’ll probably take Michigan. Nevada currently is in Giuliani’s court, but once again, as Huckabee wins, Huckabee could possibly take Nevada as well. Finally Florida, California, and New York (obviously) are all currently with Giuliani as well. New York will probably stay with Giuliani, but Huckabee has also surged in Florida and California, and he could possibly take both of these as well.

Currently the only possible Republican winners are Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain (in order of likelihood). Huckabee is on the right track – He is making huge gains and has a good plan to win most of the early states. If he continues this way, he should definitely win.

Giuliani doesn’t have a chance in the earliest states. His only hope is that a clear winner isn’t found after the dust of the early state voting and that he thus wins Florida, NY, and Cali giving him momentum to barely win the primary. This is a very risky move and usually doesn’t end well historically for those who try. With our electoral process, the earliest states are very important, and ignoring them like Giuliani has done almost never works. But we’ll see what happens, he could get lucky!

I’m not sure what Romney’s plan is…? He’s obviously hoping to win New Hampshire and gain some momentum, but I think his only current plan is to win NH and see what happens in the aftermath. Although he’s still doing alright, he’s doing very badly electoral math wise overall and I don’t see much hope for his campaign at the moment…

Finally, McCain’s entire campaign is hinged on his winning New Hampshire, which he hopes to do when Huckabee wins Iowa and Romney takes a big hit. This is definitely a possibility. Still, even after winning NH, he would also have to do a wait and see like Romney before knowing exactly what the next step is. So he is holding onto strings as well.

Thus my conclusion is still that Huckabee will win, but every other candidate has 1 decent plan that they believe will make them win. Some of them are better then others, but I don’t know if its completely sown up yet. We’ll see what happens after Iowa… I can’t wait!

(CNN) – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney promised New Hampshire voters on the trail Monday that he and his family would not “embarrass” them if he were elected president.

“I am going to make sure when in the White House that we don’t do anything to embarrass the American people,” he told Granite State voters at a campaign stop at Windham Junction General Store in Windham, New Hampshire.

Romney was responding to a question about what he would do as president to strengthen and bolster the American family.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How is that not embarrassing the American people an answer to how someone will strengthen and bolster the American family. It makes more sense on strengthening American mind you (versus the “american family” which I don’t see how it makes ANY sense. But not embarrassing the American people should in my opinion be a given rather then something that actually needs to be said… 

Great job Mitt! You definitely are reaching for the skies!

WASHINGTON (CNN) - GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will make a much anticipated speech on his Mormon faith this week.

As for the decision-making process, Madden says that “Governor Romney personally made the decision to deliver this speech sometime last week.”

A senior Romney Campaign official tells CNN the speech has been on the table for some time and that there were lots of pros and cons to giving such an address. The official says that Romney believed that the speech was important and that once he “became comfortable with the construct of the speech” he gave the go ahead.
____________________________________________________

A while ago Romney said that faith was personal and that he wasn’t going to go into details about his Mormon faith… So what happened??? Polls! Romney is losing traction! So either he can talk about his faith and perhaps gain back traction, OR he can not talk about and lose! What does he have to lose by talking? (besides yet another flip-flop)

My question is whether he will distance himself from the Mormon faith. A long time ago when he was higher on the polls he said such a things is impossible. But as a man blowing in the wind of public opinion, I think it very likely that his Mormonism will be HUGELY downplayed in this upcoming speech! Can’t wait to hear it Mitt…

I’ve got to say I was pretty disappointed with this debate. I didn’t expect much, but still this particular debate was pretty ridiculous overall. It started out with a dumb scuffle over illegal immigration between Giuliani and Romney, and it didn’t get much better. All of the leading Republicans did awful -
Giuliani and Romney were booed multiple times and rarely answered any of the questions. I think Giuliani’s best moment was at the end when he said why he supported the Red Sox for the World Series! Thompson and McCain were as lively as the Democratic party in Texas (although thanks to this debate its probably growing), not to mention they said umm a lot and didn’t give very detailed or profound answers to anything. Here is the list of Republicans – starting from best to worst performances in this debate.

1) Mike Huckabee – Great job! Too bad you only got questions about morality and not about political issues…
2) Ron Paul – Spoke well for the most part, but you need to work on how you talk about abortion.
3) Duncan Hunter – Please never give another lecture about how one should use a gun!
4) John McCain – Trying talking as if you haven’t been doing this for your entire life. And make your answers a little more fact and a little less opinion.
5) Rudy Giuliani – Answer the freaking questions and don’t get into stupid girl fights at the podium. Stop attacking candidates and actually say something about the issues!
6) Tom Tancredo – You said just little enough to not get in big trouble…
7) Fred Thompson – Try talking as if you haven’t been doing this for your entire life – since you haven’t anyways. Also don’t say umm so much. Answer the questions with confidence and sincerity, rather then the present “I don’t know much about that issue” and “I’ll choose whatever everyone thinks I should choose”.
8 ) Mitt Romney – You sounded completely unconvincing and pretty ridiculous throughout the entire debate. Multiply booed. Although you shouldn’t have gone toe to toe with Giuliani and it made you both look bad, he still left as the victor. And you rarely answered peoples questions! Stop speaking as a politician and start acting like a leader!

In the end, I would say that Mike Huckabee and possibly Ron Paul are the only people who came out even semi victorious from this debate. And everyone else hopefully left with their tails in-between their legs….

This is a clip of Romney and Giuliani talking about farm subsidies. The question is good, and although I agree making such a blanket statement as “all farm subsidies are bad” is quite dumb and incorrect. Still neither candidate came anywhere near to truly answering this question. Instead they said:

1. I’m for farmers

2. I’m for tax payers

3. I’m for renewable energy

In more words then I can count… I used to think politicians talked like this because they thought Americans were dumb or because they just thought it was the best way to get elected. Now I think its gotten to the point where its the previous 2 reasons AND that the politicians have been talking like this for so long that they no longer KNOW HOW to truly answer questions in a logical and factual manner… 

Recently Obama said, “There were times when I got into drinking, experimenting with drugs. There was a stretch of time where I did not really apply myself… It’s not something I’m proud of,” Obama said. “It was a mistake as a young man.” (CNN)

Governor Romney answers with “I agree with the sentiment that nobody’s perfect and most of us, if not all of us, in our youthful years have engaged in various indiscretions we wouldn’t want to have paraded in the front of a newspaper,” Romney said. “On the other hand if we’re running for president, I think it’s important for us not to go into details about the weaknesses and our own failings as young people for the concern that we open kids thinking that it’s ok for them.” (CNN)

Because God forbid we be open and honest about our past and make kids feel like they aren’t alone and that adults have NO IDEA what they’re going through! Although I somewhat understand Romney’s sentiment, as long as we precondition the statement with a simple “it was wrong”, then I think there is only a possibility for good! We SHOULD be honest about our weaknesses and past, and we should say it was wrong and I’ve learned from it and I want to help you before you make the same mistakes…

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney disputed a report Tuesday that he categorically ruled out appointing a Muslim to a Cabinet position.

Mansoor Ijaz, an American born businessman of Islamic faith, writes in the Christian Science Monitor that at a recent campaign event Romney said assigning a Muslim to his Cabinet would not be “justified” based on their percentage of the population.

Romney said “The people who would be part of my cabinet is something that I really haven’t given a lot of thought to at this point, but I don’t have boxes I check off as to their ethnicity…instead I would choose people based upon their merits and their capabilities,” he added. (CNN)

__________________________________________________________

Why this subject has been brought up, I’m not sure. But there are 2 things Romney said that I find odd.

First, who assigns cabinet positions based on population percentages. I see that he corrects himself later, but how many flip-flops and/or deceptions must you make before you just say it as it is? Besides, we all know that there is no way Romney would have a Muslim cabinet member; it just sounds bad when you say it matter of factly… Although I could really say this about any Republican nominee and probably Democratic nominee as well. It sounds bad, but it looks even worse if you do it… Although I’ll be the first to say that is wrong; if he is loyal to this country and the best qualified, by all means hire him!

Second, if you’re running for President you should have an idea of who your cabinet will be. Thats almost like running without any idea of who would be your running mate! And the reason he probably doesn’t know is because he hasn’t been in politics long enough to figure out who is best!

Talking about the Gay Marriage amendment, Romney’s spokesman says “Mitt does not support it…As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.”

But in 2007 Romney said, “When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision.” Now he opposes not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions, and no longer supports domestic partnership benefits or even the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (3)! To his credit though, I must say that in 2003 he did not want the legalization of gay marriage, although he was still FAR more left and pro gay rights then he suddenly is now…

Romney went from a man saying during both his Senate and Gubernatorial run that he would be a better advocate for gay rights then his Democratic opponents (including Ted Kennedy!), to now being as basically as far from gay rights as a politician could possibly be (4). I don’t know who should be more mad, Democrats or Republicans…

Back in 2002, Governor Romney opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage because it also prohibited domestic partnerships (5). But suddenly once again, Romney changes just in time! I mean come on, wouldn’t you do the same thing? Who would want to run as a Republican for President with that kind of gay marriage policy…?

1. Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 3/22/02
2. Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07
3. Phillips, Frank. “Romney’s stance on civil unions draws fire”, LifesiteNews, February 23, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
4. “The Right Man” New York Magazine. Retrieved June 21, 2007.
5. Don’t dismiss Romney, gay Republicans say Bay Windows Laura Kiritsy, October 24, 2002

In 1994, Mitt Romney said, “I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. We will not force our beliefs on others. And you will not see me wavering on that.”(1) Not wavering huh? Although he does not personally support abortion (nor do any other candidates including democrats btw), he firmly sets a pro-choice ideology. This is back during his run against Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts. Years later he seems to soften his position on abortion, but stays firmly pro-choice. During his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts he says, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard”(2)Suddenly the Republican Presidential elections are coming up, and don’t you know it that someone has just jumped on the pro-life bandwagon? Who would have guessed?

Going from someone who endorsed the legalization of RU-486, an abortion-inducing drug (3), he is now firmly against abortion and says he would even work to over-turn the Roe V. Wade decision. His comments on his change of heart are as follows: “At one point, the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days…it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality” (4). Well gosh Mitt, I don’t know what you thought abortion was beforehand!

Here is the deal: Romney is a) an opportunist flip-flop, or b) an idiot because he did not know what abortion was. I think I’m gonna go with A. Although I’m glad Romney had a “change of heart”, his reasoning for it is VERY shallow. Rather then citing new science or a greater philosophical understanding, I’m still not convinced he even understands the abortion debate! He uses ridiculous emotional feelings to mask his policy change, saying that he was changed while getting the facts on abortion procedure and citing a vague stance on the sanctity of life. He says nothing about a fetus being a person or anything to show any true understanding. His reasoning for being pro-choice is bad, and his reasoning for being pro-life is bad too!

His current stance includes the belief that each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the “one size fits all” precedent of Roe v. Wade (5). This is just more proof that Romney knows nothing about this issue! First off, the idea of a “one size fits all”policy is if such a policy changes state-by-state, abortion is a scientific and moral issue, it does NOT change according to state. Second, due to the Full Faith & Credit Clause in the Constitution, such state abortion laws would be absolutely MEANINGLESS and symbolic at best! All you would have to do is take a quick vacation up to NY, get an abortion, and then come home. His inability to have a real/intelligent opinion is STAGGERING!

This post is not to say anything about the abortion argument, although I will get to that eventually, but to question the motives of this Presidential candidate. He was cited all the way back in 1994 by Senator Kennedy as being a flip-flop, and it has only gotten worse; as we will continue to see in further posts…

1. CivilLiberty.about.com
2. Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02
3. Boston Globe review of 1994 campaign issues Mar 21, 2002
4. Chicago Tribune
5. Associated Press on NewsMax.com Jul 27, 2005