Getting elected as a Republican in Massachusetts is very, very different from being elected as a Republican in New Hampshire.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think that Minnesota is different because we are proving that tri-partisan government could work, that you do not need to necessarily be a Democrat or a Republican to be successful at governing.
I chose the Republican Party early on in the 1950s and 1960s in Massachusetts. My father was a Republican, as was my mother, in Virginia.
Candidates ignore New Hampshire at their own peril. You all remember President Giuliani? He's done a great job in the White House.
Our nation is too different, too diverse to say that what works in Massachusetts is somehow going to be grabbed by the federal government, usurping the power of states and imposing a one-size-fits-all plan on the nation. That will not work.
New Hampshire polling data are unreliable because, when you call the Granite State's registered Republicans and independents in the middle of dinner and ask them who they're going to vote for, they have a mouth full of mashed potatoes and you can't understand what they say.
It's always an uphill battle. You know, I'm a Republican in Maryland. This is the bluest of the blue.
I am still a Republican. I have not changed that.
You're really earning the support of New Hampshire voters, and you've got to do that one-on-one grassroots campaigning here, even if you have the most money.
The Granite State needs a senator who knows that New Hampshire comes first - and leads like it.
It's not like Massachusetts, where they're baptized Democrats.