I like having Iowa first, it didn’t, of course, benefit Mitt this time, but it sets a good tone for the campaign, it keeps values relevant, and it ensures that we don’t become the party of Manhattan or San Francisco values.
Romney got the low card in 2008, for sure, but it wasn’t Iowa that doomed him. If you ask me, it was history. The GOP always picks the next in line, which, now that you mention it, should help Mitt in four years.
“Maybe he should skip it, like McCain did and make it irrelevant.”
I don’t like that precedent. I don’t want a liberal state deciding the nominee. I don’t always agree with Iowa, but the fact that it is the first state is a good thing.
If Romney runs, Romney will do fine in Iowa in 2012, or late 2011 whenever it is going to be.
I still dont see it as a foregone conclusion he will run. If the environment is right for his type of leadership then he will be in and that same environment will make him 1 or 2 in IA.
the environment will be a soured economy, an electorate fed up with Democratic agenda and arrogance in forcing their agenda on middle america, and a need for correcting oversteps by the dems.
if the last few days( of Dem dictatorship and class rhetoric) are any indication then yes he will be running and yes I believe he will be winning
I think at this point of the potentials; Huck, Sarah, Mitt, Romney is the best.
Of the up and comers I like Sanford and Jindal more than anyone else. but both are too new to make a serious run in 2012. would love to see one of those two picked as VP though.
I’m a Mormon who lives in Iowa … after cooling down (I think it was march sometime) i finally sat down with one of my republican friends from work and asked her about how she felt about Huckabee speaking at her large protestant church as a ‘guest pastor’ in the weeks before the election.
Doesn’t that kind of bother you, i asked?
No, she said, because I’m sure Mormon leaders worked hard for Romney.
Actually, I said, I’m pretty sure Mormon leaders said nothing about the election, other than that people should vote.
Oh, that really worries me, she said. I mean, how can you know someone’s a good person if their church leader doesn’t endorse them?
#2, you’re kidding yourself if you think Iowa didn’t doom him. If Huck doesn’t win Iowa, Mitt rolls into NH on a wave of enthusiasm and press, and wins easily. South Carolina would have presented a challenge, but he wins vs. Huck everywhere but the South if McCain is gone.
I think its more important WHY they didn’t vote for him than whether they didn’t. It doesn’t bother me that Mitt didn’t win New York, or Oregon, for instance.
In ’12 Romney will win Iowa easily if Palin and Huckaby both run. They will split the ’08 Huckabee support. I bet the Romney supporters will mostly remain with him.
Yes, the closest people to a candidate should support them.
However, if the closest people to that candidate happen to be the leader of a tax-exempt organization that is forbidden from endorsing candidates or parties i expect them to keep their mouth shut.
The only people who found the Mormon church’s actions strange are the people who have a habit of disregarding the law.
“However, if the closest people to that candidate happen to be the leader of a tax-exempt organization that is forbidden from endorsing candidates or parties”
A policy that its probably time to do away with anyway – I don’t like the idea of silencing the free speech of churches. I know the whole “church and state” thing, but why should the most influential social institutions be allowed to discuss the most important issues facing the country.
“Also, why should Mormon leaders in Iowa endorse a Mormon from Massachusetts? Just because he is a Mormon? ”
I think it has more to do with the theory that the best representative of the principles of a group should be one of its members. At least in theory, A Mormon should be the best representative of Mormon values and principles.
No, Matthew, don’t assume like so many others on here that we LDS folks support Romney because he is Mormon. Not the Massachusetts ones, not the Georgia ones, not the California ones, and not the Illinois or Michigans ones. We like Romney for what he stands for and his extreme qualifications, experience, success, and intelligence, as well as his values. If he were not LDS and were exactly the same person, the vast majority of us would still want him.
I remember when Orin Hatch ran. I was actually living in Iowa at the time. I looked at him and thought, “He has no business running for President.” A typical Senator.
Lucky for him, he quickly realized that he was not going anywhere fast, so he dropped out shortly afterward. Saved him from further embarrassment.
Okay, I just listened to this interview and I have to say the obvious: Palin cannot – no how, no way ever come close to Romney in being able to articulate the conservative message. (Neither can Huck, for that matter.) You can ask Romney any question and he will sail right through it, giving the best possible answer. Every time. He is virtually unflappable. And utterly prepared on every issue.
Palin, well, you know. I can’t fathom that some people actually believe she is better able to carry the conservative/republican torch. It just baffles the mind.
Someone needs to sponser a collective intervention for Paliniitis. These people need our love and support.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how Palin goes about competing with Romney. She has it in her, that’s for sure. Romney will be the gentleman he always is, but make no mistake, he will play to win.
I’m going to get a tickle watching Huck go after the princess. What’s the “one of us” crowd to do?
So, is that the only thing this interview illustrates to you?
Do you think Sarah will have a hard time competing with Romney in the debate/interview category?
Unfortunately, both Sarah and Ann R. have cankles, so let’s stop with the compliments-omg your wives must be Janet Reno, if you think Sarah is anything but an old frump.
#51, McCain sounded like Porky the Pig, and Sarah just stares blankly when asked tough questions. Imagine if the roles were reversed and it was Mitt with the book deal and Cavuto asking Sarah what she thought, there would be dead air for 2 minutes.
marK – well I was kidding with you, but really how long ago was the book published? I’m not under any illusions that Huck intends to quit snarking at Romney.
Adam Graham, You entirely miss the point about Romney, as usual.
The point isn’t that this interview was amazing. It’s that the HUNDREDS of Romney interviews are all excellent, every last one. He’s nothing if not impressive, consistent and dependable. He understands and answer every question (unlike Palin), and every answer is grounded in depth of knowledge, intellect, and graciousness. Yet, he’s not afraid to attack when necessary. Even then he does it with honesty and class.
Contrast that with Palin. (I know it’s painful, but we’ve got to.) She hid from the press for weeks, and when she did brave them, she rarely answered a direct question. She even had the nerve to announce during the debate that she intended NOT to answer any question she didn’t feel like answering. (Let a male candidate try to get away with that one!)
She used divisive rhetoric all the time. Her answers were mostly fluff like “put government back on the sides of the people of this great nation, also!” (She used that line alot along with “Drill baby drill!” and “I’m a maverick!”
Adam, surely you see the difference, and what it will mean in a general election.
GREAT INTERVIEW! I loved Mitt’s answers. I really hope he can bring his wisdom to the race, and help republicans in 2010 as well. If Mitt was smart, he would start running key-hole ads now on issues…..not as a candidate, but as a “citizen”. I think we need a voice for conservative principles….all he has to do is claim it AND live up to the committment to be that voice. Great job Mitt!
Romney’s more articulate than Palin, but so what? You could say the same thing about sanford, Jindal, Pawlenty, etc.
Romney’s a smart guy, but he has little charisma or appeal among the conservative base. His liberal record in Massachusetts just won’t fly with Republican voters. He’s not going anywhere in 2012.
Flip, check the stats in each of the individual primary states. Mitt was consistently first in almost all of them among self identified conservative to very conservative voters. He does well among mid to upper class and college educated people. He gets a good deal of support among religious people despite claims otherwise and among women.
Check the stats. The numbers don’t lie. If the primaries were closed Mitt would have been our nominee.
Romney would have run an entirely different campaign. I think he would have had a fair shot. When the economy started to melt, he would have been a more credible leader than Obama or McCain.
Iowa? Where is Iowa? Is that a country? Do they have trees there?
Why is Iowa relevant? I fly over Iowa and would never miss it. (although I think some of my family lived there once upon a time back in the 1800′s. But that’s another story for another day.)
I wonder how many people here who opposed Sen McCain’s original “Gang of 14″ will oppose this “Gang of (how many?),” now that the shoe is on the other foot. Pragmatism and compromise back then may well save us a lot of money now, seeing as the GOP is basically powerless to stop anything right now,
January 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I hate Iowans.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“I hate Iowans.”
I like having Iowa first, it didn’t, of course, benefit Mitt this time, but it sets a good tone for the campaign, it keeps values relevant, and it ensures that we don’t become the party of Manhattan or San Francisco values.
Romney got the low card in 2008, for sure, but it wasn’t Iowa that doomed him. If you ask me, it was history. The GOP always picks the next in line, which, now that you mention it, should help Mitt in four years.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Yup. Couldn’t agree more. I hope Iowa gets it right for 2012.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I don’t think anyone believes Romney will win Iowa in 2012. He may even do worse the second time around.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Romney can win next time without Iowa. Maybe he should skip it, like McCain did and make it irrelevant.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“Maybe he should skip it, like McCain did and make it irrelevant.”
I don’t like that precedent. I don’t want a liberal state deciding the nominee. I don’t always agree with Iowa, but the fact that it is the first state is a good thing.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
If Romney runs, Romney will do fine in Iowa in 2012, or late 2011 whenever it is going to be.
I still dont see it as a foregone conclusion he will run. If the environment is right for his type of leadership then he will be in and that same environment will make him 1 or 2 in IA.
the environment will be a soured economy, an electorate fed up with Democratic agenda and arrogance in forcing their agenda on middle america, and a need for correcting oversteps by the dems.
if the last few days( of Dem dictatorship and class rhetoric) are any indication then yes he will be running and yes I believe he will be winning
January 29th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Every second-place finisher runs the next time around. Only Buchanan didn’t follow that rule, and he ran, just not as a Republican.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“I hate Iowans” -this issue is easily solved. Romney can simply place a cross in all his ads next time. They fall for it every time.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
good point MK.
I think at this point of the potentials; Huck, Sarah, Mitt, Romney is the best.
Of the up and comers I like Sanford and Jindal more than anyone else. but both are too new to make a serious run in 2012. would love to see one of those two picked as VP though.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Iowa should be ban in 2012. Those stupid people should be “the others” from Lost, there’s nothing good that come from that state.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
falz-
not liking the corn huh?
January 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I’m a Mormon who lives in Iowa … after cooling down (I think it was march sometime) i finally sat down with one of my republican friends from work and asked her about how she felt about Huckabee speaking at her large protestant church as a ‘guest pastor’ in the weeks before the election.
Doesn’t that kind of bother you, i asked?
No, she said, because I’m sure Mormon leaders worked hard for Romney.
Actually, I said, I’m pretty sure Mormon leaders said nothing about the election, other than that people should vote.
Oh, that really worries me, she said. I mean, how can you know someone’s a good person if their church leader doesn’t endorse them?
That was the end of the conversation.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
#2, you’re kidding yourself if you think Iowa didn’t doom him. If Huck doesn’t win Iowa, Mitt rolls into NH on a wave of enthusiasm and press, and wins easily. South Carolina would have presented a challenge, but he wins vs. Huck everywhere but the South if McCain is gone.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
The problem with Iowa is that pandering to them has led to the ethanol nonsense.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Lots of Obama-like arrogance here. One’s faith in States and the country hinges on whether or not they elect your candidate of choice. Pathetic.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
#13 “Oh, that really worries me, she said. I mean, how can you know someone’s a good person if their church leader doesn’t endorse them?”
Priceless…
January 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I think its more important WHY they didn’t vote for him than whether they didn’t. It doesn’t bother me that Mitt didn’t win New York, or Oregon, for instance.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
In ’12 Romney will win Iowa easily if Palin and Huckaby both run. They will split the ’08 Huckabee support. I bet the Romney supporters will mostly remain with him.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I can understand that view though. If the people closest to you don’t support, why should anyone else?
Of course, we all understand why the Mormon church didn’t endorse Romney, but I can understand why some found that strange.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
20
Yes, the closest people to a candidate should support them.
However, if the closest people to that candidate happen to be the leader of a tax-exempt organization that is forbidden from endorsing candidates or parties i expect them to keep their mouth shut.
The only people who found the Mormon church’s actions strange are the people who have a habit of disregarding the law.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
It just goes to show that if you are determined not to like someone, you will always come up with a reason.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Also, why should Mormon leaders in Iowa endorse a Mormon from Massachusetts? Just because he is a Mormon?
That’s just what we need, more identity politics. Thank-you ever so much, Mike Huckabee.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“However, if the closest people to that candidate happen to be the leader of a tax-exempt organization that is forbidden from endorsing candidates or parties”
A policy that its probably time to do away with anyway – I don’t like the idea of silencing the free speech of churches. I know the whole “church and state” thing, but why should the most influential social institutions be allowed to discuss the most important issues facing the country.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“Also, why should Mormon leaders in Iowa endorse a Mormon from Massachusetts? Just because he is a Mormon? ”
I think it has more to do with the theory that the best representative of the principles of a group should be one of its members. At least in theory, A Mormon should be the best representative of Mormon values and principles.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Chip Saltsman Withdraws From RNC Chairman’s Race
Next GOP chair? It’s anybody’s guess
January 29th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
No, Matthew, don’t assume like so many others on here that we LDS folks support Romney because he is Mormon. Not the Massachusetts ones, not the Georgia ones, not the California ones, and not the Illinois or Michigans ones. We like Romney for what he stands for and his extreme qualifications, experience, success, and intelligence, as well as his values. If he were not LDS and were exactly the same person, the vast majority of us would still want him.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Blago was unanimously impeached.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
NO, ILG, I understand that, I was simply offering an opinion as to why people would expect Mormons to support Mormons.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Or the Washington state ones.
I like Romney the person, not Romney the Mormon.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Wow! The vote was unanimous. Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch.
Actually to be exact, he was impeached with only one dissenting vote. He was convicted and removed from office by a unanimous vote.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Young Republicans Want More Open Party, Prefer Steele
Young Republican RNC Survey Results
January 29th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I remember when Orin Hatch ran. I was actually living in Iowa at the time. I looked at him and thought, “He has no business running for President.” A typical Senator.
Lucky for him, he quickly realized that he was not going anywhere fast, so he dropped out shortly afterward. Saved him from further embarrassment.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
marK – I remember thinking the exact same thing. Hatch is a nice guy and all, but he’s not presidential material.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Okay, I just listened to this interview and I have to say the obvious: Palin cannot – no how, no way ever come close to Romney in being able to articulate the conservative message. (Neither can Huck, for that matter.) You can ask Romney any question and he will sail right through it, giving the best possible answer. Every time. He is virtually unflappable. And utterly prepared on every issue.
Palin, well, you know. I can’t fathom that some people actually believe she is better able to carry the conservative/republican torch. It just baffles the mind.
Someone needs to sponser a collective intervention for Paliniitis. These people need our love and support.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Actually, I think Hatch was presidential material, in that he would have been a good one, but I don’t think he was close to electable.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I haven’t seen Romney in swimming trunks or anything, but I’m betting Sarah has much, much better legs ALSO!!!
January 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Illinoisguy, Hatch is a good and honorable man. I didn’t mean my comment to be negative in any way. I’ve always admired him.
Did you see I changed my name? The other day someone said it, and I thought it sounded good, so what the heck.
So, here’s some ammunition for Kristofer!
January 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I think this illustrates how hard it’s going to be to get any answer out of any potential 2012 presidential candidate about any of the other.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
#37
That might be true, but does she have hair on her chest?
January 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Yes, it will be interesting to see how Palin goes about competing with Romney. She has it in her, that’s for sure. Romney will be the gentleman he always is, but make no mistake, he will play to win.
I’m going to get a tickle watching Huck go after the princess. What’s the “one of us” crowd to do?
January 29th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
BJWitts – there’s cream for that, I hear.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Oh I think someone might be able to pry a few opinions out of Mike Huckabee, if they can only find a way to crack that shell. Ha.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Adam Graham,
So, is that the only thing this interview illustrates to you?
Do you think Sarah will have a hard time competing with Romney in the debate/interview category?
January 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
That was in reference to 39.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Romney, always classy.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Orrin Hatch – the worst Mormon on the planet.
Oh, wait, I forgot about Harry Reid. Well, it’s a close race.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Unfortunately, both Sarah and Ann R. have cankles, so let’s stop with the compliments-omg your wives must be Janet Reno, if you think Sarah is anything but an old frump.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
#43:
Oh, I don’t know. I’ve notice that his fondness for unprovoked attacks on fellow Republicans has diminished as of late.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
marK – do you mean in the last 2 weeks?
January 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Romney stutters when he talks.
Did you notice the look that Cavuto gives Romney the whole time he is listening to him?
January 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Martha,
I didn’t say it had disappeared entirely, only diminished.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
#51, McCain sounded like Porky the Pig, and Sarah just stares blankly when asked tough questions. Imagine if the roles were reversed and it was Mitt with the book deal and Cavuto asking Sarah what she thought, there would be dead air for 2 minutes.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
marK – well I was kidding with you, but really how long ago was the book published? I’m not under any illusions that Huck intends to quit snarking at Romney.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I get nervous every time Palin opens her mouth, and I’m not looking forward to the campaign. Cringe indeed.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
#44:
Martha, it wasn’t that amazing of an interview. It was a fine interview, but I wouldn’t cringing in my boots watching it if I’m Sarah Palin.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Mitt Romney is the epitome of class.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Adam Graham, You entirely miss the point about Romney, as usual.
The point isn’t that this interview was amazing. It’s that the HUNDREDS of Romney interviews are all excellent, every last one. He’s nothing if not impressive, consistent and dependable. He understands and answer every question (unlike Palin), and every answer is grounded in depth of knowledge, intellect, and graciousness. Yet, he’s not afraid to attack when necessary. Even then he does it with honesty and class.
Contrast that with Palin. (I know it’s painful, but we’ve got to.) She hid from the press for weeks, and when she did brave them, she rarely answered a direct question. She even had the nerve to announce during the debate that she intended NOT to answer any question she didn’t feel like answering. (Let a male candidate try to get away with that one!)
She used divisive rhetoric all the time. Her answers were mostly fluff like “put government back on the sides of the people of this great nation, also!” (She used that line alot along with “Drill baby drill!” and “I’m a maverick!”
Adam, surely you see the difference, and what it will mean in a general election.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:04 am
GREAT INTERVIEW! I loved Mitt’s answers. I really hope he can bring his wisdom to the race, and help republicans in 2010 as well. If Mitt was smart, he would start running key-hole ads now on issues…..not as a candidate, but as a “citizen”. I think we need a voice for conservative principles….all he has to do is claim it AND live up to the committment to be that voice. Great job Mitt!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Romney’s more articulate than Palin, but so what? You could say the same thing about sanford, Jindal, Pawlenty, etc.
Romney’s a smart guy, but he has little charisma or appeal among the conservative base. His liberal record in Massachusetts just won’t fly with Republican voters. He’s not going anywhere in 2012.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Flip, check the stats in each of the individual primary states. Mitt was consistently first in almost all of them among self identified conservative to very conservative voters. He does well among mid to upper class and college educated people. He gets a good deal of support among religious people despite claims otherwise and among women.
Check the stats. The numbers don’t lie. If the primaries were closed Mitt would have been our nominee.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:32 am
#61
If Mitt had been the one to run against Obama, Mitt probably would have lost. This was not a good year to be the Republican nominee.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:48 am
you are right Pete. Mitt being able to run again is the silver lining. I don’t think any R candidate could have won.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:56 am
#64 With the tanking economy there might have been a small shot for Mitt to have won in 2008.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:51 am
I doubt very much that Mr. Romney would have won in this political climate, but he give a good interview on Fox.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Romney would have run an entirely different campaign. I think he would have had a fair shot. When the economy started to melt, he would have been a more credible leader than Obama or McCain.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Iowa? Where is Iowa? Is that a country? Do they have trees there?
Why is Iowa relevant? I fly over Iowa and would never miss it. (although I think some of my family lived there once upon a time back in the 1800′s. But that’s another story for another day.)
January 30th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Sorry to threadjack, but I wanted to find a thread where this might be commented on:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/29/senates-gang-poised-strike-stimulus/
I wonder how many people here who opposed Sen McCain’s original “Gang of 14″ will oppose this “Gang of (how many?),” now that the shoe is on the other foot. Pragmatism and compromise back then may well save us a lot of money now, seeing as the GOP is basically powerless to stop anything right now,
January 30th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Don’t worry your head adam. Palin was not watching. She does not read newspapers, why would she watch or listen to anything other than Rush?