<![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney? - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney? - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> Romney suspended his campaign today. I wouldn't bet that longshot with Owen's money, let alone mine.

Blackjack

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> Evangelicals do not hate McCain. Only the looniest of their leaders do. Rank-and-file has more hate for Romney, but few leaders want to go on the record and tell everyone what they think of Mormons. They express this in the privacy of the voting booth. Speaking of Rush, as Arnold said "Rush Limbaugh does not matter" and he is right. This crowd backed itself in the corner by wanting such ideological purity that no one can ever satisfy them, especially Romney. Do you know that according to his record Mitt, the governor of abortion-loving Taxachussets is way more liberal than McCain? Romney's credential is what is perceived? As we have seen with Giulliani a few good attack ads and subsequent media ballyhoo quickly demolish a candidate like him. Whilst McCain grows stronger under fire and this reminds everyone he is a war hero.

ScalaWag

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @ScalaWag: Evangelicals hate McCain, the far-right Limbaugh group hates McCain, there's a tremendous distrust of McCain amongst the staunch conservatives. He may very well end up being the lesser of two evils, but that remains to be seen--and if recent rhetoric is any indication, many of these people would rather not vote than vote for McCain. It doesn't matter if Romney's credentials are bullshit or not--it's what's perceived. He polls higher on issues relating to the economy, McCain polls higher on issues relating to foreign policy. Whatever the focus is on "Super Tuesday" will probably end up deciding the Republican nominee.

Dweezil

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @Dweezil: Dream on. McCain is the lesser evil for Evangelicals. Despite the history, quite a few of their key leaders endorsed him. Then do not forget veterans and anyone connected with military - they all go for McCain by huge margin. Romney's "good for economy" credentials are smoke and mirrors. Massachussets was losing jobs under his watch, but the guy is a slick car salesman (hmmm... that was his father). He will win a few rust-belt states but that is about it.

ScalaWag

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @ScalaWag: They're not going to go to McCain because of his stance on immigration and his history with them. I don't know where they're going to go, but it's sure as hell not McCain. It's not Rudy, I only say Romney is the strongest possible choice because he has the least overall history in politics, and that's a boon for him despite his Mormon background. If push comes to shove and Romney is the "good for the economy" guy and McCain is the only other viable choice I really think they'll suck it up and go for Romney, or just not show.

And I'm talking about the Midwest here. It's pretty much a given that McCain is going to take the South, and probably a large portion of the Southwest with the exception of California. The question is how well Romney does in the Midwest and the Northwest, because he's already strong in Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Dweezil

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @Dweezil: Yeah, right. All Southern Bible-thumpers are going to vote for a Mormon? You know the guy whose religion teaches that Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers. Romney finished 4th in Southern Carolina and this is the only Southern state to vote so far. Besides he is the true candidate of "change". Have you seen John Kerry's windsurfing ad with Romney's face? "Mitt Romney: Whichever way the wind blows"

ScalaWag

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @Owen Thomas: One opinion piece from a mid-size paper is the foundation of your argument? Really? I recall most opinions being that McCain was dead, Hillary was a shoo-in and Rudy Guliani and Fred Thompson would be strong candidates in the Republican party.

Romney is in a statistical tie with McCain in my home state (Florida), and while it's a state that's Republican-only in the primary it's also a state where McCain is popular, and where he's picked up endorsements from our governor and one of our senators. That McCain is not destroying Romney here is a sign of how weak he is amongst Republicans, and going into contests where he doesn't have the same amount of support as in Florida is really going to show how difficult this process is going to be for him. God help him if Huckabee drops out, because all those Evangelicals are probably going to be forced to go to Romney and that's absolutely the end of McCain.

Here's how it stands, in reality, and not in a world where the opinion of some writer at the Salt Lake City Tribune is made manifest: Romney has the largest lead in delegates in either party, he has more money than McCain, he's stronger on the economy than McCain when the economy is in dire straits, he's never advocated amnesty for illegal aliens (yes, McCain wasn't advocating amnesty either, but he's already been pigeon-holed as having done it), he doesn't have a long senatorial voting record (which always kills people, and is why governors do so well in presdential elections), and he's a robot hell-bent on bending the American public to his will. Resistance is futile.

Romney is the surest of all the unsure bets in the presidential race today, on either side.

Dweezil

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @Owen Thomas: Um, Romney is by no means a long shot. He's just about neck-and-neck with McCain at this point.

Jordan Golson

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @Paul Boutin: @Dweezil: Disagree.

Owen Thomas

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> @supremecourtjester: RON PAUL

@Paul Boutin: Despite the fact that you wear sunglasses at night, you are indeed correct. He's in a much stronger position than either Barack or Hillary on the Democratic side.

Dweezil

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> republicans are dangerous but democrats cause lymphoma.

Ted Dziuba

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> Romney's a long shot? He's got 68 committed delegates to McCain's 38 and Huckabee's 26.

Paul Boutin

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> I think we ought to let the free market decide who serves under Pres. Romney. Put all the cabinet positions up on eBay.

supremecourtjester

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> "Under Romney"? Like a White House intern?

ScalaWag

]]> <![CDATA[Meg Whitman quashes governor rumor, but could she serve under Romney?]]> She looks more like a top to me.

Hans_Auff

]]>