Only time will tell if the religious right: a) realized it was being pandered to and b) will reject Romney because it was being pandered to. Perhaps they like that they were pandered to and figure it would last at least through his first term if he won. Perhaps they'd rather gather up behind Huckabee anyway. I do not agree with Wren that he hit this out of the park. I think he did well with what he had to work with and did a good job of targeting the audience he needed (even if he really pissed of others who probably wouldn't have supported him anyway). Will he make up any ground? I doubt it. I still think that Huckabee's rise is Mitt's fall. I don't think there is anything he can do. Huckabee is a nut, more so than Mitt, but he is more genuine and as charismatic. As an added bonus he might be easier to beat in the general election (time will tell on that too).

The meteoric rise of Huckabee virtually out of nowhere, given that his campaign is not as well organized as Romney's is and that he has only a fraction of the money Romney's campaign has, can only mean one thing.

Republican voters were not happy with Romney, Guliani, McCain or Thompson, and were looking for someone else on their own. The someone they found is Huckabee. Good luck to Guliani, McCain, Romney, and the others fighting against such a "ground swell" of support. Ground swells often become tidal waves.

The next issue of Newsweek will have a story on Huckabee. It goes into the Evangelical "ground swell" I mentioned above.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215

They really out to change the name of the Republican Party to the "Right Wing Religious Party." It has indeed become that. :

TruthHurts wrote:

The meteoric rise of Huckabee virtually out of nowhere, given that his campaign is not as well organized as Romney's is and that he has only a fraction of the money Romney's campaign has, can only mean one thing.

Republican voters were not happy with Romney, Guliani, McCain or Thompson, and were looking for someone else on their own. The someone they found is Huckabee. Good luck to Guliani, McCain, Romney, and the others fighting against such a "ground swell" of support. Ground swells often become tidal waves.

The next issue of Newsweek will have a story on Huckabee. It goes into the Evangelical "ground swell" I mentioned above.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215

They really out to change the name of the Republican Party to the "Right Wing Religious Party." It has indeed become that. :


If Giuliani's team is good he can give Huckabee a run. He's the only one who can and it is because he is different. Paul could be that guy but probably won't be. He just doesn't appeal to normal people and there are a lot of normal people (I call them blisstonians).

Wren wrote:

GrackMarginal wrote:

I thought Romney's speech was a good example of what a presidential candidate in America is required say.

If he had specifically recognized the rights of atheists et. al., he would have eroded the effect of the speech on his target audience.

This speech didn't expressly address the rights of atheists under the Constitution at all. It's a bit of an overreaction to conclude that their exclusion means that every American should choose a church. It was only one speech, for heaven's sake.

At any rate, the rights of atheists are well established in law, and no president is going to have much effect on the matter. Romney can spout about nativity scenes, but the courts, thankfully, are going to keep ordering them off government property anyway.

Having said all that, I will renew my prediction from many months ago. Romney will be the GOP nominee by virtue of elimination.


And I told you that you were crazy back then. Crazy is as crazy does, huh? GM, you may very well be right. And I will tell you why. MR had to hit a home run yesterday, just as Kirk Gibson had to hit a HR in the 1989 world series. It was the only thing that Mitt could do to save the day. And he hit it out of the park.


1988 World Series . . . Dodgers fan here.

Romney's speech was more like a sacrifice fly that scores a run when you're down by three.

dadofone wrote:

Wren wrote:

GrackMarginal wrote:

I thought Romney's speech was a good example of what a presidential candidate in America is required say.

If he had specifically recognized the rights of atheists et. al., he would have eroded the effect of the speech on his target audience.

This speech didn't expressly address the rights of atheists under the Constitution at all. It's a bit of an overreaction to conclude that their exclusion means that every American should choose a church. It was only one speech, for heaven's sake.

At any rate, the rights of atheists are well established in law, and no president is going to have much effect on the matter. Romney can spout about nativity scenes, but the courts, thankfully, are going to keep ordering them off government property anyway.

Having said all that, I will renew my prediction from many months ago. Romney will be the GOP nominee by virtue of elimination.


And I told you that you were crazy back then. Crazy is as crazy does, huh? GM, you may very well be right. And I will tell you why. MR had to hit a home run yesterday, just as Kirk Gibson had to hit a HR in the 1989 world series. It was the only thing that Mitt could do to save the day. And he hit it out of the park.


1988 World Series . . . Dodgers fan here.

Romney's speech was more like a sacrifice fly that scores a run when you're down by three.


You are right about the year (1988) and dead wrong about Romney. Next week will show MR's upswing in the polls.

Wren wrote:

dadofone wrote:

Wren wrote:

GrackMarginal wrote:

I thought Romney's speech was a good example of what a presidential candidate in America is required say.

If he had specifically recognized the rights of atheists et. al., he would have eroded the effect of the speech on his target audience.

This speech didn't expressly address the rights of atheists under the Constitution at all. It's a bit of an overreaction to conclude that their exclusion means that every American should choose a church. It was only one speech, for heaven's sake.

At any rate, the rights of atheists are well established in law, and no president is going to have much effect on the matter. Romney can spout about nativity scenes, but the courts, thankfully, are going to keep ordering them off government property anyway.

Having said all that, I will renew my prediction from many months ago. Romney will be the GOP nominee by virtue of elimination.


And I told you that you were crazy back then. Crazy is as crazy does, huh? GM, you may very well be right. And I will tell you why. MR had to hit a home run yesterday, just as Kirk Gibson had to hit a HR in the 1989 world series. It was the only thing that Mitt could do to save the day. And he hit it out of the park.


1988 World Series . . . Dodgers fan here.

Romney's speech was more like a sacrifice fly that scores a run when you're down by three.


You are right about the year (1988) and dead wrong about Romney. Next week will show MR's upswing in the polls.


We shall see; somehow, I doubt it. Rasmussen's daily tracking shows a one point "upswing" yesterday and nothing more today.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

There's also the recent Newsweek poll showing Huckabee with a 39/17 lead over Romney in Iowa. This poll was concluded on the day of Romney's speech and offers some interesting analysis about the evangelical base:

Questions about religion"in particular skepticism about Romney's Mormonism"appeared to play a role in the latest results on the GOP side. The survey was completed on the day of the former Massachusetts governor's much-heralded speech in College Station, Texas, addressing his religion, though most respondents probably had not heard it. Still, only a small number of the 540 Republican voters surveyed in Iowa (10 percent) said they wanted to hear more from Romney about that issue, and close to half (46 percent) said at least some Iowa Republican voters will not consider supporting Romney because of his Mormon faith. More than a quarter (27 percent) said they don't consider Mormons to be Christians, and one in six (16 percent) said they are less likely to support Romney because he is a Mormon.

Huckabee's religious credibility, by the same token, appears to be a key factor behind his surge. Huckabee has opened up a huge lead among evangelicals, who are likely to make up about 40 percent of GOP caucus-goers on Jan. 3, the survey found. Among all Republican voters who identify themselves as evangelicals, 47 percent support Huckabee while only 14 percent back Romney. Among nonevangelicals, the two candidates are dead even at 24 percent apiece. Even so, a majority of Republican voters indicated that other issues, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, health care and Iraq, are more important than religion.

I really wasn't impressed with Romney's speech and I'm not aware of too many people who were, other than Mormons, you and a couple of stupid, supposedly "lifelong Democrats" who read the Trib.