??????? Campaign Closet is what I am going to call those references out in the public domain that GOP presidential candidates would just as soon not see hit the light of day and be able to hide somewhere.
In my view, it is better that Republicans vet their own candidates in this primary so as not to nominate someone whom the Democrats will surprise general election voters with revelations about – as happened in 2000, when the George W. Bush DUI story leaked by Democrats on the weekend before the election gave the popular vote and nearly the Electoral College to Al Gore.
It was reported last week by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Governor Mitt Romney, at a private fund-raiser of his,?introduced conservative Republican activist Ralph Reed to the audience as Gary Bauer, realized the error but could not properly identify Reed.
Just more evidence it seems, however innocuous, that Governor Romney is not as in tune to the conservative movement as he claims. A bona fide conservative simply does not make that mistake, I don’t care how many events the candidate has done or how tired they are.
It is also interesting to note that Mayor Rudy Giuliani supporters had been confident that Reed would be supporting their guy. Of course,?despite attendance at?the Romney event, perhaps Reed’s 2008 support is still an open question after the Governor’s gaffe.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
As someone coming up on 50, I think a bona fide conservative could easily make that mistake.
Even taking the ginko, it’s very easy to make these kind of mistakes, and then in the fear the real name isn’t coming.
Now, if he had called him “Arnold”, I’d be worried.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Rob (in #1), I am not buying – and would not have posted this article on the front page if I was.
Maybe someone briefly mistakes Ralph Reed for Gary Bauer. Maybe. But to be unable to recall Ralph Reed’s name is telling, in addition, I think.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Republius, we will have to agree to disagree about your claim that this “mistake” may have hurt Mitt’s conservative reputation. First, he recognized this Reed to be an important man from the conservative movement, even if he could not pinpoint his name correctly. Second, he admitted this mistake, and he “approached Reed and apologized for misremembering him” after the event. This is a mark of a humble man.
And, finally, I expect him to make some mistakes in recognizing the major players, because he really is relatively new to political world, especially on the national level. There ARE a lot of national players. Up until early last year, he spent every ounce of his energy and effort into making the Massachuette government better. He started to reach out on national level only since early last year.
I do not know about you, but I have served in a state council for over 6 years. It has taken me more than 2 years to get my feet really wet before I am comfortable with the what and who of the political system here. Even now, I am still learning more about the inner work of our government. That is only at the state level, and a small state at that! National arena is much bigger, with much more players.
I do not question how Mitt is a newcomer to Washington. And he will have a long road to learn, but what he have learned, he learned well and fast!
By the way, this is one of several reasons why I am strongly advocating that Mitt have on his ticket one of the national players, rather than a state player, like Fred Thompson! So, Go! Mitt and Fred, Go!
May 24th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Well Republius,
Ralph Reed disagrees with you. He completely understands that when you work 18 hours and meet 1000s of new people, sometimes you get tired and forget. Maybe that’s because he isn’t incredibly biased towards Fred Thompson like you obviously are.
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/e7d5bc9d-206b-4c5d-aeb9-2e61ec050f70
< Dskinner, if you want to reply substantively to the article, that is encouraged. What will not be tolerated as discovered are name calling with respect to contributors and other posters or expletive- and slur-laden references to candidates (perjorative references to candidates as public figures will be allowed to some degree as a matter of partisanship and preference) – all of which will be struck down, as has been done here. REPUBLIUS>
May 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Dskinner, I want to stand up in defense of Republius. I think he is correct in pointing out that Mitt IS not tight with many of conversative movements. I definitely think this is something we all should be aware of.
I do intend to watch how he try to build his relationships with many of those movements. I am impressed with how he has developed the relationships with Heritage Foundation and a couple of other pro-life organizations. But that is because he had some time with them in developing some state-level policies. I hope he would continue on this trend.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Dskinner (in #4), I am admittedly biased – I cannot support Giuliani, McCain, or Romney – and have repeatedly said so. I am encouraging Gingrich and Fred Thompson to get in the race, and don’t think any of the lower tier candidates will rise to the level of heavyweight. And I have commented on the weaknesses of FDT (a lack of executive experience) and Newt (personal baggage and an arguably failed speakership), but have not referenced reports of such because they don’t really exist given that they are unannounced candidates.
I have promised to post on the weaknesses of all the GOP candidates as a matter of vetting, and have done so. When public reports of Gingrich and Fred Thompson weaknesses come out, I will relay them. I don’t think you will be able to find any of significance to date that I have missed.
As to Ralph Reed’s response to the Romney gaffe, I am sure he is being polite. It would be interesting to ask Reed if any other Republican presidential candidate has ever mistaken him for another conservative and been unable to remember his name. It would be interesting for you to ask yourself if any other Republican presidential candidate in this cycle could have possibly made that mistake absent severe illness or sleep deprivation.
I admire the passion of the Romney supporters but think this is just one more example of them whistling past the voting booth. I do not think (see SGS in #3) that this is a huge hit for Romney. But I do think he is in danger of death by a thousand cuts. These things add up and reflect that he is not nearly the Republican or conservative he claims to be. They tear at the fabric of his political credibility, inch by inch, in my view. We’ll see.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
As I said, it is fine to report stories like this, but the way Republius has commented on it is obviously biased. Instead of copy and pasting the “vet every candidate” line, Republius should be honest and say I am going to post all the negative stories I can find about all of our candidates, except for Fred Thompson. Lines like the following are anything but fair.
“Just more evidence it seems, however innocuous, that Governor Romney is not as in tune to the conservative movement as he claims. A bona fide conservative simply does not make that mistake, I don’t care how many events the candidate has done or how tired they are.”
< Dskinner, Once again, references that call contributors or posters names will be struck down, as they have here. This site is about 2008 presidential campaigns, not contributors or posters. REPUBLIUS>
May 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
republius mostly bashes Rudy, so im glad to see some pieces on other candidates. But I am confused about one thing. is he saying that Reed’s presence automatically meant that he was switching to Romney?? Also, I always thought Reed WAS supporting Rudy.
If someone like me, a conservative with moderate social views knows Reed very well, its truly amazing that Romney doesnt. Ralph Reed has been a voice for years and years.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
KT (in #8), what I am saying is that if Ralph Reed was formally supporting Mayor Giuliani as of now, as a lot of people surmised would be the case eventually, he would not have been attending a Romney fund-raiser in Atlanta last week.
I agree with you, which is the thrust of posting the article, that it borders on amazing for a Republican presidential candidate to be unable to identify Ralph Reed or to mix him up with Gary Bauer.
This is admittedly harsh, but there is just a creeping, ever-so-slight but significant, phoniness attaching to Romney, it seems to me. But I am admittedly not a Romney supporter, though I have said that his background as an executive is phenomenal and it is his lack of GOP bona fides and consistency that turn me off.
After George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and recent Republican congresses, it is of highest priority for me that the GOP presidential nominee in 2008 be a consistent and principled conservative who would govern as they campaigned.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I am a conservative, and I do not know of Ralph Reed. But then, the radio world is out of my reach…
May 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
What I worry about with Romney (as well as Rudy) is that each will face so much negative advertising by January that neither will be able to unify Republicans (which is vital in a bad year like 2008).
Either one could dispel the negative advertising with the right moves. Rudy could stop campaigning on social issues with John Kerry rhetoric. Romney could loosen up and show some non-scripted emotion and engage in straight talk.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
SGS (in #10), new conservatives are welcome. But Romney is claiming to be an long-standing one…and hunter.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Who is Ralph Reed supporting? If Ralph Reed is supporting Romney, then this is not an issue.
What is Ralph Reed doing at a private Romney fundraiser if Ralph thinks Romney is no conservative? I can’t see how one can claim that Romney is a phoney conservative if he has Ralph Reed attending private fundraisers.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Meh…
At least he isn’t claiming that 10,000 people died in the Kansas tornadoes (Obama gaffe from a few weeks back).
If people think Romney’s candidacy will die of a thousand cuts, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the other 9,990 some odd other ones.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
BarkTwiggs (in #14), the fact that Romney has been unable to claim the conservative mantle to date when the only other significant competition has been moderate to liberal Giuliani and McCain, which is causing Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson to have an opening on the right and get in the race, is undoubtedly worth a few hundred cuts on the way to death by a thousand for Mitt.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
There is NO WAY that I could support Romney now. This is as bad, or WORSE, than Giuliani being pro-choice or McCain being open borders. True, as a lifelong conservative myself, I have no idea what Ralph Reed looks like and only a vage recollection of Gary Bauer’s appearance. But if I were running for office, getting that straight would be my FIRST priority.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Why oh why on earth would any of you guys, or your candidates want to be associated with Ralph Reed?
I mean, hello people. Do you understand one of the big reasons you are a minority party today?
Reed is a thoroughly corrupt hack who has done much damage to your party, and to the movement he used to head. Rejected by his own party in the Lt. Gov. primary.
If Mitt screwed up his name on purpose, I think it would have been a brilliant slap-down move, establishing distance between himself and the sewer aspects of your party.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
When was the last Ralph Reed did anything of significance since he left the Christian Coalition?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
he ran for office last year (and lost)
May 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
..if you consider that significant.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
republius thanks for speaking to me, um, claryfing..haha. I understand you now,,, you are looking for Ronald Reagan. I would be too, but he is nowhere to be found, unfortunately.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
What a GOD that man has turned into.. itd absolutely amazing.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Republius (#12), BEING a conservative person (life-long or not) is entirely different than being INVOLVED with the conservative movement. Using your argument, I am not considered as a conservative because I have not been involved with Habitat for Humanity or like, regardless of many contributions I have made for the poor; nor I am considered conservative on family issues because I did not go to the Million Family March or like, regardless of how I have talked with my friends about the importance of the families. You are claiming that my lifestyle cannot influence my claim on being conservative, only that I must be involved with a movement in some visible way. This I cannot accept.
So, why cannot Mitt claim he is a lifetime conservative based on his personal accomplishments, his values he learned growing up, his contributions to community and many others. True, Mitt has not been involved in any national (and any state, for this matter) conservative movement, but it does not make irrevelant his claim to being conservative.
I did not, either, and I know I am conservative because of my personal contributions.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I think it is another example of how OUT OF TOUCH Romney is…period.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
KT (in #21), I am pleased to speak with you and all the posters and contributors on this site, even if we often heatedly disagree, as long as we can keep it civil. And I have transgressed in this area along with just about everyone else because we are all passionate about this stuff. But we need to keep our cools because this race is going to get a lot more heated. And I hope we can all coalesce behind a GOP nominee.
Yeah, you are right… I am looking for the next Ronald Reagan – I disagree with those that say the Reagan coalition cannot be re-constituted, I disagree with those say that the priorities need to be different from Reagan’s, and so I still think he should be the model even though there won’t be another like him. I want a consistent conservative who can communicate well and is principled, humble, and down-to-earth. We’ll see.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Excellent post SGS (#28). I’m not quite sure Republius understand’s how difficult it is to learn the “secret conservative handshakes” in states as blue as Mass and Michigan. Unless you’re an extremely engaged person, you’re going to simply be out of the overall conservative loop in such places.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
SGS (in #23), I agree that being conservative can mean one is not involved that much in the conservative movement. I just think there is mounting evidence that Romney not only was not involved in the conservative movement until very recently (when he decided to run for president) but also was not a conservative until recently, though he claims otherwise.
So the question is whether the conversion I assume occurred out of principle or political expediency. And the twists and turns and gaffes of Romney make me wonder as to the answer.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I am 41, considered moderately successful and intelligent, and I have momentarily gone blank on associates I’ve known for years. I’d say this was a non-issue for Romney, but that would be giving it too much respect.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Tano (in #17 and others), Ralph Reed is one of the sharpest political minds in the Republican Party, and has been consistently since his work with Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. I would not expect you to appreciate that as a Democrat.
Yes, Reed now has some baggage and taint due to the Jack Abramoff scandal. But if I am a GOP presidential candidate in 2008 I want Reed advising me behind the scenes and on my team in an informal capacity even if he cannot be a public face for the campaign due to his recent issues.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Plain and simple: it makes Romney look really foolish. Ralph Reed is and always has been a significant figure, AND leader in the conservative movement. Rudy Giuliani even campaigned for him many times last year. The problem is, Romney was too busy running for governor as a liberal. I really pray for this country if Romney were ever to be elected. Not as hard as if Hillary were, but then again, I’d leave the country for sure.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Matt (in #26), I am from a blue state and the GOP congressmen I worked for all represented districts that were barely Republican-leaning. So I do think I know a little bit about what you speak of.
But Ronald Reagan was a conservative from a blue state and ran successfully for president when the country was largely blue. Yet, he ran on his conservative principles under very blue circumstances and won – repeatedly.
I don’t buy your implication that it is okay for Romney to run as a moderate to liberal so that he can win in Massachusetts and then run as a conservative now that he is free to do so as a presidential candidate. That does not seem principled to me, nor does it assure me that if he wins the office he will govern as a conservative. And that is why I do not support him.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
econ,
In 2004, according to CNN’s exit polls, 70% of those who voted for John Kerry said their vote was mostly against Bush than for Kerry.
Amongst Republicans, 78% have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton, while only 15% think of her favorably.
By contrast, Rudy Giuliani’s ‘unfavorable’ amongst Democrats is just 46 percent, while a somewhat respectable 37% view him favorably.
Do you realize just how many Republicans who are no fan of Rudy will turn out on Election Day to do whatever is necessary to make sure Hillary and Bill do not return to the White House for a third and fourth term, only because he is, in their eyes, clearly “the lesser of two evils”?
As for Ralph Reed, here are two pertinent items of note:
Ralph Reed: “I just want to say I believe Rudy Giuliani is one of the finest leaders in not only the Republican Party but in either party.”
From Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder of The Hotline:
Which candidate was Reed heard talking up at the National Review Institute? Not Romney. It was ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, according to a person who discussed the presidential race directly with Reed.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Republius, please enlighten us on some of the “mounting” evidences, beyond those: abortion, he already confessed on it; guns, we cannot dis-prove that he did not hunt some squirrals all his life, and he did work with NRA (not as liberated some of us probably would like, but his records shows he recognized the rights to bear arms – he got a B!); finances, still waiting for a report from Club for Growth, but so far, he is as conservative as he can be in so liberal a state; defense, he led the first effort for the security of Olympics after 9/11, and he has served in one capability or other on the homeland security the whole time he was a governor. Did I leave anything other “evidences” we have “argued” on the past posts?
Regarding Reagen (#21 and #25), we do need someone who could bring three cons together, and Mitt is more capable to do so than Rudy and McCain. Fred may be able to do more, and I am hoping that he could. Newt? Is he the man who could bring all of conservatives together? I am not so sure. So, really, we are down to Mitt and Fred on most likely candidates to bring us all together.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
His fiscal rating from Cato was just average, but there was one that had him higher as well. Jason would remember it.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
When seeing this article I was struggling to recall Ralph Reed. So I did a quick search of the internet and found Ralph E. Reed, Jr. on the free encyclopedia. From his 1983 plagiarism and election-rigging to his 2006 association with Jack Abramoff and the Indian lobbying scandal, Ralph Reed kept to his word, ” I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag.” -Ralph Reed (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, November 9, 1991). If Mitt Romney could not identify Ralph Reed in a lineup, that is just fine with me. I give Mitt Romney some points for apologizing to a possibly embarrassed Mr. Reed.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I fully respect you SGS for supporting Romney. My feeling is that the country will continue to lose its moral, social, cultural and patriotic fabric under him. He is a MANAGER he is not a LEADER. I want a president with heart and soul: Rudy
May 24th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Adding to what KT says in #30, it makes Romney look phony, I think. A real Republican insider (as a presidential candidate should be) knows the players inside and out and doesn’t mix them up or fail to be able to recall their names.
I remember infiltrating a Governor Gray Davis event in California where he spoke and completely butchered the name of the Reverend Cecil Murray of the First AME Church of Los Angeles, a very prominent local black and Democrat leader in southern California, in addition to the name of California city. I said to myself at the time, this guy Davis is a slick politician who does not really know the players in his own party or even the state and is a big phony. And I think he subsequent administration proved the allegation to be true.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Republius,
Reagan’s a perfect example. He’d constantly talk about feeling as though National Review was a lifeline of sorts, that helped connect his conservative instinctys to tangible movement ideas and figures. Ronald Reagan was very much disconnected from the conservastive movement until he began moving in conservative circles, outside of California. I.e, when he began running for president. Thus his at times appalling liberal actions as Governor of California. Reagan simply had the advantage of failing the first few times he ran for president, thus giving him time tobecome a true movement conservative in every way that phrase entails. It’s absurd to blame Romney, while failing to acknowledge Reagan was extremely similar.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Norm:
Goot point. What’s surprising is that no one (Republius?) has yet written on how the ethics-challenged GOP Congressmen (the Abramoff, Jerry Lewis crowd) have mostly endorsed Romney. Very bad.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
republius: I lived in Cali while Gray Davis was governor…what a waste he was…. here is a little bit of political trivia for y’all, incase you didn’t know:
At the time he was governor, California’s two top (except for Feinstein) politicians were born and raised in New York City: Gray Davis (The Bronx) and Barbara Boxer (Brooklyn).
Being a native New Yorker, I do NOT say that with any kind of pride…lol
May 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
SGS, in all fairness, Cato has always been skeptical of Romney as a fiscal conservative, so they might just have an axe to grind.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Jerry Lewis? as in Dean Martin???
May 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Goodness gracious, SGS (in #33), I guess you got me – Romney has “only” flipped on abortion, gays, guns, and immigration, as well as falsely portraying himself as a long-standing gun enthusiast and conservative. Surely I am being too hard on the guy.
If he is going to flip on those kind of big issues then where does he truly stand ideologically? And if he is falsely portraying his past then how can he be trusted with our future?
I am not willing to risk another George W. Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger who campaign one way and govern another. Mitt is too measured for me.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
RACE42008 POLITICAL TRIVIA #1
Did you know? That during Gray Davis’ term as gov of Cali, that state’s two top (except for Feinstein) politicians were native New Yorkers? Gary Davis grew up in the Bronx, and Barbara Boxer grew up in Brooklyn. having said that, being a native New Yorker, I do NOT take any pride in it…… lol
May 24th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
oh…and DONT EVEN TRY IT! Remember, Rudy is the republican savior of new York!
May 24th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
David B (in #39), I think I have written, if only meagerly, on this.
First, I think endorsements and guilt by association don’t work. As Ronald Reagan said – they are supporting me, I am not supporting them. So I would not normally reference endorsements for or against a candidate.
Second, I advocate the 2008 GOP candidates distance themselves from President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress and call for a new GOP approach to theirs. I would not have President Bush or members of Congress speak at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul. So there is rarely reason for me to reference those folks on this site, which makes the choice of a presidential nominee all the more important.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Republius: We agree.
However, I think it says SOMETHING most of the corrupt GOPers are lining up behind Romney. When it goes beyond an individual or two and becomes a phenomenon, you have to ask why THEY are attracted to Romney.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Also, guilt by association is very powerful when it comes to the voters. Look at Foley and the GOP.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I am 41, considered moderately successful and intelligent, and I have momentarily gone blank on associates I’ve known for years. I’d say this was a non-issue for Romney, but that would be giving it too much respect.
You’re a liar, plain and simple. Granted, I’ve also sometimes been unable to bring to mind the names of people at work that I know very well, but then again as a Romney supporter I am obviously a LIBERAL. True CONSERVATIVS do not forget names. TOTAL PERFECT RECALL is part of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Who are we talking about, fellas? If we’re going to have to hear your inept slurs, we might as well hear thm in detail.
Please provide a list of (1) “corrupt GOPers,” (2) provide the criteria for which the list was derived and (3) show which candidates each of the corrupt GOPers is supporting.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
David B,
I am also a Rudy supporter, like you. The only thing I would say is to use caution when criticizing a candidate for associations with shady people. I think they are ALL somewhat guilty by associations of sorts.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Even if this story had been John McCain or Ron Paul who had made this goof instead of Romney, I would be saying the same thing: What is the big deal? I just don’t see it. This morning, I was trying to tell my husband that I had changed my profile at the blogging site I get paid to blog at, and I could not for the life of me remember the word “profile.” I just couldn’t. About ten minutes later, I finally remembered it and hollered, “Profile! The word is profile!” I felt stupid because it is a simple word, I have known it all my life, and my brain just froze up and would not produce it.
Another story: I am very good friends with a gal at church – we walk together three times a week for an hour, we have worked together long-term on many different projects, I watch her children while she does stuff…She’s the closest friend I have outside of my family. Just last week in church, I could not remember Bonnie’s name worth my life. “Uhh…Uhh…” Nothing. Complete and utter blank. I have been very good, close friends with her for four years!!!!!!! It’s akin to me forgetting my sister’s name or something. Sheesh.
And no, I’m not getting Alzheimer’s.
I’m only 26, and I hope a long ways off from complete mental breakdown. 
And I do consider myself fairly intelligent. The truth is, we are humans, not robots or computers, and an occasional slip is to be expected. People are pounding Mitt because he’s too polished. He makes a mistake, and people pound him for not being conservative. Decide what you’re going to beat him over the head for, and stick with it. Is he too polished or not polished enough?
Let up already. It was a small slip, and quite frankly, I’m very surprised you wrote about it. I have to say I very strongly disagree that this means anything other than Mitt having a temporary brain freeze.
I would be saying the same thing if it were McCain or Giuliani or F. Thompson or Chuck Hagel who had done this. It is a non-story.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 24th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Nobody like my trivia post?
May 24th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
You might really be on to something David. Lord knows Romney has inumerable scandals in his past. And it’s not like he, you know, saved the Salt City Olympics from bribery and corruptiuon, without receiving a dime in compensation, donating a million of his own money to the cause. And I’m sure that, being worth hundreds of millions of dollars, he’s pretty amenable to being bought off- he sure;y doesn’t have enough money. You might want to try your hand at being an investigative journalist. While you’re at it, you might want to investigate what it says about Mayor Giuliani’s ethics that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech, and knowingly associated with a criminal (Kerik). I’ve heard some pretty flimsy attacks on Romney, but attacking him for corruption must be just about the worst one yet. Next, you’ll be suggesting he has some hidden concubines.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
OK CHANGE THE SUBJECT PLEASE. Who would who pick as a running mate?
Rudy – Sanford if endorsed by him
Rudy – Hunter if not endorsed by Sanford
Romney – Kerry (hehehe)
ok, Romney – Thompson OR Giuliani
McCain – Giuliani (yes, for real)
Thompson – Giuliani
May 24th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
KT,
Rudy isn’t going to accept a VP slot. Unless maybe from Thompson with Fred’s promise to retire after 1 term.
Giuliani-Thompson
Giuliani-Sanford
Giuliani-Barbour
I don’t see Hunter. He needs a southerner.
Thompson-Pawlenty
Thompson-Romney
May 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Rudy picks Condoleeza{war is a problem} or McCainI can’t stand him} or Fred
May 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I think Condi’s stock has gone down, being too tied to the Bush era.
He won’t pick McCain. He needs a Southerner.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Grant plz retype hard to understand (tks)
May 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
david B youre right about a southerner,,,but Barbour? he would scare the hell out of the dems and indies.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Should have been: McCain{I can’t stand him}
May 24th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Rudy will not go with Fred, because he would not have to.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I’m trying to pick people to help the ticket. Maybe I should be but I’m not worried about the South. Condy balances a Hillary{woman}/Obama[black}ticket. McCain helps with independents and would only last one term. I'd like an Hispanic--had earlier thought Alberto Gonzalez but not now. Mel Martinez[?] to help with Fla.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
How about a Giuliani?Lieberman ticket–heresy
May 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Grant – - MARTINEZ IS A HUGE POSSIBILITY. I just forgot about him. Leiberman, naa…two Yankees. I LOVE Condi, but I have to agree with DavidB she has the baggage of the Bush admin.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
By the way, gentleman, I met Martinez…he is a really cool guy
May 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Heresy–Giuliani/Bill Richardson. A centrist coalition. Many people want a centrist 3rd party. Richardson is the best Demo on economics and I wonder how strongly pro-choice he is. Lots of foreign policy experience. But we would have to keep Rudy alive.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I think Martinez is an excellent idea…Even for Mac or Romney
May 24th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Trouble is Hillary is probably smart enough to pick Richardson.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Rudy/Romney–lots of New England.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
To justify the heresies–I really, really, really, really want to win this election.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Rudy isn’t going to accept a VP slot. Unless maybe from Thompson with Fred’s promise to retire after 1 term.
Why not with McCain, on the same promise? I’d hate that ticket but I’d probably vote for it and it would play well among independents.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Because McCain is a goner.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Gosh. I agree with David. Rudy absolutely needs a southerner. And Mel Martinez is a non-starter. He has all the charisma of a paper bag. Any southerner with intelligence will do really. I agree the mentions of Barbour and Sanford. Thompson is a pretty obvious choice for anyone at the VP slot. I like Mike Pence alot, if people have realized by that time, that Rudy doesn’t actually have any foreign policy experience, and might need a legislator on the ticket. The same southerners, basically, that I’m considering for Romney. I also think Bobby Jindal, from Louisiana (soon to be Governor of Louisiana) would be an interesting wild card pick.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Oh yeah, Jindal would be great!
Rudy’s consulting business has involved working on behalf of world leaders in many countries.
Experience is what the State Dept and Defense Dept provide. I’m more concerned with a President’s MORAL CLARITY when it comes to foreign policy. Someone who’s doing to be an FDR, Truman, Churchill or Reagan, rather than a Chamberlain, Kissinger, Ford or Bush41.
Someone who’s going to scare the shit out of our enemies and pull the trigger than appropriate. Moral clarity and guts. Lack of those is what has ruined our foreign policy, and its especially ruinous when a Republican is like that.
Rudy’s kicking Arafat out of the UN 50th or returning the Saudi $10M check to the 9/11 families speaks VOLUMES about his moral clarity.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Well, David B., volume is certainly the main feature of Rudy G.’s foreign policy to date.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
?
May 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
David B,
I’m hardly suggesting that Rudy’s not qualified to be president because he lacks foreign policy experience. I support Romney, and he has precious little (though more then Giuliani, I’d argue). Merely that having someone on the ticket with foreign policy experience would be preferable.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Not to be mean, but I think Mitt Romney would have a hard time recognizing Ronald Reagan if he had to intorduce him.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Oh, yeah. Alzheimer’s and Reagan jokes are so funny.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Tommy (#41), if there is already an independent or conservative reports out on the status of the finances under Mitt’s governing, then please, I’d like to hear. I am still learning my way with the conservative think tanks here, and I am only aware of the Club for Growth. Is Calo one of those organizations?
May 24th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
SGS,
Let me look a minute for which one Jason was talking about, and then I’ll post both of them. I don’t want to be biased in only posting the average one.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
KT (#36), you want a leader who won’t “lose [the country's] moral, social, cultural and patriotic fabric”. I believe we did have a discussion about morals in one of the previous posts. We recognized what it means differently, so we will leave it alone. But, I am puzzled on your claim that Rudy could lead us socially. He so far has been pushing social-conservatives away on many social issues. As I said, I hope he would do something about it soon, and make some compromises that would embrance the social conservatives. I do not mind voting for him IF he does something like that. I am not sure what you meant by “cultural”. Finally, I agree with you on the part about how great Rudy would be on the patrotic front. But experienced one at it? What has he done beyond Jan after 9/11 when his mayoral term is over. I am still trying to learn how he has kept it up.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Tommy, thank you and please tell me a bit about Calo; is it a conservative thinking tank specialized in financial analysis?
Republius (#43), no seriously. I am anxiously to know. I really do want to know. I mean, I have heard of those I already listed, and I have studied it from both sides. Then you said there is more (“mounting”). I must have missed them because I have not heard of them beyond what I already list. Please, I do want to know. Thanks.
Just to be clear with everyone, yes, I support Mitt, but it is soft one at that. I am looking for someone who could clean our government up, rather than maintaining it. After all, I did vote for Perot twice
That is why I like Rudy, only if it was not for his stance on social issues.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
NOTE: This is not meant as an attack on Governor Romney. I’m just posting the CATO Institute’s fiscal grade on Romney as governor. If anyone knows of others that will help out here, please feel free to post them! SGS, here are the ratings I found and a quote by Jason so you get both sides:
Jason’s quote:
“The Heritage Foundation is very big on Romney’s health Care (they helped write it).”
So the Heritage Foundation gave Romney’s health care a thumbs up, and CATO, which is considered more libertarian, did not approve of the policy, and gave Romney these grades on fiscal responsibity:
Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2006
Mitt Romney (R) Massachusetts 55 C
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html
Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2004
Mitt Romney (R) Massachusetts 66 C
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa537/governorsreportcardtable.html
May 24th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I know Tommy isn’t attacking, but for the benefit of everyone else I want to point out how misleading those numbers and grades are.
Arnold got the highest grade of anyone in 2004. Romney’s score in 2004 is exactly the same as Jeb Bush’s score. Cato is supremely Libertarian and it seems that their scores are reflecting that.
In 2006 the scores are even more misleading. 55 obviously seems quite low, but that puts Romney ahead of Jeb Bush, ahead of Haley Barbour, and tied with Tim Pawlenty. Mark Sanford only got a 60 and that was governing in SC which is about 100 times more conservative than MA.
I think Cato is unreliable, but if we are going to look at those numbers then we need to look at the big picture. In the big picture Romney stacks up very well compared to other great Republican Governors, and he obtained those grades in by far the most liberal state.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Tommy, thanks!
For those who are ignorants like me, this report would give “[g]overnors who cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades.”
And wow, Huckabee received an ‘F’! I know he was bad, but not that bad!
May 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Oh, CATO gave Mitt a low mark because of the supposed long term cost of his health care program, which has not been in existance long enough to determine whether CATO or Heritage Foundation is right.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
More than happy to help. I’d look into Dskinner’s remarks too, to keep a perspective. I’ll look into it some more and see what I can come up with from other groups.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
That’s what I understood when I originally read it. CATO’s never been a big fan of his health care program.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Romney: I am not anti-gay
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_el_pr/romney_gays_1&printer=1;_ylt=AnWZL1HZ1lrCJux9_obj1xdh24cA
In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Romney elaborated on comments he made during a campaign event dubbed “Ask Mitt Anything” in which an audience member questioned whether pastors should preach that homosexuality is a sin. Romney said the government shouldn’t tell pastors what they can say.
Afterward, Romney said he would not preach the same message.
“I don’t think that a person who’s running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs is immoral or not immoral.”
“What you look for in a leader is someone who will welcome and treat with respect people who made different choices and have different beliefs in their lives and have differences. I have nothing but respect and feelings of tolerance for people with differences from myself and feel that way with regards to those who are gay.”
He noted that one of his Cabinet members was gay and that he appointed gays to positions of responsibility in his administration.
“I oppose discrimination against gay people. I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that’s not me.”
He said he is opposed to gay marriage because it’s not in the best interest of children.
He expressed less tolerance for illegal immigrants, and said he and President Bush have a difference of opinions on a bill that would provide a path toward legalization for an estimated 12 million people unlawfully in the country.
“He has his view, and other people have their views and I have my own,” Romney said. “This is for all intents and purposes a form of amnesty in that everyone who is here illegally today will be able to stay under this bill.”
“The bill is unfair to people who are trying to come to the country legally. People here illegally should be able to apply to come to the United States, but under the same terms as everyone else and behind those who have already applied.”
“I don’t think that we’re going to round up 11 or 12 or however many million people and bus them out of the country. That’s not what I’m talking about. Those who committed felonies, of course, would be deported. Those who require government assistance to stay here would surely need to get off government assistance and ultimately could not remain here on government assistance.”
May 24th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Tommy,
It’s no secret Cato is no fan of Romney. But I personally am not so concerned about grades from them, rather what the specifics are and how I interpret them.
If Cato gave an A to Romney it would be good news, but just because they didn’t does not mean he is bad fiscally, actually he is the best of the bunch, the one with the clear advantage in ability in this area.
Thanks for quoting me though, I am honored.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hey, I said up front to take it for what its worth, and not to be fooled by CATO’s bias against Romney. I was just posting it for someone who asked.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Meaning that, CATO is obviously not a fan of Romney’s plan, so they’re going to give him a bad grade, and it doesn’t mean that he was bad.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
A bit off topic, but does anyone know where and when the next debate will be?
May 24th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
June 5th, CNN, 7-9pm
http://www.anselm.edu/nhiop/news+and+events/events/repubdebate06.05.07.htm
May 24th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Sorry missed that Tommy.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
no problem
May 24th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
The next debate doesn’t include Tommy Thompson, not much of a loss there. I’m glad that Tancredo, Hunter and Paul are still there though. They raise important issues that the other candidates are ignoring.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Thanks for the info, Argo.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I agree about Thompson, econ grad student. I could do without Gilmore as well.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
SGS my whole point was, Romney is out of touch, morally, culturally, socially…etc., and not someone to inspire and bring together the people. Just my opinion…. butit is my opinion.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Quite a stretch to say mixing up a name means you are not a conservative. just wierd. bad logic.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
#103 Jon – It’s not a stretch – it’s a witch hunt. Rather than discuss the issues – demonize the candidate and if you can’t find any demons – you create them.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Well then let’s get back to issues. Quiz Questions. Which candidate belongs to these policy ideas?
IRAN – prevent Iran from gaining Nuclear weapons by engaging UN security council, Europe, and other Arab States to pressure Iran. Increase economic/financial sanctions on Iran.
Proliferation – Expand Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, lead in creating global nuclear fuel bank, international initiative to make trafficking in nuclear weapons illegal.
GWOT – become energy independent, strengthen NATO, global education initiative.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
ANSWER:
Mitt Romney (speech given April 26th at Yeshiva University)
AND
Barack Obama (speech given April 23rd at Chicago Council on Global Affairs).
May 25th, 2007 at 9:24 am
cougar- I thought you already turned in your wings.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:26 am
[...] This is funny: It was reported last week by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Governor Mitt Romney, at a private fund-raiser of his, introduced conservative Republican activist Ralph Reed to the audience as Gary Bauer, realized the error but could not properly identify Reed. [...]