Pearson’s for Gilmore, Shafer’s unaffiliated.

Sen. Chip Pearson is apparently supporting Governor Jim Gilmore for President. According to the Political Insider, Pearson will be showing Gilmore around the Capital today.

Meanwhile, Sen. David Shafer remains unaffiliated, but leaning:

At this point, I lean toward Mitt Romney. I have heard him speak three times, twice in Atlanta and once in Boston. I also had the privilege of introducing him on one of those occasions, when he was in Atlanta last fall campaigning for Casey Cagle. He is an impressive, almost charismatic, individual, and I agree with much of what he says.

38 comments

  1. Brian from Ellijay says:

    I like Governor Gilmore, but do not see him as a player.

    As of the announced candidates, the Conservative horse will be Mitt. Up until the point that FT or NG announce. Then it could get interesting. BTW, I put Huckabee in the same category as Gilmore.

  2. Bull Moose says:

    Okay, Gilmore doesn’t have a prayer. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. That may be a good pic though, remember George H.W. Bush in 1979…

    I am very alarmed at the growing trend of folks seriously flirting with supporting Romney. Romney absolutely will not be able to win the General Election – Period.

    He’s a made for TV movie and that’s not what America is looking for right now.

    McCain is the only serious candidate that can win in November 2008.

  3. John Galt says:

    Brian,

    Romney is no conservative, nor will conservatives back him. Not when they also have Giuliani to choose from. That’s not saying Giuliani is conservative either, but what does Mitt bring to the table that Giuliani, the semi-known entity, doesn’t already bring? More, Rudy never flip-flopped on abortion, marriage, etc.

    I find it interesting that all these legislators are scurrying to support Mitt Romney – who can’t even break 8% support nationally – relatively soon after A) Eric Tanenblatt joins his team, followed by B) Many of the big GA GOP $$$ Men and Women announce for and donate to Romney.

    Hmmmm….

  4. jsm says:

    As soon as videos of Giuliani in drag hit TV, he’s finished. Romney’s flip-flop videos will do the same for him. Newt lost his credibility when he had to step down as Speaker, never to regain it. McCain has a chance if he can keep voters in the dark and/or confused about his record. I’ve never even heard of Gilmore before now.

    I’m seriously hoping for someone to rise out of nowhere that common sense conservatives can support. This is the most hopeless field of GOP candidates I’ve ever seen.

  5. rugby_fan says:

    Bull, are we thinking of the same McCain who quipped: “I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was”.

    Or maybe the one who doesn’t know if condoms will stop the spread of AIDS in Africa?

    Perhaps its the one who views Dr. Coburn (also in the Senate) as an expert on the morality of abortions?

  6. Capitol Bee says:

    Senator Mullis is behind McCain. Sounds like Rogers is a Romney fan. Douglas wants Hunter. Haven’t even heard Hizzoner as an option. Anyone else have any ideas?

  7. I Am Jacks Post says:

    I’d say Giuliani flip-flopped on marriage . . . his own . . . two times by my count.

  8. rugby_fan says:

    I’m becoming a fan of Saint Michael Jesus Archangel (despite the blasphemy in his name) and Gene Amondson.

    Why? Because I have no doubt they would be, erm, entertaining presidents.

    “Entertaining”. That’s the word.

  9. blazer says:

    jsm, you should check gilmore’s background as va’s gov, he is the only common-sense conservative in the race at this point..

  10. Bull Moose says:

    I guess the outcome of the primary depends on if you want to win? If you want to win in November 2008 then in February 2008 you need to vote for McCain. It’s that simple.

  11. Nicki says:

    I’m not a republican, so I won’t be voting for any, but here’s my take on the candidates so far:

    1. McCain — could be a contender. Depends on how his voting record is interpreted, but he’s probably your best shot at getting crossover voters and a good portion of the base.

    2. Mitt Romney won’t win. There’s the Mormon thing (’cause this country’s religiously bigoted like that), there’s his inconsistencies, and there’s the fact that he’s slicker than Brylcreem.

    3. Rudy Giuliani — inconsistencies. Poor management of NYC’s first responders vs. his provision of leadership when it was completely lacking in the president. I’d call him a long shot.

    4. Sam Brownback won’t win a single swing voter, and he’ll alienate plenty of core voters.

    5. Tom Tancredo? Ha.

    I’d suggest you pray for better candidates. Preferably some with the ability to raise the big bucks so they can contend with the big names above.

  12. The perfect ticket for Georgia’s legislative Republicans would probably be Gilmore/Owens of Colorado. Why? Because both are well known for two disastrous and revolutionary 1990’s conservative ideas — the elimination of the car tax in Virginia and TABOR in Colorado.

    Both ideas created massive budget problems in their respective states and both ideas have been abandoned or severely hemmed in and have led to partial Democratic takeover.

    Why is this relevant? Well if you follow the news you will see that one of the dominant undercurrents of the Republican takeover in Georgia was that they missed out on the GOP wave of the ’90’s and they are eager to pretend like the conservative ideas of the ’90’s that have since been proven to be failures still work so they can pretend to be revolutionaries as well.

    The Georgia GOP got in power because Sonny transfered the rural status quo from Democrats to Republicans via the flag and party switchers followed his lead in the Senate and then the House after redistricting. But too many GOP legislatures don’t realize that they took part in a bloodless status quo shifting coup, they think most of Georgia made some revolutionary shift instead of what really happened — voting for the same guys (Tommy Smith, Bob Lane, Jack Hill etc) with a slightly different letter behind their name.

    Little meandering, but until Newt enters the race Gilmore is the perfect placeholder for the wannabe self-styled revolutionaries in the House and Senate Republican caucuses.

  13. JasonW says:

    jsm, I don’t think the clips of Rudy in Drag will hurt him. I mean, we all know he’s not a drag queen, and his support for gay rights is well documented. That won’t be his downfall. His downfall, if he suffers any, will be that of the other candidates…they are too liberal to appeal to the Conservative Base. I hope this election doesn’t end up like 1992 :-S

  14. Bull Moose says:

    At this point, I am beginning to think it won’t matter who we nominate, the Bush White House must be working hard to ensure that the public votes for anyone but a Republican.

  15. Mitt Romney campaigned for Casey Cagle. I did not know that. I did hear Mccain was supposed to help Cagle’s campaign last year. That was then, I am endorsing Rudy Giulliani the only real candidate that has a chance to win in November 2008, not McKennedy or Romney.

  16. bowersville says:

    Yeah, take the Democrat view, bash Bush, he’s evil and a liar.

    The only Republican that stands a chance of winning in ’08 is that Republican that has a vision for the future, and stands up to the left and bashes them for what they are, a bunch of whining, scandalmongering wanna be’s, with no vision for this great country

    And McCain ain’t it.

    I haven’t seen this many moon bat code pinkies since the ’60’s.

  17. landman says:

    The pressing question in this Primary,as sad as it is to say is HOW DID WE GET OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO HAVE SUCH A WEAK OVERALL FIELD?
    The true Conservatives in the field dont have a chance and the frontrunners leave alot to be admired.Sen. Thompson Run Please!!!!!!!!

  18. Capitol Bee says:

    About 40 people showed up at the event for Gilmore. 5 of them were legislators. He gave a pretty decent speech and worked the crowd well. I just don’t think he has a real chance to win, especially with every state wanting to move up their primary.

  19. Hank Rearden says:

    You know, I am just not excited about any of the candidates, especially the top three. Known of you can claim to know where McCain, Romney or Guiliani stand–I mean who could know? They have flip-flopped as much as John Kerry. It is not that fact that they favor abortion, gay marriage and other liberal social positions, it is the fact that they aren’t honest about it that bothers me. Guiliani is more so than the others.

    I wish we had a strong common-sense conservative, pure capitalist, defender of individual liberty that would arise in this primary. We need him now more than ever or this country is going straight to hell. And, no, that person IS NOT Newt Gingrich.

  20. dingleberry says:

    As of the announced candidates, the Conservative horse will be Mitt.

    If this is true, then it should show everyone just how damn stupid and ideologically inconsistent today’s “conservatives” are. Mitt Romney doesn’t have a consistently conservative bone in his body. He’s now flip-flopped on more issues that John Kerry. No one can honestly say that his new “conservative” social convictions are for real. Not to mention, he could get along real well with a certain female Democratic Senator who has an eerily similar universal health care plan to Romney’s Massachucetts boondoggle.

    The only reason today’s “conservatives” like Romney is because he’s a social authoritarian, although a newly converted social authoritarian. They could care less about whether or not he’s a spender or one who increases the role of government. He’s against abortion and gay marriage and that’s all the modern day “conservatives” need to pick their horse.

    Today’s “conservatives” are worse than today’s “liberals” by far.

  21. Bull Moose says:

    I think that it is important to note that Senator McCain and Fred Thompson are close and Thompson has been helping the McCain campaign in making fundraising calls, etc…

    There is an avenue of thought that Thompson is buffing up on his credentials and support to in turn make a strong splash when he endorses McCain publicly.

    I wish I could take credit for coming up with the idea, but I saw it on the Political Insider:

    Marc Ambinder, in the National Journal, reports that some Republicans wonder whether Fred Thompson’s presidential flirtations are part of a scheme to boost conservative support for John McCain:

    “Until the middle of last month, however, [Fred Thompson] was a very informal adviser to close friend John McCain, and he would occasionally telephone donors and potential supporters on the senator’s behalf.”

    “Some Republicans suspect that Thompson is an angler — that his presidential flirtations will help him serve as a fishnet to scoop up conservatives and then dump them into McCain’s basket. They think he’ll raise his stature, muse publicly about the presidential race, build up anticipation, and then, presto change-o, announce that he thinks McCain would make the best president. A good many solid conservatives — House members, donors, activists, and state party elites — in the Thompson net would follow him to McCain. Or so the thinking goes.”

  22. dingleberry says:

    Bull Moose does this crap all the time. He just puts some unfounded statement out there with absolutely NOTHING to back it up.

    Bull, just because you’re easily fooled into voting for someone doesn’t mean the rest of us are. We actually require some convincing. And your constant bombardment of worthless platitudes are doing nothing to convince us.

  23. Bull Moose says:

    dingleberry, did you vote for Bush in 2000 cause that’s all he offered and we all fell for that!

  24. Jeff Emanuel says:

    It really isn’t. And Bull, I’m waiting to see new and interesting points and thought from you, rather than simply grabbing a slogan or a statement and just saying it over and over.

  25. dingleberry says:

    Bull,

    Have you ever heard of answering the damn question?

    And to answer your question I did not vote for Bush.

  26. Bull Moose says:

    Okay, since you want me to answer the question…

    1. balance budget and get federal spending under control.
    2. smaller, more responsible government
    3. simplify the tax code, keep marginal tax rates low, and pursue free trade policies to increase American prosperity and competitiveness
    4. a culture of life in word and in deed
    5. marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman
    6. appoint judges who interpret the law, not invent it

    Should I go on? Maybe because McCain’s sacrificed so much for his country and never cut and run from service?

  27. Bull Moose says:

    So, I figured that I’d put this here since there is someone supporting Gilmore. This is what the Iowa “Caucus Cooler” has to say about his campaign:

    Jim Gilmore isn’t acting like a candidate anymore. He moves down to 90-1.

  28. shep1975 says:

    As I said before, even if he was the nominee, I would never vote for McCain.

    So far, none of the announced candidates excite me as President. Guiliani and Huckabee are my two favorites, but Rudy will have a hard time connecting with the average Republican voter and Huckabee stands only slightly more of a chance than Gilmore. At least Huckabee is one hell of a bass guitar player.

Comments are closed.