I received an email from a dear conservative friend (that will remain un-named on this post) yesterday that posed some good arguments for and against some presidential candidates. To respect his anonymity, (which is requested), I will only post portions of his perspectives. I responded to his email this morning and after reading what I wrote, I have decided to post my response here, cause it's my definition of what I see ahead. Please feel free to rebut, argue, or agree to any part of this prospective:
First, from "Mr. Doe":
(my question was to him, "do you ever read RovinsWorld or leave any comments?)
I read it all the time, including this morning. (I frequently skip the matters about college football; but I will note there are four Big 12 teams in the AP top 10.) But I didn't read it during the election results last night; I was watching the coverage. We found it fascinating. Hence, the brevity of my email.
As for comments, that generally doesn't occur to me. At least I haven't seen you saying stupid things, such as the remark by one of the three Romney cheerleaders, Hewitt, did this morning: he said that Romney is the frontrunner. Talk about blinded by your own spin. And I think Sean Hannity is an idiot. (I found myself agreeing more with Bill Clinton on the "fairy tale" instead of Hannity's "Romney is true conservative" nonsense.)
I think my mom was pulling for Obama, since she doesn't want HC to be nominated. We were both for McCain, of course. But I like that the race was so different than all of them told us, including the new media.
I heard a clip this evening on the Mike Gallagher radio show -- Brian Williams swooning over Obama, with his other NBC ersatz journalists oooing and aahhhing at his vapid hyperventilation. And of course Drudge had the story about Williams saying that covering Obama makes it hard to remain objective. Lordamercy, if they can't stay objective about an overrated and overhyped Obama, so much for them being objective about the war or the election or anything else that matters. (By the way, I despise everyone at NBC, except Lester Holt. I won't even mention those communists at MSNBC...despicable. And I think Scarborough has all the integrity of a carp. )
(Oh, the three Romney cheerleaders -- Rush, Hugh and Sean...at one time I would have included all of Townhall.com, but I see Medved now is supporting McCain.)
And here's my response:
Seeing as how you didn't leave this comment in RovinsWld, I'll attempt to respond here to (maybe) explain where I stand/feel about this election:
First off, on the Dem side, my gut instinct is that Hillary can be defeated in the general election by McCain, Romney, or Rudy more so than an Obama with his "magical orah" that has even some Repubs swooning over this rookie. Matt, my good friend here on the property (who I rent from) has a son that has just turned 18. Clay told Matt the other day he thought Obama was "the man". This scares me. I know the youth vote has (since the 26th amendment in 71) been virtually non-existent in most elections and hopefully this trend will remain consistent thru this cycle. BUT, with the numbers Obama pulled out of the youth vote in Iowa, we can not discount this with out some concern. What scares me is if Obama wins the party there is a "perfect storm" scenario where if we end up with the weakest candidate on the Repub side and the Obama "madness" gathers/maintains it's momentum, AND the MSM continues it's swooning unchecked even by the new media, AND this possible sudden youth vote becomes relevant, this nation could end up with a George Stanley McGovern or worse.
The question is which Republican candidate can not only win the nomination, but which one can best unite the party enough to defeat his foe? At this moment (in the cycle) between Romney, McCain, and Giuliani, Romney is the less divisive among the three. I say this because conservatives have some serious issues with McCain over #1) The Gang of 14. #2) McCain-Fiengold, #3) his immigration fiasco, and #4) his questionable tax policies. Not just one of these individually would be crucial, but ALL four together puts a burden on keeping the party cohesively together. Giuliani's social (pro-abortion) policies, his 2nd amendment stance, and his "personal baggage" that the media will hammer him with, (but not a Clinton), also does little to unite the party enough to gamble losing again to that "perfect storm". Now both of these fellers are unquestionably pro national defense and understand the threat from abroad more than anyone else in the race (both sides) BUT are the rest of their liabilities enough to lose the base while hanging onto the moderates and swing voters?
That leaves Romney and while he also has "issues' that may also not unite the base, he could also surround himself with the right people that could pull off a victory. I'm sure there is plenty more you can add to Romney's liabilities and I will wait fervently to hear them.
As you can see by my website, I have been dedicated to Fred for some months now, but I'm afraid his days are numbered. The media has already framed him as too slow and not enough pizazz for their liking. His money and help (which has dwindled down to zero) was invested in South Carolina long ago with the hopes that he could get there with the competition paired down enough to make a run at a "win" in the state. Unfortunately, there's still too many standing viably, (including the Huck-factor) that Fred did not anticipate. I still thought if Fred and Duncan Hunter could have gotten together earlier and made a run as the true conservatives, they may have had a chance.