Depending on the state, Mitt Romney comes up next. Or Fred Thompson.
Fundraising returns indicate that the rest of the field, including the increasingly unwatchable McCain, don’t matter.
But as they say a fish goes a bit nuts from the head down. Again referncing Larison (a very good blog when he isn’t diagnosing liberals from a distance), the RNC’s ’08 convention logo would precipitate a parent-teacher meeting if a withdrawn fourth grader drew it in crayon.
Tim P.
2008 has a well known liberal bias.
Zifnab
Hey now, keep an eye on Ron Paul. $5 million this quarter, and his grassroots support is nothing to sneeze at.
Given that Romney raised $10 mil and Thompson picked up $8 mil, that’s nothing to sneeze at. Admittedly, Paul is trailing in the polls at around 3%, but I imagine that’s more due to exposure than lack of popularity. If Ron Paul hits the right demographics, its within the cards that he could explode off the launch pad in Iowa. I’d love to see Ron Paul come at Giuliani and Romney from… whatever end of the political spectrum he lives on.
Zifnab
God damnit! I need to stop using the same damn turn of phrase in the same damn post. *sigh* Where’s the edit button when you need it?
The Other Steve
McCain is going to get the nomination.
National polling is meaningless, you have to look at the bigwigs in the party and who they are supporting. The caucus goers as it were.
Romney is a no-show. Giuliani won’t win over the Rapturists. It’s going to be McCain.
McCain is like Kerry…
Bombadil
Even better Thompson link (also to Kos) here.
Why were so many Republicans clammoring for this guy to run?
Krista
/hands Zifnab a tissue.
Faux News
As for the RNC logo, the elephant should have an “x” for an eye, not a star. This would correctly denote the soon to be deceased status of the GOP.
Of course once this correction is made the Neocons will loudy insist the elephant is merely “pining for the fjords”.
Zifnab
I’m going to say that’s blind wishful thinking. But I’ve seen crazier happy, so I won’t necessarily argue except to say that it looks like Romney has a bigger nod than McCain. And don’t count out Giuliani yet. He’s certainly got the money and the appeal to make people change their minds. I have a hard time believing McCain will take the nomination if he’s got no support in the general public. It’s not like in ’00, ’96, or ’92, when people will just vote for you because you’ve got a (D) or an (R) on your button. Too many people are standing on issues.
Evinfuilt
Thats not just wishful thinking, I think thats Chris Mathews posting there. When McCain falls to just a staff of 1, Mathews will say its time for the greatest turn-around ever.
Tsulagi
Nah, you’re both wrong. Unless he starts campaigning in his Liza Minelli outfits while singing 9/11, Rudy will get it.
cleek
dead is good. but i chose a Simpsons reference.
Zifnab
GAK! Confusion!
What happened to Tim’s new thread?
Alan
The second post has gone missing.
I wanted to address this small comment by Tim F:
That’s the claim I always hear about the social cons. But their issues have not been neglected. Their issues seem to get all the attention over any other issues. As Tony Blankley stated:
Personally, I’d be glad to see the Social Cons go. Their issues, IMO, sabotage practically everything which has to do with Goldwater conservatism, like limited government.
The Other Steve
Blind you say?
McCain is the favored amongst the 60 and older crowd. Now he also is favored by those not registered to vote(i.e. not paying attention), so we’ll see. But where was John Kerry at this point in 2003? McCain is the presumed one. I think you are going to see Bush officials making it clear that they want McCain to have the nod, and the party bosses will make it so.
Republicans are very easy to predict. They prefer being told how to vote.
Romney is nowhere. He’s the favored amongst the business set, but they’re dead. Business leaders abandoned the GOP. Romney can’t win over social conservatives, bigots, racists, or bed wetters. All that the party has left.
Cyrus
Well, he’s had the second part of that since before he officially announced, so he’s halfway there already.
The part you quoted isn’t quite as nuts as the rest of that article, but I still think it’s wrong. Sure, it kinda makes sense, but only if you assume that each of those three factions of the right wing is made up of mostly well-meaning, well-informed, rational voters who just happen to have different priorities than the rest of us. To me, that doesn’t sound likely. “Fiscal conservatives received tax cuts but not spending cuts?” Yeah, they’re heartbroken. Who wants their own pork to vanish, their state’s interstate highway to go unpaved, and the local army base to be closed? Tax cuts are the side people actually care about. And “Hawk conservatives received assertive foreign policy but bad management of it and a dangerous running down of the Army?” Most hawk conservatives I see are arguing vociferously that the army is in better condition than ever, and anyone who says otherwise is liberal by definition, and the only complaint you hear from the right about the management of foreign policy is that it isn’t “assertive” enough.
They’re getting what they want, even if not quite as fast and hard. Social conservatives, on the other hand, have two appointees to the branch of government they’ve vilified for decades, some state-level constitutional amendments, and the war on the war on Christmas. They’ve got more than they should, but not nearly as much as they were promised.