Buy at Amazon

Thursday, September 28, 2006

More Info on Rants Joining Commonwealth PAC

From O. Kay Henderson from the Radio Iowa Blog.

House Speaker Christopher Rants of Sioux City says he won't get a paycheck from Romney's Commonwealth PAC. "I am a volunteer...I think it's wrong to do otherwise...It would be prohibited by law to do otherwise, so the governor's got me on the cheap. I mean, this is just all my time on my nickle," Rants says. "I think that's the right way to handle it and that's what I'm intent on doing."

Rants met one-on-one with McCain, Pataki and other potential G-O-P presidential candidates "on their turf," asked what Rants calls his "20 questions" -- and he settled on Romney. "I saw in Governor Romney a leader that I could put my trust in, somebody that I felt would inspire other Republicans to follow, I thought somebody who looks beyond just national security issues but talks about economic security at home. (We) talked about some of the challenges the country faced I thought in a fairly direct manner," Rants says. "I hope the governor chooses to keeps this alliance moving forward and I'm certainly in it for the long haul."

For his part:
Romney says he's "delighted" Rants is working with him. "Our highest priority is to get Jim Nussle elected Governor of Iowa, at the same time to see the Iowa House remain in Republican hands," Romney says. "It's kind of a close race right now."


Let's make sure Nussle gets elected!

Also, for those wanting to hear part of the press conference you can hear it here.

P.S. The Boston Globe has covered this as well.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

McCain Still Ahead of Romney--according to National Journal's Rankings

The new rankings are up today (they're generally updated every month or so).

Still McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee as the top 4. They dropped Allen off the list completely and have no one in the #5 spot. Interesting. They also keep Giuliani there despite his lack of putting teams together--anywhere . . . maybe Rudy's running for VP or maybe he pulls a Wesley Clark and comes into the game very late if there's an opening?

I'm fine with keeping Romney out of the top spot . . . who wants to be the frontrunner this early? Romney's had a much better last few months than McCain, yet McCain still tops the list--was he that far ahead? (Also, if you hadn't noticed, National Journal and Hotline: On Call--affiliated sites--are very kind to McCain and always seem to spin things to where he comes off looking good).

In their intro they say . . .

We're about six weeks away from the first official presidential announcement. All of the top-tier candidates will want to open up federal accounts for official fundraising as quickly as possible, particularly the candidates that didn't run last time like Mitt Romney, Mark Warner and Evan Bayh. What's not clear is when John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards announce. They have the standing to wait a bit longer than others, but at the same time, they'd like to make sure their new challengers don't get too much oxygen. This should be fascinating to watch.


So does Romney announce in Nov (post elections) or in Jan (after finishing in Mass)? I think earlier is better for him to allow time for people to get sick of "The Mormon Question".

I saw Newt on FOX News say that he wouldn't announce "yes" or "no" until SEPT. 2007. That seems late for someone who's never run for POTUS . . . maybe he and Rudy are milking the attention and exposure? I really can't blame them if they are.

Of Romney, NJ says . . .

In New Hampshire, Romney wants to become the first presidential candidate for whom the endorsement of conservatives in that state signals to conservatives in other states that he's in the middle of the Reagan coalition and electable at the same time. It's hard to do. He's not exactly part of the establishment, although he seems to be consciously assuming the habits and policy positions of the conservative intellectual elite. His pragmatic streak and workmanlike style add a touch of independence. His PAC is ingeniously helping to run Jim Nussle's field operation in Iowa. New Hampshire Republicans believe he has the Gregg-Rath-Maiola axis all but wrapped up. However, Mormon skepticism, whether induced by whisper campaigns or in public, has begun to show up in South Carolina

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Romney Bags Iowa Speaker of the House to PAC team . . . and the Iowa team keeps growing!

A key Iowa Conservative political blog "The Krusty Konservative" has just reported that the Iowa Speaker of the House, Christopher Rants, has just signed on with Romney's Commonwealth PAC. Rants represents the highest ranking current Iowa politician to sign on with ANY presidential hopeful. Great get (again) for Romney!

The South Carolina Romney's Religion Confrontation Affair

Romney apparently got religiously accosted by a political activist last week in South Carolina. Read Andru's take at South Carolinians for Romney here and here.

Also, the Article 6 Blog has fairly conprehensive coverage (that blog is dedicated to Article 6 in the constitution which prohibits a "religious test" being applied to those seeking office . . . this is right up their alley).

Also, Evangelicals for Mitt has some great coverage and confirms the McCain tie beyond dispute.

Are the McCain folks getting scared and going on the offensive this early? Sure seems that way.

Things are heating up!

Monday, September 25, 2006

WSJ Opinion Journal--John Fund: Romney Rides High

Hot off the Press with this one:

Romney Rides High
A Mormon from Massachusetts wows social conservatives.

John Fund

Monday, September 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON--Right now John McCain is the front-runner for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. But everyone expects that a single major competitor will emerge to challenge him from the right. The question hung in the air of this past weekend's Family Research Council summit in Washington: Who will that candidate be for the GOP's powerful social conservative base?

FRC officials says they invited Mr. McCain to speak, but he declined. But another potential candidate benefited greatly from showing up. Surprisingly, it was Massachusetts' Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon with a Harvard M.B.A who governs the nation's most liberal state. The 1,800 delegates applauded him frequently during his Friday speech and gave him a standing ovation afterward. Mr. Romney detailed his efforts to block court-imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State and noted that the liberal Legislature has failed to place a citizen-initiated referendum on the ballot. He excoriated liberals for supporting democracy only when they think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion that favors their views. He certainly picked up fans at the summit. "I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008," says Maggie Gallagher, author of a book defending traditional marriage.

The tall barrier many see as blocking his acceptance by evangelical voters--the fact that many Americans view Mormonism with suspicion or worse--may prove to be a mirage. "Everyone I talked to said they didn't have a problem with it," one attendee told me. "If enough people say that to each other, Romney creates a virtuous circle in which evangelical activists decide he's acceptable."


Interesting . . . very interesting. One recent GOP activist who tried to take Romney's Mormonism to task in South Carolina was viewed as very bad taste. Fund later continued.

[Romney] impressed three separate and distinct audiences in Washington last week in a 24-hour speaking blitz. On Thursday about one out of eight House Republicans came to hear him address a weekly luncheon hosted by Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia. Mr. Kingston told the Boston Globe that Mr. Romney made a very positive impression and was clearly positioning himself for the role opposite Mr. McCain that Mr. Allen once occupied.

Immediately afterward, Mr. Romney went across town to address a group of K Street lobbyists and economic conservatives. "He was impressive in explaining how he governed as a conservative in Ted Kennedy's home state," said columnist Robert Novak. The next morning, Mr. Romney appeared before the Family Research Council's summit. "He won over a lot of people when he recalled how as a businessman he had rescued the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City," says Chris Butler of Americans For Tax Reform.

That experience helped solidify Mr. Romney's reputation as a can-do manager who knows how to delegate. "He is the only elected official I've met with who gave me a detailed power-point briefing on my area of expertise," says Bob Moffit, a health-care expert at the Heritage Foundation who worked with Mr. Romney to craft a law mandating that everyone in Massachusetts buy health insurance.


I've seen that powerpoint presentation at the Heritage Foundation's website. Romney quickly masters various areas of expertise (I also remember how he spoke and diagrammed like an engineer during the Big Dig crisis and how well versed he was in his press conferences during the Mass flooding a few months back)

But Mr. Romney also has many advantages. He is perhaps the only candidate who can plausibly claim a base in several states. He has a contributor base in Massachusetts; a large reservoir of political goodwill in Michigan, where he was born and his father served as governor in the 1960s; and the loyalty of many Mormons in Utah and neighboring states. He has a built-in corps of volunteers and contributors in any state where Mormons, the fastest-growing religion in America, have a real presence.

And then there is the charisma and poise that Mr. Romney seems to exude naturally. "Many people say he certainly looks like a president--sort of a cross between Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy," says Genevieve Wood, who founded the conservative Center for a Just Society. Anyone who draws comparisons to those political genes merits further watching.


That's not the first time I've heard the Reagan comparison. This WSJ writer has it right . . . Romney's on the Rise!

Sunday, September 24, 2006

The Iowa 2008 Presidential Poll--Des Moines Register

The biggest recent news in Iowa 2008 presidential politics is the new poll in today's Des Moines Register.
The Iowa Poll, conducted for The Des Moines Register by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines, is based on interviews with 600 Iowans age 18 or older who say they definitely plan to vote in the Nov. 7 general election.
The best news is that despite Bush's unpopularity, '08 looks promising for the GOP maintaining the White House. I know it's incredibly early and that these conclusions are drawn mainly by the crossover popularity of McCain and Giuliani, but at least it's looking like Hillary isn't positioned very well to be our next POTUS.
Giuliani and McCain are familiar figures who enjoy a reservoir of good will. However, they may be taken down a notch once the race crystallizes.

"We haven't seen the dirt fly in the nomination process. ... I think McCain and Giuliani will get dirty," said Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne.

Experts say it's too soon to anoint anyone the favorite in a wide-open presidential race that's still two years away and features a long list of potential candidates from both parties.

But for Clinton, the Iowa Poll's findings raise warning flags, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Losing all four trial heats against Republicans - including Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee - feeds the doubts of those Democrats who wonder whether she is too polarizing to deliver a victory.
I'm not going to gloat on Romney beating out Hillary because I think Donald Duck would beat out Hillary in the same poll . . . just too many people hate her and would want ANYBODY else (however, poor Frist just eeked out a win by 1% over Billary). Also, these polls often shortchange guys like Romney with lower name-recognition.

The following figures are from the the article linked to above and shed some light on the poll results:



So, the "unsure" column is basically just name recognition. Nearly 70% of "definitely going to vote this year" Iowans don't know anything about Romney. That's good and that's bad. The bad is that obviously this will have to change if he's going to make a run (I'm not worried about this . . . as Gov. of Mass he's not on a huge national stage like so many others that have been included). The good part of not having strong name recognition is that there's plenty of room for growth . . . and grow he will in the minds and hearts of Iowans (IMO).

In fact, in those head to head match-ups of the four Democrats (Clinton, Vilsack, Kerry and Edwards) and the four Republicans (McCain, Giuliani, Frist and Romney) it is interesting that Romney is far and away the least well known of anyone included from either side. All four of those Democrats are well know getting an "unsure" percentage of 16% or below. On the GOP side, excluding people who aren't running for POTUS in 2008 (viz. Bush and Rice), Giuliani, McCain, and Frist are the three most known. Pataki was better known to Iowans, and it's interesting that Romney was even included in the head to head match-ups instead of Pataki. Shows that the people doing the poll realize that he's one of the strong frontrunners DESPITE his poor name recognition.

Bear in mind that the numbers quoted are not divided along respondent's party affiliation. We don't know the breakdown of who actually got polled. This would have been nice to have to help interpret the results. The "very unfavorable" is interesting. Romney's very low in that one at 4% which is great for someone who 1) has been right along Bush in his view on the gobal war on terror (GWOT), 2) is often best known for being a Mormon, and 3) has been so outspoken in the fight for the Marriage Protection Ammendment (i.e. anti Gay Marriage). Nearly all of these "very unfavorable" votes must come from political polar opposites.

I also found it interesting that Newt and George Allen were not included in the poll.

The article addresses the "name recognition factor" as well:


It's harder to get a fix on the popularity of five other potential Republican presidential candidates listed in the poll - New York Gov. George Pataki, Frist, Romney, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback - because large numbers of Iowans don't know them well enough to have an opinion.

Political observers look for Giuliani and McCain to lose some of their luster once the battle lines are drawn in the fight for the White House.

"Their greatest problem is getting nominated. It's especially tough for Giuliani, given his social issues positions, but it's also tough for McCain because of his maverick image," said Sabato, the University of Virginia political scientist. Giuliani supports abortion rights - a view not shared by many Republicans.


David Yepsen's companion piece had a great title "Poll brings pain for Democrats". He recognizes Romney's poor name recognition as well:

This survey is a further measure of just how unelectable Clinton may be. She loses Iowa, albeit by tiny margins, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, two relatively unknown guys who lose the state to Democrats Vilsack, Kerry and Edwards.


Can anyone who knows anything about Romney really imagine him losing to Vilsack, Kerry, or Edwards? I sure can't!

As usual, Yepsen sees the bigger picture in the GOP primary race:

By contrast, the poll results could help Giuliani and McCain with rank-and-file Republicans who are looking for a winner. McCain gets criticized by some conservatives for not being conservative enough on issues such as treatment of terrorist detainees or illegal immigrants. Others are likely to remain troubled by things like Giuliani's support for abortion and gay rights.

For many of the social conservatives, those positions are heretical. To them, ideological purity is more important than electability, and that gives lesser-known GOP candidates an opening as the race unfolds.


Yep, Yepsen's talking about Romney.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Romney Continues to Impress . . . O'Reilly must have liked Mitt in Mass. on "The Factor" earlier this week!

Bill O'Reilly must have been impressed with Romney when he did the live show of the Factor from Mass with Romney as his lead off guy earlier this week. Apparently, earlier today (or yesterday) O'Reilly said that Romney is his early favorite to win the 2008 presidential election over Hillary Clinton (according to the Michigan Republican Party Blog.)

Here's some of the relevant text:

(TRAVERSE CITY) — Fox News commentator Bill O'REILLY told a gathering here today that Massachusetts Gov. and former Michigander Mitt ROMNEY is his early favorite to win the 2008 presidential election over U.S. Sen. Hillary CLINTON (D-N.Y.) in what he sees now as the likely head-to-head race.

Speaking at the Michigan Future Forum, sponsored by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, O'Reilly said former frontrunner U.S. Sen. John McCAIN (R-Ariz.) will be hurt for his "soft" positions on the terrorist interrogation and border security issues.

The host of the "No Spin Zone" and the "O'Reilly Factor" added that another top-tier Republican candidate, Rudolph GUILIANI, the former New York City mayor, is being hurt by his inability to handle the press and his mushy positions on issues. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt GINGRICH and U.S. Sen. George ALLEN (R-Va.) round out the top five candidates on the GOP side.

But in the last two weeks, O'Reilly said he's seeing a lot of reasons to give Romney an edge.

"He's photogenic. He's articulate. He's got money. New Hampshire likes him. This guy . . . you watch him," O'Reilly said.


O'Reilly's opinion matters quite a bit. The Factor is a show with HUGE veiwership and a place where lots of opinion flies around. Having O'Reilly in Mitt's corner would be a nice thing . . . especially for the GOP primary.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Romney Rocks Fox!


I found this link O'Reilly's Website that has part of his interview transcript with Romney from the Sept 19th show in Boston.

O'REILLY: Do you want to be President?

ROMNEY: I don't think anybody wants to take on the problems of America, but I think anybody who would think about it would consider it a real honor.

O'REILLY: So many people around the world hate America. Do you know why that is?

ROMNEY: America stands for something and people have misunderstood what our motives are. They haven't recognized the threat which is faced in the civilized world from the extreme, violent jihadists. I think as time is going on people recognize that this is not just a group of whackos in the hills of Pakistan that wants to set off an occasional bomb. It is a group that intends on bringing down civilization and replacing our governments and our freedom with a caliphate, a religious leader. That realization is bringing people back to President Bush and bringing people around the world the recognition that we have to stand together against this radical extreme.

O'REILLY: More than 60 percent of Americans feel President Bush is screwing up Iraq and has no plan. Do you have a plan for Iraq?

ROMNEY: I wouldn't presume to present a plan different from that of the President. But I believe he was right to take on the war on terror on an aggressive front rather than a defensive front. We toppled the government ... walking away would mean a humanitarian disaster. We're there and we have a responsibility to finish the job.

O'REILLY: Would you build a wall between Mexico and the United States and would you put the National Guard on the border?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. We'd put the National Guard there because we don't have the wall yet. You have to have a wall or a fence or electronic surveillance. And you have to have a tamper-proof document to make sure that people who are here are aliens are identified and registered, and people can not hire them unless they're here legally.
Wish they had the China/Iran portion of the interview available . . . Romney showed that he's quick on his feet and has a good sense of humor.

I wonder what Mitt and Ann were discussing with Bill . . .



******

This was not Romney's only appearance on "The Factor" this month. Back on Sept 6th Romney got some Bill time for his stance against taxpayer money going to protect and give VIP treatment to Former Iranian President Khatami during his speech at Harvard.

This link has the following quote of Romney during O'Reilly's Personal Story Segment

Former Iranian prez visiting Harvard
Guest: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Harvard University has invited former Iran President Mohammed Khatami to speak at the school this weekend. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney explained why he is refusing to provide protection for Khatami. "On the 5th anniversary of an extraordinary tragedy in America, you don't welcome a person who has preached the destruction of Israel, who developed nuclear technology, who has praised Hezbollah. He has been an advocate of terror and radical Islam. It's adding insult to injury to do it on September 10th and expecting my taxpayers to help fund his appearance." While agreeing that Khatami is a villain, The Factor expressed a desire to interrogate the Iranian. "This is obviously an anti-American and anti-Jewish guy. But if I could get Khatami on this program, I would like to grill him in a very pointed way."
I watched that segment and O'Reilly said he was "on the fence on this one" but actually seemed persuaded by Romney's arguments. Well, O'Reilly got "off that fence" mighty quickly as the next evening's Factor "Talking Points" (Lead off story) blasted the Boston Globe for taking Khatami's side on the visit. Link here and text below.

Talking Points Memo & Top Story
Former Iranian prez visiting US
Guest: Writer Felice Gaer

"The former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami is speaking at the National Cathedral Thursday, and will talk at Harvard Sunday. The liberal Boston Globe, whose publisher is stepping down because of declining circulation, editorialized that Khatami is a 'partisan of a dialogue of civilizations.' Call me dumb, but I don't know what a 'partisan of a dialogue of civilizations is.' I do know that Khatami is a bad guy. Felice Gaer and Nina Shea wrote in the Washington Post that under Khatami religious minorities faced 'imprisonment, torture, and even execution.' Also on Khatami's watch, Iran funded Hezbollah terrorists, harbored Al Qaeda killers, and began working on illegal nuclear weapons. But again, the Boston Globe says he's an okay guy. This is a huge problem - in America we simply will not define our enemies. The Islamic fascists released more video of Bin Laden, purportedly getting ready for the 9/11 sneak attack. That kind of footage is not condemned in the Arab world or in Europe or in Russia or in China. So let's be honest - many people are simply not going to fight terror or even recognize the bad guys. After all the trouble Iran has implemented, its former president speaks at the National Cathedral and is accepted by some in the left-wing press as an okay guy. God help us."
Romney was also on Fox and Friends and declared Sept 19th as "Fox News Day" in Massachusetts. I'm sure he's getting plenty of flack among the liberals for that move . . . but it shows that Romney's not afraind of the liberals and is doing his best to promote conservatism in his state.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Bits and Pieces

Announcing "My Man Mitt" where those wanting can become official "MittHeads"

Just in case anyone was wondering . . . Romney is a solid fiscal conservative in rhetoric and in action. Having been over-ridden on nearly every veto lately has to be frustrating . . . he sees the writing on the wall of the Mass. legislature's spend-a-holic mood and forewarns of a potential budget crisis in the near or distant future.

Also, the GOP Bloggers Poll is ongoing . . . Mitt is doing his best ever in one of these and is almost leading in the "net votes" area . . . just behind Newt. There are over 8000 votes now and they closed the last of these GOP Bloggers polls at around 10000 votes . . . lets push Romney over the top!

I've been convinced that Bush and his folks were lock-stock-and barrell behind McCain . . . but could that be changing? According to Tim Roeser, at least one D.C. insider thinks so . . .

Who the Bush People Want in `08.

A highly-placed Washington, D. C. source told me yesterday that the George W. Bush people do have a personal, under-the-table favorite in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes. It is Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who is making waves and raising much money wherever he goes. Romney is a good “hold” position for those Bush-people who want to back Gov. Jeb Bush for the nomination in 2012.


Over at the Krusty Konservative (Iowa's most interactive GOP political blog) there is an interesting thread about Krusty's current assessment and future forecast of the financial capabilities of the current GOP field.

The following is how I see the Presidential field shaking out. To the right is a comparable Democrat for the 2004 primary you can use as a reference.

Major Leaguers
Governor Mitt Romney (John Kerry - $184 Million raised)
Senator John McCain (Howard Dean - $50 Million raised)
I think it’s clear that both Romney and McCain will be able to fund extensive kampaigns. If Rudy Giuliani does run he might be able to get to the big leagues, but Romney and McCain have a huge lead on him.

AAA
Governor George Pataki (John Edwards - $21 Million raised)
Senator Bill Frist (Wesley Clark - $20 Million raised)
Senator George Allen (Richard Gephardt - $18 Million raised)
I’m not convinced that George Allen runs, but if he does I think he can raise an adequate amount of campaign kash.

AA
Governor Mike Huckabee (Dennis Kucinich - $11 Million raised)
Senator Sam Brownback (Joe Lieberman - $11 Million raised)

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Khatami Re-hashed: Hypocrisy of the mainstream media and liberal academic bastions (e.g. Harvard)

Well, the mainstream media (MSM) . . . this time in the form of the Associated Press . . . is absolutely nuts. They sent this "Khatami Love Letter" across the wire earlier today praising the visit of this "moderate Islamic leader." The article was titled "Former Iranian president's tour offers moderate vision of Iran" by MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN. His rosy take on Khatami's visit is effusive:

Iran's former President Mohammed Khatami could be found munching seared salmon and Caesar salad last weekend with Harvard professors on the last leg of a five-city U.S. tour.

In speeches, interviews and meetings with foreign policy groups, Khatami offered a moderate take on relations between East and West that focused on nonviolence, discussion and mutual understanding


The other side of the coin can be seen here:
(Hat tip to Bala Ambati . . . one of my mentors during residency and a real life genius/Doogie Howser . . . became an M.D. at age 17. He also blogs some here). This editorial at NRO by a former Iranian (who probably knows a bit more about Iranian life and politics than your average AP writer). IN his editorial "Good Cop, Bad Cop: Don’t be fooled by Khatami" he said:

The U.S. decision to enable former Iranian President Muhammad Khatami to visit Washington to discuss “Civilization and Tolerance” is an unfortunate reflection of the Bush administration’s continuing confusion about Iran.

The Islamic Republic has convinced successive U.S. administrations that there is a dichotomy in Iran between reformers and hardliners and that, if only Washington would engage the former, they might nudge Tehran toward moderation. There is a dichotomy in Iran, but U.S. officials constantly get the sides wrong. The division within Iranian society is not between hardliners and reformers, but rather between regime and the population.

The Islamic Republic is neither democratic nor capable of reform. This fact is inherent in its constitution. Reform can occur only if unelected officials and the Supreme Leader agrees. It is unlikely that he would ever agree to a reduction of his power. So-called moderates may talk about cosmetic changes, but they neither oppose the theocracy nor the export of revolution.

The White House should not be fooled. The visit from Khatami is the latest reflection of the Islamic Republic’s “good cop, bad cop” strategy.The idea is that while President Mahmud Ahmadinejad speaks about “wiping Israel and the United States off of the map”; Washington should seek dialog with more “moderate” former president Khatami. It is meant to buy time. Unfortunately, the State Department has once again taken the bait.

Khatami portrayed himself for eight years as a “reformist.” During this time, he built up the nuclear program that is now threatening global peace. Khatami and his administration are responsible for the murders of opposition leaders and their families, the crushing of the student rebellions, and the disappearance of many journalists.


I encourage you to go and read the whole thing.

So, who's right, the AP writer or the Iranian editorialist? Is Khatami a real moderate? Or is he a "wolve in sheeps clothing" as Romney said? As I'm getting used to concluding . . . Romney's right again.

At the University of Virginia Katami slammed Bush:

Just before heading to Washington, Khatami also took a veiled swipe at President Bush in a speech at the University of Virginia. He didn't name names, but he left little doubt that one of his barbs was aimed at Bush.

"The rationale whereby the world is divided into `us and them,' the justification of `us' is contingent upon the negation of the other and results in statements such as `whomever is not with us is against us,'" Khatami said. "This `us' is a small circle encompassing a few that have the right to arrive at any verdict they please regarding the ones they consider `the other.' They can force this `other' to submit to their whims or even eliminate `the other' altogether."


Fortunately, the Harvard student newspaper the Harvard Crimson gave us some actual details of Khatami's words and themes during his 30 minute speech at the Kennedy School of (BIG) Government. The article was titled "Khatami Slams ‘Imperial’ U.S.: To polite audience, controversial cleric defends execution of homosexuals"

In his 30-minute address under heavy security, the Muslim cleric also defended the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement fighting for the “territorial integrity” of Lebanon.

. . .

Khatami did not directly apologize for Iran’s human rights abuses.

. . .

But he condemned America for acquiring “imperialist” and “colonialist” aspirations, saying it must not fall into a sense of “false pride.”

“In all honesty, the West needs spirituality more than ever before in its history,” Khatami said.


Oh, so like maybe we all just need to become jihadists converts? What hypocrisy . . . if only we had the spiritual enlightenment that has made all Islamic nations so peaceful and unagressive. This is a religion founded by one of the most imperialist leaders in history!

Later we hear Khatami answer a question about Islamic (and Iranian) laws calling for execution for those performing acts of homosexuality:

“Homosexuality is a crime in Islam and crimes are punishable,” Khatami said. “And the fact that a crime could be punished by execution is debatable.”


This last statement is the kind of thinking that makes Khatami a "moderate" in the eyes of the liberal MSM . . . that he's willing to debate whether or not homosexual acts should be punishible by death, or just life in prision or deportation. Sound like a "moderate" stance to you?

Another source covering Khatami's speech quoted him as saying that . . .

American politicians, since World War II, have been infatuated with "world domination."


Providing a stark contrast to who these left-wing nut-jobs think the real terrorists are we can thank, again, the Harvard Crimson's reporting. This is what the folks protesting the presence of Dick Cheney at a GOP fundraiser in Boston on Sept 8th, 2006:

“It’s the equivalent of Hitler coming back to life and coming to Boston,” said Nick Giannone of Quincy, Mass. “This guy’s a straight-up fascist. I also find it pretty appalling that someone would pay $2,500 to sit in a room with a war criminal.”

Suren Moodliar of the Greater Boston Stop the Wars Coalition expressed distaste for Cheney’s ability to raise money: “I am appalled that he can go around raising money now that the party and he, in particular, have demonstrated to be so morally bankrupt.”

. . .

the group of approximately 200 hundred gathered a block down from the crimson and white flowerbeds of the club’s entrance. Protestors screamed, “Shame on you!” and “Murderers!” to those making their way to the fundraiser.

. . .

The crowd waved signs calling Cheney a “demon” and chanted, “Cheney, Cheney’s got to go! Send him to Guantanamo!” Three men dressed in jailhouse stripes and wearing Bush, Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld masks mugged for passerby. A group of self-proclaimed ‘Billionaires for Bush and Cheney,’ dressed to the nines, serenaded the crowd: “All we are saying is give greed a chance!”


Something's telling me that these protestors were not the same orderly and respectful crowd that protested Khatami's record/presence at Harvard a couple of days later.

Why does Khatami get respectful consideration while Harvard students in the past have booed conservative speakers and protested President Reagan's plans to speak at Harvard's 350th anniversary? Gotta make ya wonder, eh?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Massachusetts and Romney Continue to Lead the Way on Immigration Enformcement and Homeland Security

This article from the New Standard has some important news . . . state & local officials can now not only enforce federal immigration laws, but they have access to federal records and screening systems (Oh WHY has it take FIVE years since 9/11 to get this done?).

New Program Gives Local Police Immigration Enforcement Tools
by Michelle Chen

Sept. 13 – Massachusetts has become the launchpad for a new federal initiative to enmesh community policing and immigration-law enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last Thursday that it will provide state and local police with unprecedented access to a new federal database. The plan will be tested first in Boston.

The program will integrate two key federal fingerprint databases: the DHS’s growing collection of data on visitors to the US, and the FBI’s fingerprint identification system, which links to the country’s main criminal database, the National Crime Information Center.

Under the merger, according to the DHS, when state or local law-enforcement officials process the fingerprints of someone who is also registered for an immigration violation, federal authorities will be automatically alerted. Local police can assist federal officials by detaining the suspect.


Not surprisingly, the ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups are against this measure (I guess they have something against enforcing laws).

Later the article continues . . .

The DHS acknowledges that the system is still being developed, but says the Boston pilot will serve as a trial-run before the database goes nationwide.

Meanwhile, some states have begun warming to the prospect of taking on immigration enforcement duties. Since 2002, Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division has launched special joint initiatives with agencies in Florida, Arizona, California and other states to apprehend undocumented immigrants on federal and state charges. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney proposed directing state troopers to help root out immigration violators earlier this year.

Generally, collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration has been limited. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, the Department of Justice declared that states had "inherent authority" to apprehend immigrants, even for civil violations.

Romney has been on the forefront of calling for this type of intergration for essentially his whole term as Governor. See his testimony to U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security given on June 17, 2003 titled "First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Can Strengthen Their Partnership to Make America Safer." (It's a long document . . . but has his call for such integration and his actions as Governor up to that point.)

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Where "Like-ability" and "Recognition" meet.

An interesting poll performed by Angus Reid recently roughly gauged the "like-ability" and "name recognition" of various prominent US politicians. I really like it when they publish the actual question(s) asked:

I’d like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who have been in the news. I’ll read the name of a person and I’d like you to rate that person using something called the feeling thermometer. You can choose any number between 0 and 100. The higher the number, the warmer or more favourable you feel toward that person, the lower the number, the colder or less favourable. If we come to a person who you haven’t heard enough about to form an opinion, you don’t need to rate the person. Just tell me and we’ll move on to the next one.


Who are these numbers good and bad for?

Good:

Rudy Giuliani:
64.1 Likability Factor (LF) and only unknown to (UT) 12% . . . not much room to be brought down by those that just don't know him. However, most pundits still think that he would face a rough road getting the GOP nomination . . . and I'm still not convinced he's running for POTUS.

Barak Obama:
High LF at 54.9 AND high UT at 54%. Plenty of room for growth there. (This guy worries me . . . though he's probably running for VP or waiting until 2012 . . . however, if I had to have a Democrat President, he'd be near the top of my list)

Mark Warner:
Solid LF at 47.7 and VERY high UT at 73%. He's known mostly to Virginians (which is a mostly Red State) and politically in-tune Democrats.

Mitt Romney:
Very similar numbers to Warner. Romney's LF is solid at 46.8 and he has a huge UT at 69%. However, he is best known in the ultra-liberal Mass and northeast . . . to not be disliked more is actaully a great sign for Romney. And, that over 2/3 of folks haven't even heard of him bodes well (since nearly invariably, everyone who meets him is impressed). Also, I think that any Mormon/Utah factor getting up his LF couldn't weigh too heavily since the percentage of Americans that are LDS is just under 2%.)

So-So:

John McCain:
LF good at 57.5 . . . but not gonna catch Rudy with his lead and similar 15% UT. Faces similar problems as Rudy in the GOP primary getting "the base" vote.

Bill Frist:
LF of 45.5 and UT of 53%. Room for growth . . . but hasn't capitalized on his large stage as Sen Majority Leader as much as a POTUS hopeful should.

Bad:

Hillary Rodham Clinton:
LF pretty solid at 46.1 . . . but NO ROOM FOR GROWTH . . . she is universally known with a UT of only 1%

George Allen:
LF of 44.8 isn't horrible (though it is the lowest of any Republican listed). He has a very high UT of 72%, but that doesn't bode well for him since the introduction he will get from the media is his controversial record on racism/bullying. Also, he's known mostly to his Virginian constituents (remember . . . it's mostly a Red State) and the politically in-tune Republicans. He should be having a much higher LF than 44.8.

John Kerry:
Less impressive LF at 43.5 and little room for growth at 6% UT

Extra tidbits:

Congressional Democratic leadership is HUGELY unpopular/unliked (Reid and Pelosi have the LOWEST LF at 37.9 and 34.7). Actually, the entire lower end of the list is filled with Democratic Senators. Then why is it that all we hear from the media is how much everyone hates Bush? . . . hmmm . . .

Sad fact for the day . . . 2/3'rds of American's surveyed don't know who the Senate Minority Leader is? And 1% of those surveyed don't know who Bush is . . . do they live in a hole?

Monday, September 11, 2006

I WILL NEVER FORGET





God bless the fallen and their survivors.
God bless our great nation.
We must never forget.

Romney Coming to Iowa Again--Sept. 27-28.

I caught wind that Romney will next be in Iowa on Sept 27th and 28th. As far as I know now he will be at a event for Danny Carroll in Grinnell. He will also speak at the Principle Financial Group Luncheon. The event that I have the most firm details on is a breakfast fundraiser on Sept 28th in Cedar Rapids for Renee Schulte who is up for Chuck Larson's open Iowa Senate seat.

When I know more details I will post them.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Iowa Christian Alliance "Friends of the Family Awards Banquet" Report: A good night for Romney . . . not so good for McCain and other POTUS hopefuls

Last night I had the great opportunity to be at the Iowa Christian Alliance "Friends of the Family Awards Banquet" (being part of the Host Committee) with special guest Phyllis Schlafly. Also headlining the event were US Congressmen Jim Nussle (running for Governor vs Chet Culver now), Steve King, and Tom Latham, as well as Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti.
A few highlights from the event:

I met Phyllis Schlafly and thanked her for her work on conservative causes for the last several decades. I also got a photo with her (pooly timed blink by me)I sat with several people excited about Gov. Romney at a table hosted by the Commonwealth PAC. I had met Ryan and Brenda Miller previously but they brought their friends Aaron and Rebecca Richardson (also from the Des Moines area). I also noticed and spoke with two LDS missionaries that were at the event; they were invited by someone (not LDS) they have been having some conversations with recently. They also told me that some friend missionaries of theirs had been knocking on doors in the Des Moines area a little while ago and had apparently happened upon David Yepsen's house. Apparently Yepsen said that he knew a prominent Mormon and produced a recent article that he had written about Romney . . . I thought that was an interesting exchange (Just to be clear, the LDS missionaries have absolutely NO duties or interest in political endeavors . . . though I'm sure they will be getting A LOT of inquiries about Romney during the next couple of years)

I also had a chance to speak for a minute (and get a picture with) Jim Nussle. He was busy shaking every hand he could.

Among the speakers Nussle, King, and Schlafly had especially notable messages:

Nussle addressed the recent Abortion hub-bub by confirming his committment to the pro-life cause. He pointed out the hypocrisy of his opponent questioning his pro-life credentials because he (Nussle) has a 100% pro-life voting record and because Culver is the most pro-choice politician to ever run for Governor here in Iowa.

King then took the stage (he and Schlafly were the only speakers to get a standing ovation before and after their addresses). King always gives a dynamic speech and he did not fail to impress. He said that the several hundred people in the room will be the ones choosing our next President . . . that the influence of the politically active Christian coservatives in that room would weigh heavily in who will be the 2008 GOP nominee and future President. King then said that we should take the opportunity to get to know each of the candidates personally and to find out where they really stand on issues important to conservatives , especially the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) and in being tough on immigration.

Phyllis Schlafly spoke later in the evening. Immigration was her topic. She echoed Rep. King's call to take seriously the role Iowa Christians have in choosing our Presidents. She spoke of how unacceptable the Senate's recent Immigration Bill was. She spoke of the costly entitlements that illegals would enjoy after their "amnesty" went into effect. She mocked that the bill was being touted by much of the senate leadership as "bipartisan and comprehensive" as Schlafly then said "Kennedy-McCain is hardly a true representation of bipartisanship (paraphrased)" . . . an obvious dig both at Kennedy and McCain since they each represent the left leaning sides of their respective parties.

I say this was a bad night for McCain not just because of Schlafly's dig, but because of the the two specific issues that King brought up, the MPA and immigration. McCain voted against the MPA (as this gay news source praised). Other potential GOP hopefuls have problems with these issues, namely Rudy (on record against the MPA and for the Senate Immigration bill), and even Mike Huckabee (strong on social conservative issues like the MPA and abortion, but is very soft on Immigration-- here too ).

So, where does Romney stand on the two issues de jour of the evening? He has a very strong record on immgration and has not endorsed the Senate Immigration bill. On the MPA, Romney's as strong as they come. That's why I think that, despite being absent, this was a good night for Romney and a bad night for McCain and others.

*****************
UPDATE: See a Report from the Caucus Cooler about the event. It actually appears that Mike Huckabee was at the event but was very incospicuous. Wish I could have spoken with him.

Meet & Greet with Romney--Greenville, SC,--This Coming Friday

Jason Branham with South Carolinians for Romney announced recently that Gov. Mitt Romney will be in Greenville, South Carolina this Friday, Sept 15th for a 2 hour "Meet & Greet" put on by the Commonwealth PAC (i.e. it a FREE event).

Friday, September 08, 2006

Michigan Romney vs. McCain Showdown Update (Washington Post--The Fix Blog)

Remember this article in the Weekly Standard?

Well, the standoff is intesifying as detailed by Chris Cillizza in today's peice at The Fix. At one point Cillizza wrote:

. . . the two men are head and shoulders above their rivals for the nomination in terms of recruiting top fundraisers and building organizations in the state.


Also listed are the financial "whales" that Romney, McCain and Frist have lined up thusfar. Romney has as many (19) as both of them combined.

Are we in denial?

This op/ed piece by Diane West in the Washington Times reviews the last 5 years since 9/11 and how we, as a nation, have responded. It is highly critical of many in power.

However, they end with:
This brings us to the one small bright spot to mark off the anniversary week of September 11 -- an anniversary blackened by the decision to allow Mohammed Khatami, former president of Iran, the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism, into the United States. Mr. Khatami, who supports Hezbollah and the destruction of Israel, will be speaking on the eve of September 11 at Harvard on -- get this -- "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence." Bring your own air-sickness bag.
But here's that bright spot: Denouncing the Khatami visit, GOP Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts ordered state agencies to refuse to provide assistance during the Khatami visit -- which means no pomp and motorcade for the Iranian stooge. As Mr. Romney put it, "State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel." How simple, how true.
Five years later, somebody gets it.

Romney Following Through on Energy Plan . . . brings common sense to energy consumption

Romney's pragmatism and his ability to understand business and economics are excellent. A large part of the energy plan for Mass he laid out last month was re-emphasized today in a Boston Globe piece.

Four months before he leaves office, Governor Mitt Romney is moving to turn elements of a big state energy plan he unveiled last month into reality -- possibly including a new system of higher afternoon electricity rates to promote conservation.

The administration hopes to ask state utility regulators within several weeks to approve a plan for higher rates between about 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. -- offset by lower rates the rest of the day


Initially, this sounded sort of scary to me . . . maybe like a way for the energy companies to increase their rates and rack up profits at the consumers expense. However the piece continues . . .

Particularly during the summer, demand for electricity normally peaks during those hours. Because of the wholesale electric market's unusual economics, prices can soar to 15 times normal levels during those hours. But . . . utility rates remain constant every hour, so few customers have an economic incentive to conserve during the hours it would help most
.

Are you kidding me? Who here would forget to turn off the TV or close the door on a hot summer day if they knew it would be costing them 15 times the normal rate? I'd be a conservation freak during those hours.

The real issue is that this massively inflated cost is "passed on" to consumers without us knowing about it. We just all must be paying a higher flat rate. Where are the incentives to conserve during these ultra-expensive peak times? Romney and team identified this as an area where there was a huge potential for cutting costs and conserving energy. It's the simple economic principle of supply and demand. This plan will decrease demand and therby reduce the amount of supply needed.

Once again, Romney has come through with a plan that ALL SIDES CAN BE PLEASED WITH.

Seth Kaplan , a senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston environmental group active in energy policy making, said: ``If it's implemented properly, it's a very good idea."


Chalk another notch on the belt of Gov. Romney. His political portfolio is filling out nicely as he preps for a 2008 GOP POTUS candidacy.

Rudy vs. Romney . . . (and the win goes to Romney)

Hat tip to Paul at Californians for Romney for this one.

Hotline On Call: Romney's Ex-Sis In Law Pens Abortion Apologia

See it here.

Despite her divorce from Mitt's brother, she seems to have stayed tight with the Romney clan, being willing to come to his defense on abortion.

Romney interview transcript from Hugh Hewitt show

Romney's radio conversation with Hugh Hewitt is available in transcript form here.

The 9 minute audio segment is available here.

Romney shows his pragmatic philosophy and fiscal discipline and he tough stance on radical jihadists all in one fell swoop

. . . any time a person of interest and substance comes to our state, if they require escort or security personnel, or special receptions at the airport and so forth, we provide those things out of a sense of dignity and honor. But Harvard, of course, has every right to invite who they want to come. I would disagree with their selection of invitee here, but they have a right to invite whoever they want. But they don't have the right to expect that the state taxpayers, and our police force, are going to provide this individual with an escort and security services. That, in this case, is simply too outrageous for us to bear.


When Hugh asked him about the timing of the event Romney responded . . .


We have a service here on September 11th at the state capitol, and then meet with the families of those who lost loved ones. As you know, aircraft left Boston that were lost on that tragic day, and so we have families who are still grieving, and will always grieve at the loss of their loved ones. And in that setting, to have someone who is a terrorist, who led a nation which was described by our State Department during his tenure as the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, having him in our state at this time is acid in open wounds, and is not something welcome.


The liberal media has been labeling Khatami as a "moderate" . . . simply because the current Iranian president, Ahmadinejead, is the most whacked-out leader imaginable. Anyone would look like a moderate compared to him! Romney points this out nicely:
Yeah, I think his rhetoric is not as outrageous as Ahmadinejead, but it's fully outrageous, and it's terrorist in nature. It is the violent jihadist extreme, which we cannot countenance. It's important for America to reach out to voices of moderation and modernity in the world of Islam, and that is the majority of people in the world of Islam. But this person is not one of them, and welcoming him here, and inviting him to speak at Harvard University is simply wrong.


And further . . .

I think one of the sad things is that we have not developed an understanding of the nature of what's going on in the world of Islam, and how it threatens people there, and how it threatens people in their own country. And you know, I recently heard Tony Blair speak on the battle that's going on, the world of Islam. It was really quite effective. I wish it were better heard and understood in our country. We are facing not just a group of al Qaeda lunatics in the hills of Pakistan, but a worldwide effort to cause the collapse of civilization as we know it, and Western societies. And that is a very real threat, and is going to require vigilence on our part, not just military, but Hugh, using Eisenhower's term, we will have to wage full-out peace to help encourage people to, in the Muslim world, to turn to modernity.


Among the final questions Hewitt asked . . .

HH: Now I heard a speech you gave at the Republican state convention in Los Angeles three weeks ago, and you used the term Islamic-facism, a term the president has used, but for which he has been significantly criticized. Do you stand by that term, Governor?

MR: Oh, absolutely. These are violent jihadists. Facism is probably as close a parallel as we can come up with, and I know a number of people have used that term. I think we're having to make sure that people understand that this is something far broader than a group of anarchists in hills. It is a concerted, organized effort which is designed to cause the unification of all the nations of Islam, the reconquering of prior Islamic lands, and ultimately, the conquering of the world. And it sounds absurd to us, but that religious fervor can lead to awful acts of terror, and has already done so. And in no way can we contribute to the legitimizing of these individuals by inviting someone like Khatami to our country.


Hewitt finished the segment with:

Governor Mitt Romney of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, thanks for spending some time with us. Congratulations on your decision concerning Ayatollah Khatami. Very, very blunt, and I think overdue. Thank you, Governor.


Jeff

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Romney, Roosevelt, and Giuliani

This interesting editorial from the New York Sun praises Romney and Giuliani for their strong stands against terrorist visits to our soil and compares their actions to Teddy Rooseveldt's humorous handling of another Anti-Semite, Rector Ahlwardt.

They then continue:

Mr. Romney faced a slightly different situation than Commissioner Roosevelt, for we are now in a war and anti-Semitism isn't looking so ridiculous. Mr. Khatemi is not just an itinerant preacher. He's the front man for a nation that is actively fighting against us, that is levying a war against the Jewish state, that has played a role in killing hundreds of Americans. His motives in coming here are patently disingenuous, as are those of the Kennedy School in hosting him. Our government has allowed Mr. Khatemi in as a private person, but the mission on which he is here is to carry out hostile state purposes — and his speech at Harvard has been timed to mock the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. Romney put out a long and exceptionally thoughtful statement explaining his decision. By our lights Mr. Khatemi's visit is more like ,. . . [a] calculated insult


They have it right like Romney does.

Also, Romney has spent at least some of the last few days speaking to media outlets. I saw him on the "Personal Story" segment of the "O'Reiley Factor" tonight and he seemed to convince a skeptical Bill O'Reiley toward his point of view. I heard he was on Sean Hannity's, Laura Ingraham's, Glenn Beck's and Hugh Hewitt's Radio shows recently too. When I find links . . . I'll get them posted.

On Fox News yesterday everybody was praising Romney's actions: Hannity, Newt G., Benjamin Netanyahu, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Brit Hume etc . . .

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

The New GOP: The Anti-Family Party?

So is the GOP "The Anti-Family Party?"

One blogger, James Phillips, thinks the GOP might be at risk of being so, depending on who wins the GOP nomination in 2008. He suggests that electing Romney offers the GOPs best bet of continuing to be the "Pro-Family Party!"

ROMNEY DENOUNCES KHATAMI VISIT TO HARVARD: Declines to provide escort, or offer state support for trip

Strong statement from Romney!

The Press Release is here.

“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”


“The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.”


After a long list of Khatami's abuses and support of terrorists Romney concluded:

“Khatami pretends to be a moderate, but he is not. My hope is that the United States will find and work with real voices of moderation inside Iran. But we will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheep’s clothing,”


Way to go Mitt!

Updated 9/6/06 AM:


Also, anyone mad that the Bush Administration granted Khatami a travel visa to be at events in Boston, D.C., and NYC?

Updated coverage from The Harvard Crimson and Reuters.

The Powerline Blog seems to like Gov. Romney's position.

Other impressed bloggers inclued "The Political Pit Bull", ""Whizbang"", "Tongues of Angels," "Seeker Blog", "Right Truth", "New England Republican", "Archontan", "Floyd Stuart", "The Podium", "Glib & Superficial", "Degree of Madness", "China Confidential", "Carol Platt Liebau", "Conservative Blogger", "FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog", "Strange Women Lying In Ponds", "Brother Scoob's Blog", "Transterrestrial Musings", "Bluecrab Boulevard", "سرباز كوچك", "American Traditionalist", "And Rightly So!", "Power Pundit", "The Farr View", "Pundit Review" "Moon-Bat Monitor" etc . . .

The blogosphere is truly "a buzz" about this one. In tracking Romney on the Blogosphere I've never seen this strong of support from so many people. Romney took the right stance here and people are taking notice.

Heavy hitters Hugh Hewitt and National Review Online were quite impressed.

Even the hard-core conservatives at Free Republic (who usually like to bash on Romney) responded pretty well when I posted this there earlier today (40+ comments).

Also, 83 comments over at "Little Green Footballs"

So, anyone else think foreign policy will be one of Romney's weak points?

Monday, September 04, 2006

"Friends of the Family" Banquet; Hosted by the Iowa Christian Alliance

Romney is one of the strongest "Friends of the Family" our nation has to offer. Many Romney supporters would naturally share a similar interest with the ICA in protecting the family unit and family values. I will be at the event. I encourage all who can make it to attend. Contact me if interested so that we can try to sit at the same table.


From the ICA:

Phyllis Schlafly

Please join us on September 9th:

6th Annual Friends of the Family Awards Banquet Featuring Phyllis Schlafly

7 Flags Convention Center, Clive Iowa

Saturday, September 9, 2006

5:00 Reception

6:00 Dinner and Program

$50.00 per ticket or table of 10 for $500.00


Master of Ceremonies for our Family Awards Banquet will be Kayne Robinson.


Other featured speakers that you won’t want to miss:

Congressman Steve King
State Senator Jeff Lamberti, Congressional Candidate
Congressman Tom Latham

Congressman Jim Nussle, Candidate for Iowa Governor


Call Craig Robinson at 888-722-4704 for tickets today if you have not already done so!