Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
December 18, 2007
POLITICS: Romney's Hidden Strengths

Unfortunately, given that he's my least favorite of the GOP's Big Five, Mitt Romney does seem to have the strongest path right now to the nomination; see Patrick Ruffini, Soren Dayton and John McIntyre.

We'll know a lot more after New Hampshire on January 8. If Romney loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, he's toast. Right now, if I had to predict, I'd say he finishes a close second in Iowa and wins New Hampshire - his lead in the polls there will be awfully hard for McCain to close in a short time, especially if McCain finishes fifth or sixth in Iowa, as is likely. Ironically, McCain's best hope is for a decisive Hillary win in Iowa, since the next two primaries (NH and MI) are open to independent voters (that's how McCain won those two states in 2000) who might vote in the Democratic primary if it's still a race.

Rudy, of course, is still banking on primaries after New Hampshire, so his campaign can't be fully evaluated until Michigan at the earliest.

At this point, I'm really in the Anyone But Mitt camp. If we nominate him, we will lose.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:07 PM | Politics 2008 | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

At this point, I'm really in the Anyone But Mitt camp. If we nominate him, we will lose.

Again, if we nominate Rudy Giualini, scores of Republicans will stay home. Romney's nomination will also keep some Republicans at home, but not nearly as many as Rudy. There's only one GOP candidate whose nomination assures a Democratic victory, and it ain't Mitt.

Posted by: paul zummo at December 18, 2007 1:58 PM

I think come Election Day, GOP voters don't stay home if it is Rudy v. Clinton. Even a conservative Christian GOP voter (like me) if far more haunted by a Clinton presidency than a Rudy presidency.

The worst scenario for the GOP is Obama (or Edwards for that matter, but I can't see that happening*) v. Rudy. I don't care for Obama much, but he doesn't cause the same shudder that Madame Clinton does.

*Saw Edwards a few times over the weekend and this morning on the "Today" show. What a weasel. The man never ever answers a question directly. It is nearly comical.

Posted by: Alex at December 18, 2007 4:11 PM

Watching Rommney parade around in y'all's primaries is nearly as entertaining as when Pat Robertson did it in 1988. Robertson is clearly more unhinged then Rommney and obviously less of a viable candidate but you have to think that the extremely weird parts of Mormonism will be more and more part of the landscape for Rommney the farther he goes along making the Robertson clown fest look relatively tame by comparison. That will be must see TV.

Posted by: jim at December 18, 2007 4:30 PM

Alex said:

"Even a conservative Christian GOP voter (like me) if far more haunted by a Clinton presidency than a Rudy presidency."

1. If you're a Christian Alex, why are you in favor of the candidate(s) who want to elongate the war? Why do you belong to the party that still thinks the war is winnable? Wasn't Jesus anti-war...?

2. Your above statement is a bold one, based upon your staunch Christian views. But when faced with a guy who had oral sex in the White House versus a cross-dresser, I think you're making the right decision...

Posted by: crystal at December 18, 2007 4:59 PM

Crank:

Do you think there is ANY way that Huckabee could win in the general election? I don't think he can really win the nomination, Iowa or no. But he will get destroyed in the general election.

Posted by: Joel B at December 18, 2007 5:37 PM

Believe me, I'm no Huckabee fan. I thought a few weeks ago that he might stand a chance in a general election - he's a great debater, maybe the best I have seen in the multi-candidate format. He plays well on the stump.

That said, we've seen a lot of not-ready-for-prime-time from Huck lately. And he hasn't been vetted thoroughly yet at all.

Posted by: The Crank at December 18, 2007 5:41 PM

I'm not a Clinton fan.The best thing I can say about her is that,apart from Ron Paul,she is the best of the Republican candidates.But,from a conservative Christian standpoint,how can one be "far more haunted" by a Clinton presidency than a Giuliani presidency?
They both have somewhat liberal views on the hot button issues that Republicans have used to exploit their AmericanTaliban base for the past 35 years,such as embryonic stem cell research,abortion,evolution(as well as gravity and a heliocentric solar system),and gay rights(which in Giuliani's case includes marching in gay pride parades and bunking with a (male) gay couple-ewwww).He also seems to take as much enjoyment dressing in women's clothes as Mrs.Clinton.
As far as we all know,it is Bill,not Hillary,who is the serial adulterer,as is Rudy Giuliani(who,reportedly,was banging his mistress in the same house as his minor children-ewwww(this ewwww is for real,by the way.)).Despite her husband's unfaithfulness,it's Mrs.Clinton who appears to be honoring her marriage vows,unlike the thrice married Giuliani.Hillary also seems to embrace parenthood somewhat more enthusiastically than Rudy as well.You can't help but conclude she gets a considerably higher score on the family-o-meter.
She also appears to be a more regular church attendee than Giuliani,for what that's worth.
If it's an important enough part of your life that you are compelled to write you're a "conservative Christian" like it's supposed to tell us something about the values important to you,it would seem to me that your conscience and your faith would not allow you to vote for either.Otherwise,just be honest and admit you're a goddam hypocrite when it comes to voting-you'd think of a reason to not vote for Jesus if he ran as a Democrat.

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at December 18, 2007 6:54 PM

It's all about results. Hillary would aggressively pursue the liberal agenda on social issues, and would appoint judges who would do the same. Rudy would be constrained from doing much politically and would appoint much more conservative judges who would likely return more power to the states on social issues.

It's a no-brainer, really.

Posted by: The Crank at December 18, 2007 6:57 PM

As long as we're clear that in the life he leads Giuliani falls somewhat short of Hillary Clinton in those "conservative Christian" values that are so important to voters like Alex.I guess you guys are only bullshitting when you tell me moral relativism is for secular leftists like myself.
But maybe I just need to get back to The Book-I probably missed the part in Leviticus where God told Moses it's cool to fuck your mistress with your kids upstairs.

It's hypocrisy,really.

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at December 18, 2007 9:02 PM

Romney owns a lake house in New Hampshire and was governor of that state's neighbor to the South. In Iowa, Romney spent almost $1,000 for every vote he received in last summer's straw poll -- and has not let up on spending in that state since. If he can't close the deal in those two states he is, like Crank said, toast.

If I had my druthers it would be Biden v. Rudy -- and we'd finally have a presidential election for grown ups.

Rudy’s best chance is for Huckabee to derail Mitt in Iowa – so all you Rudy supporters better start cheering for Gomer Pyle.

And I must admit, the GOP primary is a lot more interesting. The Barack v. Hillary race could not be more nauseating -- each of them has obnoxious amounts of money and really nothing to say.

Posted by: Patrick at December 18, 2007 9:09 PM

Crank spake:

"It's all about results. Hillary would aggressively pursue the liberal agenda on social issues, and would appoint judges who would do the same."

So it's anathema for a judge to have a liberal bent, and perhaps pursue a "liberal agenda", but it's OK for a judge to have a conservative bent and pursue a "conservative agenda"? I'm confused...

Why be coy, Crank? If a judge makes a decision you're against (Liberal), he/she's an "activist judge", but if they do what you want (Conservative), then they're "strict Constitutionalists"? I get it now...

Hypocrite...

Posted by: crystal at December 18, 2007 11:24 PM

Biden,one of the grown-ups who bears responsibility for the Iraq debacle,and Giuliani,whose foreign policy discourse consists of "9/11!Terrorism!" do seem to have appeal to the deep thinking adults for whom the jump from A to B seems a challenging hurdle.

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at December 19, 2007 9:36 AM

I think Crank adequately explained why a Clinton presidency is more haunting than a Rudy one. The former is more haunting because of Clinton's political agenda and beliefs. It has much less to do with their respective individual values, or lack thereof. I wasn't at all saying that Rudy is a "better person" than Mrs. Clinton. But I strongly believe he'd be a better President.

As for all these accusations of hypocisy, I really don't have the time to defend myself against those who make generalizations about me based on a short paragraph I have written.

And I don't Christ was or is strictly "anti-war."

Posted by: Alex at December 19, 2007 10:11 AM

A strict constructionist judge does not pursue a conservative agenda. Rather, a strict constructionist interprets the constitution or statute as written. If a judge was going to pursue a conservative agenda, he or she could say something like the Constitution protects the life of the unborn, thus abortion is illegal. That would be pursuing a conservative agenda. A strict constructionist, however, would say the Constitution doesn't address abortion, thus it is up to the state legislature, not the courts, to determine whether abortion is legal. That simply puts the power to decide social issues, like abortion, gay marriage, etc., into the hands of elected representatives, as the Constitution requires. If you think strict construction always leads to a conservative result, read Scalia's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence or this takings jurisprudence.

Posted by: wd at December 19, 2007 11:38 AM

Clearly,Alex, many Christians have shared your perception of the 'Prince of Peace' considering all the killing that's been done in his name for two millennium.
On the issues that rally the conservative Christians,as well as foreign policy,as well as their corporatist sympathies,Giuliani and Clinton are virtually indistinguishable.It's fine that you choose to overlook the fact he's a scumbag because of the judges he may or may not appoint,just stop the goddam preaching about the importance of character,because it clearly isn't that fucking important to those of you with 'conservative Christian'compasses to point you in the right direction(unless,of course,we're talking about the political right).

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at December 20, 2007 8:09 AM

Where or when or what did I preach?

If I vote for Rudy or Clinton, I'm not overlooking the fact that both of them are "scumbags". It's something I consider. It might ultimately dictate my vote, and it might not. I have time to think on that and figure it out. But in this election, the issues matter a lot--and they are not virtually indistinguishable on the issues that truly matter. If I have to choose between the two of them, I'll have to choose a "scumbag", and I'll vote for Rudy.

My whole point was to disagree with the very first comment--that scores of Republicans won't stay home if Rudy is nominated and ends up squared against Mrs. Clinton. I'm not a Rudy guy and I don't approve of a lot of what he has done as a person. But the motivation to keep a liberal like Hillary Clinton out of the White House far outweights my disapproval of Rudy's personal life, especially when Mrs. Clinton does not appear to be very noble either.

Posted by: Alex at December 20, 2007 8:31 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg