RE: "Jillack O'Clintwards" -- You're doing it wrong.

See, "Rudy McRomney" works better because each candidate only gets to be part of the name once. Your Dem neologism reuses the first and last name of each candidate, creating something that would be equivalent to "Jomittudy Giucainey," which, as you can see, also sucks.

I think you're looking for something more along the lines of Barack Clintwards. Or Hillary Edwama. Or John Obamaton.

“The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.” - Barney Frank

check out this funny story of local politics gone terribly wrong. let me know what you think. http://www.mypetpeeves.com/plog/index.php/archives/2488

I think a lot of this is name rec'. Bush was cleaning Kerry's clock in early polls, until the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. Then he was a few points ahead. Things change.

But what about Newt?

I realize Thompson is a Hollywood star, but hell, he's not even running and he's ahead of Romney in these head-to-head match-ups.

Is a minor role on a TV show all it takes to be a Hollywood star these days? The currency sure has devalued since the demise of the studio system.

No offense Tom, but no duh. I've been arguing this for about six months at this point. Giuliani's a walking disaster, McCain's a complete embarassment, and Thompson is an empty joke. Romney, meanwhile, will be able to have the most money, is the most telegenic, has the best "family values" record among the leading GOP candidates, and can easily sell himself as a religious candidate even if it's a different religion. Most importantly, we are well aware of the fact the the man can, and will, say literally anything and everything to get elected.

Not only is Romney the most likely GOP candidate he's honestly the only one I think can win. I'm only hoping the right wingers will spend the next six months wrecking him like they did McCain.

"I think you're looking for something more along the lines of Barack Clintwards. Or Hillary Edwama. Or John Obamaton."

Egads, those all suck. Here's the construction: Hillary Obamwards. And yes, I demand attribution.

Jillack O'Clintwards?

Barack Clintwards?

it should *clearly* be Hillary O'Edwards.

Gawd, the choice is between Garance and Amy Sullivan for credibility? Decisions, decisions...

Oh, wait; dog just did something on top of the car. Have to demonstrate Leadership Abilities!

If Democrats need to worry about anything, it's Thompson. Thompson's position are vague enough, and his TV star power is hot enough (though Richard's right, he's not a big star), that he could really pull a Reagan and befuddle Dems for months. Romney is much more knowable, and it's not just that the Mormon thing will damage him with evangelicals, it's that his flip-floppery will ruin him in the General. Personally, I pray for Giuliani, because that flame-out promises to be far more entertaining than the others. But we'll probably get Thompson or Romney, and the latter is doomed and the former, while I think he coud be dangerous, will have the failures f Bush to contend with and like the rest is probably doomed. I think Democrats really just need to concentrate on uniting around a good candidate (we have several, it still seems to me), and praying Bloomberg stays out. If he gets in, this whole thing becomes a real mess.

Sorry to pour cold water on this thread. But romney is the scariest repub candidate. Like it or not, he brings michigan into play - his father was a former governor here, his kids went to school here, and his family still has extensive ties here. It was no accident that he announced in Detroit, rather than Mass. You can check out his donations as well - you will see a large concentration in michigan.
If michigan goes romney, that could wipe out the gain of the dems picking up either ohio or a number of mountain west states.

Romney will say anything. The public has shown that it doesnt have much memory for old news, and the media may not bring up stories about flip flopping repubs (see somerby for much more).

Someone has to win the repub nomination. Romney wont be so easy to beat

I agree that Romney is dangerous.

Thompson may have some savior appeal for the Goopers, but the dude's still gotta run a campaign. And if you think he looks like warmed over death right now, wait'll he's a few months into the campaign.

Hillary EdBama.

Learn it, love it.

Romney's not going to make it. Mormonism isn't his only problem. I recently came across some work by E-Poll Market Research, which has done research into which candidates are seen as "trustworthy" or "aggressive" or what have you by the general public. In the "appealing" category, Romney finished far behind the other so-called major candidates in both parties, and several of the minor ones. Only Newt was seen as less appealing. Something about Romney -- can't say what, though I have a couple of hunches -- is just off-putting to a lot of people.

Just wait for primary season when Romney's record as the Governor of Massachusetts gets a bit closer scrutiny. Insiders love him because he's a fairly bright guy, but when he was in Mass., Romney was not only pro-choice but also pro-gay rights. Put all that on top of his Mormonism and he doesn't stand a chance, regardless of his organization skills.

McCain is out so it's either Rudy or the TV star.

Sorry to pour cold water on this thread. But romney is the scariest repub candidate. Like it or not, he brings michigan into play - his father was a former governor here, his kids went to school here, and his family still has extensive ties here.

Check out the polls Schaller is citing. Romney brings Alabama into play...for the Democrats. That's the clearest sign that hardcore authoritarian evangelicals simply will not vote for a Mormon. I don't think he gets around that.

“The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.” - Barney Frank

Posted by: Sam Boyd | July 18, 2007 04:38 PM
****

Wow. Positively Machiavellian. Somehow or another Wall Street will get him in there.

And, by the way, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is "America's Choir."

Ronald Reagan says.

"it's that his flip-floppery will ruin him in the General"

Shh!

I didn't hear anything.

"If michigan goes romney"

I don't see how Michigan can ever go Romney. He's a private equity robber baron.

How many voters live with dogs? A couple of TV ads will get all of them to vote for whoever is running against him.

Otherwise apolitical people were really, really upset about strapping his dog to the car roof for a 1,200-mile drive.

Romney would be a formidable candidate for the Republicans and I'd vote for him over Clinton. The fact that he'll "say anything to win" is good: he's just pandering to the Republican base and won't govern that way. I'd trust him to get out of Iraq more than I'd trust Clinton. I think he would win against her because the only people with enthusiasm to vote would be people who can't stand the Clintons.

"I'd vote for him over Clinton ... Cranford"

You do realize Cranford that a Romney administration would recycle a lot of Bush's gang into the executive branch. That goes for any Republican presidential candidate. The fact is that the Republican party just does not have able people available for positions in the executive branch. As a group (Republican party) this bunch is low on ability. Little but a bunch of ideological hacks.

Think of an administration with choices dominated by graduates of Patrick Henry, Regent, etc. and various business droids.

Remember that when a president is elected it's not just that individual, it's a whole group of people.

And what makes you think that by 2009 a Democratic president would be able to resist a withdrawal from Iraq?

Why do people think that believing in nothing and saying anything to win is a negative in a republican primary?

If Romney's LDS affiliation interferes with his pandering, who's to say he won't drop Mormonism like a used condom?

Romney will just be 'born again'. The rubes don't know better. Hell, it worked for bush, didn't it?

"You do realize Cranford that a Romney administration would recycle a lot of Bush's gang into the executive branch. That goes for any Republican presidential candidate. The fact is that the Republican party just does not have able people available for positions in the executive branch."

I agree with this absolutely. There is no way Romney can pull together his own administration. He will merely cycle in some of his finace buddies, which will not be an improvement.