The experts need to realize it is not 1980.  There are voters that don't even know who Reagan is.  His legacy has been forgotten and conservatism blurred by Bush.  Voters are likely to rebel, especially against McCain who looks like more of the same.  
    The only reason Romney got as far as he did was money.  He had to have paid off a lot of people to back him.  There is no reason Ann Coulter should support Romney unless she was paid too, she is all about money.  She keeps saying voters need to do more research than they do when buying a car. That's not a good thing for her guy.  Here's what I've heard Romney say in this campaign:
    He does not agree with the NRA and is still for gun control.  He is for destroying embryos for research.  He will not further the pro-life movement.  This was on Meet the Press.  He said in a debate that he loves mandates and would mandate to the states that they start some sort of socialized healthcare.  He raised taxes and says it's not taxes because they are fees.  How many conservatives out there want to pay fees to the government?  Romney is not conservative on one single conservative issue, by his own admisssion, in this campaign. He is a liar.  He lies about simple things, he cannot be trusted with larger things, like the Presidency.  He said he has hunted all his life, but also said he hunted only twice.  He said he saw his father march with King, but then said the dictionary defintion of "saw" is metaphorical.  These are blatant lies.  He thinks voters are too stupid to see the glaring contradictions. He talks to the voters like they are employees who should do what he says or else.  Good riddance to Romney. He is the GOP's version of Kerry, he cannot win the Presidency.  He should have no support from conservatives.   
    I think everyone knows McCain's weak points.  I at least believe McCain when he says he will build a border fence, even though he doesn't think the idea is a good one, he will build it if the people want it.  I believe McCain.  I can't believe Romney, on anything.  
    Huckabee is the best candidate. He is most like the Founding Fathers than any other candidate.  If people cannot get over their hatred of Christians and vote for what this country stands for, what Huckabee stands for, then we are in big trouble.  We will be in big trouble at least until we have a generation that is so sick of liberalism it completely revolts, like in the '60's, but towards conservatism again.  
    That may be what it takes, a total destruction of this country and a new beginning.  Or simply vote for Huckabee and we head towards what the Founders intended.  Hopefully my past prediciton is wrong and the Presidential ticket will be Hucakbee/McCain.   

 

I predict the GOP nomination go to McCain and he will choose Huckabee as his running mate.  I could be wrong, I've been wrong a few times before.  I think McCain can win the nomination and the general election. He appeals to a broad base and does well in debates. With Huckabee as running mate it brings advantages no other candidate can; the evangelical vote. And Huckabee is good in a debate and also appeals to a broad base.  So there it is, that's the way I think it will go. 

This video is great, shows exactly how Hugh helps Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-2rjrpumhU

I think townhall's bias stems from it's love of greed. I think they are influenced a little too much by Ayn Rand who proposes that greed is the highest moral virtue.  I think a lot of columnists here at townhall like her idea about God; he doesn't exist and He must be expunged from public life in order for her highest moral (greed) to flourish.  I think a bias exists due to this because of townhall's many posts favorable to Romney and unfavorable to Huckabee. 

Problem is, most American still believe in God and still believe greed is a vice, not a virtue.  Profit is fine, I don't mind working my butt off so that the company I work for can make a profit. I do have a problem with them being so greedy that we don't get a raise.  (This is not the actual problem where I work.)  They do have a problem with government interference.  Romney would put more burden on the company I work for, mandating to the states to require healthcare.

Huckabee, is for free market solutions and the fair tax.  This would give the company I work for, and me, a big break.  Huckabee can see the difference between greed and profit. 

So why is Romney getting so much press for being conservative and Huckabee for supposedly not?  All I can see is greed.  Is Romney paying off a lot of people to get positive press?  It looks like it.  Romney isn't conseravtive on anything and he got stomped in the NH debate. 

 

Huckabee is ahead in the most recent Rasmussen poll. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history  Behind in NH.  I think Huckabee is the most likely to win the national election, if he could get the nomination. He can debate well and he stays conservative. I haven't seen any flip-flopping.  He is the youngest candidate and the one most unlike Bush, but still conservative.  McCain is good but he will be seen as just another good ol' boy and most independents or undecideds would probably give the democrats a chance, just like they did in the last election.  Huckabee has the best platform for beating the democrats, specific, hopeful ideas to lead the country forward.  Continually clubbing him over the head like townhall does is not good for America in the long run. 

Huckabee is depending on actual votes and grassroots, not his country club connections, which he doesn't have. I'm all for a blue collar President.  I"m sick of Romney's ilk. In defense of Rollins, I'm sure there are lots of honest Americans that feel the same way, liars need their teeth knocked out.  I'd like to get in the ring (in the ring, a legal, agreed to fight, I'm not threatening or advocating violence) with Romney. I don't think the country club, pencil pushing liar would do to well against me; 6' 2" 200lbs and throws logs around for a living. (I am 44) I won't get to, but he will have to deal wtih my vote which will go to Huckabee.  People like me are working, and yes, giving money to Huckabee.  He has momentum and is basically tied for first nationally. 

From the Rasmussen site: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_obama_vs_giuliani_and_romney

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Senator Barack Obama has opened a ten-percentage point victory over former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 47% to 37% (crosstabs available for Premium Members). A month ago, they were tied at 43%. The survey also found Obama with a six-point lead over Mitt Romney, 45% to 39%. That’s a slight improvement for Obama who led Romney by four points a month ago. 

Perceptions of both Giuliani and Romney are sinking. Giuliani now earns positive reviews from 40% of Likely Voters while 57% say the opposite. This represents a stunning turnaround for a man whose favorable ratings topped 70% early in the year.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Romney, 51% unfavorable.

Now my opinion:
McCain and Huckabee have proven they can work with democrats. Like it or not, it can get them elected, and either is way better than any democrat.  Romney cannot win, not even among republicans.  He is nothing but negative, has no plan, but is thoroughly a flip-flopping liberal that no one can trust. 

In response to Giles article on why he doesn't support Huckabee, maybe Giles should listen better.  My comment wouldn't post so I'm posting it here.

I do not see Huckabee as weak on the war on terrorism. I see him as able to see all the problems.  What I heard was that because of the controversy over WMD in Iraq it will be harder to go into Iran because of public opinion.  But Iran must be dealt with.  He clearly said Iran must be dealt with.  I did not hear the milk and cookie offer Giles said was his platform.  If you want to know what Huckabee says about the war on terror, go to his site; www.mikehuckabee.com. 

Here is some of what he says:  The terrorists train in small, scattered groups. We can accomplish a great deal with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units.

I believe in the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force to accomplish a mission.

I will expand the army and increase the defense budget.


Doesn't sound like milk and cookies. 

Lots of attacks on Huckabee lately which made me look up the facts.  He is conservative on taxes, go here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/02/MNOBTMNEV.DTL&feed=rss.news  and here; http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/333214.html 

He is conservative on immigration. He is for plugging up the border.  He did not legislate for amnesty in Arkansas.  He is not a believer in global warming but is for lettting loose the economy to deal with problems, go here: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=21 

 

So far the negative attacks have made me a Huckabee supporter.  That may change but so far the attacks have been lies.  Why is that Huckabee is portrayed as a false conservative?  I'm finding he is more conservative than Romney, Guiliani, or McCain by far. 

    Motana Border Patrol agents do their job and the ACLU sues.  In 2003 Abdul Habeeb stepped off a train in Havre, Montana to stretch his legs.  Border Patrol agents approached and asked where he was from.  Habeeb is from Iraq.  The agents asked if he had gone through "special registration."  He answered he had not.  He was arrested.  
    Good job, I say.  An arab man, which fits the description of every muslim terrorist, is questioned by border patrol agents.  Good.  Muslim terrorists like to blow up trains too, making him all the more suspicious, and making the agents all the more right in their decision to question Habeeb.  
    A mistake did occur.   Montana Border Patrol agents are probably not used to running into Iraqi refugees.  Habeeb came here as an Iraqi refugee, which exempts him from the "special registration."  Habeeb was detained for 3 nights in Montana and he was searched and questioned.  He was sent to Seattle and spent 4 nights there.  
    Habeeb had quit his job and was on his way to a job at an Arabic Language Paper in Washington D.C.  He did not get the job at the paper but resumed his job in Seattle with a furniture maker.  
    For his troubles the Justice Department settled and paid $250,000 and apologized.  That must have been some high paying furniture making job.  In his claims for relief the ACLU states as the first cause, violation of fourth amendment rights.  It seems to me this did not happen, upon arrest an agent has the right to search the detainee.  The ACLU accuses the agents conduct was intentional (yes, let's hope so) and with deliberate indifference, or with reckless disregard of plaintiff's constitutional rights.  Since there were other agents involved, and even another office in Seattle, I don't think this was a couple of rogue agents delibrately disregarding Habeebs rights.  
    The second cause of action is violation of due process.  Apparently due process is what found the mistake, so I don't see that as a cause either.  And the third cause of action being violation of right to equal protection.  To the ACLU this means that anyone who might look like a suspect, or illegal immigrant, should not be questioned by Border Patrol agents.  
    Habeeb is opening an art gallery.  He said, "I came with my deams to America - about the freedom, about the life, about the art.  I feel like today is my first day in America.  I want to open my art gallery.  Well then Habeeb, why don't you act like an American and do what any honest American would have done and realize a mistake was made in the interest of an entire country and get on with your life?  No.  Now you and the ACLU are government funded by the settlement, that's the American way eh, Habeeb? 
    I work with a muslim from Morocco, he went through the "special registration" and thinks you should have too Habeeb.   

    Hello from Missoula, Montana.  Our liberal Mayor, John Engen, showed that he isn't quite as smart as George Bush.  Engen signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, striving to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocols.  Engen got slapped in the face with reality as he tried to find a new electric company for the city.  Lo and behold they all burn coal!  What a surprise this must be to the liberals in Missoula, that renewable energy doesn't even make a dent in our demand for electric power.  
    Surprised or not a group called, Womens' Voices for the Earth, are demanding Engen keep his word.  And why not?  Our democrat Governor has promised us unlimited power is just around the corner through hydrogen!  To liberals, power is just magic, just demand it, sign an agreement saying you will get "green" power and, presto, there you have it.  And if it's not green enough, well tax it 'till it is.  
    Yep, one of the concerns is that the considered power company didn't figure in it's soon to be levied carbon tax.  I'm guessing, but maybe these carbon taxes go to fund the magic power sources?   And if you can't get it green and they keep buring coal to give the liberals the power they want, then the liberals will sue them.  That'll show 'em.  The Montana Environmental Information Center is doing just that. 
     Shaking your head and laughing?   There's more to tell here in the most liberal city in Montana but for now, that's all, I'm going to bed.