Iowans for Romney (AKA "Iowans for Mitt Romney for President in 2012")

ROMNEY WINS IOWA!!!

2012-01-04T15:30:00.002-06:00

Defying conventional wisdom and with relatively little staff and money, Mitt Romney pulled off a first place showing in Iowa last night!

http://gotmitt.com

GO MITT GO!!!

WIN MITT WIN!!!

Please follow Mitt Romney Central for all the latest and greatest Romney updates.

Cain taking a chance as the Fair Tax Fairy

2011-06-12T15:50:00.003-05:00

Herman Cain has been running through the motions of campaigning to be the republican nominee. Last week he got a lot more public about his support for the fair tax. The fair tax proposes to replace income tax and payroll tax with a 23% consumer sales tax. On a Fox News interview, he was asked "Why do you think you can carry this message and win the nomination where Mike Huckabee failed 4 years ago on a similar platform?" He didn't really have an answer. He's proposing a 2-phase boost to the economy? He wants to cut taxes and then educate the public about the fair tax? The public is too smart for that. They will make up their mind about the fair tax LONG before they ever put you in office, Mr. Cain. Cain says he can defend all the lies about the fair tax. But what he can't defend the open-ended questions.

I have discussed the fair tax at length in the past. It is an "idea", moving towards flatter taxes, but there are some major concerns that I feel are deal breakers:

<> In order for this to take place, you have to repeal the 16th amendment. Impossible. Good luck.
<> They claim this will eliminate 90% of the IRS. Cain says these folks are smart enough to find new jobs. HOW WILL YOU CREATE NEW JOBS FOR THEM WHEN CONSUMER SPENDING WILL HALT THE SECOND THE FAIR TAX IS IMPOSED?
<> This would drive a lot of sales underground, to the black market. Wealthy people work hard to keep their wealth, and the instant his would be put in place, a mutli-billion dollar underground market would be created. You would need an enforcement team twice the size of the current IRS just to combat the black market.
<> This would bankrupt anyone on fixed income. Those who don't currently pay income tax, such as the poor and retired citizens, would have the same income or the same savings and then be expected to pay 23% more for everything. Retired citizens would not support this bill. They have been working their entire lives and paying income taxes. Can you imagine the effect of them having to pay the equivalent of an income tax through their consumer spending? It would drive them to buy everything.......on the black market.

So the concerns are separate yet tied one to another. This is just my opinion, but it sure seems illogical and UN-Fair to a lot of folks who have been working their whole lives to enjoy retirement.

Herman Cain is banking on the Fair Tax to win over a few percentage points in the polls from the fair taxers out there. And why shouldn't he be a fan of it? He's a CEO. He realizes that he could eliminate payroll taxes, and raise prices 23% simultaneously. And he knows it would be pretty hard to buy a Godfathers extra large pepperoni pizza on the black market. Win-win for him. Lose-lose for his GOP nomination aspirations.

Polls, Polls, Polls!

2011-06-09T20:42:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney is off to a great start with a huge fund raiser on National Call Day and a surge of support since his official announcement. (video links below in previous posts). Now lets take a look at the polls. Mitt is running in the lead in most of the polls right now. Not all of them, but most of them. The last 4 polls to post are as follows:

Fox News Poll for Republican Presidential Nominee, June 5-7, 2011 :
Mittt Romney 23%
Rudy Giuliani 13%
Sarah Palin 12%

Reuters/Ipsos Poll for Republican Presidential Nominee, June 3-6, 2011:
Sarah Palin 22%
Mittt Romney 20%
Ron Paul 7%

Quinnipiac University Poll for Republican Presidential Nominee, May 31-June 6, 2011:
Mittt Romney 25%
Sarah Palin 15%
Herman Cain 9%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll for Republican Presidential Nominee, June 2-5, 2011:
Mittt Romney 21%
Sarah Palin 17%
Rudy Giuliani 8%

So here is the question: How can we help to keep Mitt at the top of the list. There is a lot of time until the 2012 caucuses start up. What will you be doing to help? Feel free to comment.....

It's official : Mitt Romney 2012

2011-06-03T19:50:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney has officially announced his candidacy for the Presidential race~ Here is the vidoe from the announcement.

Does avoiding the limelight prove to be working?

2011-05-31T21:34:00.003-05:00

As the media-loving candidates run all over the country chasing cameras, Mitt Romney casually sits in the background, avoiding the media darts, and raising support (and money). More on this opinion from David Frum from CNN, click the link below:

. What do you think? Are Romney's tactics working? Leave a comment to reply.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/31/frum.romney.invisible/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Mitt Romney in Iowa, looking to make an announcement on June 2nd

2011-05-27T22:03:00.015-05:00

Mitt Romney made his first stop in 2011 thru Iowa today! The first was a stop in Des Moines, where former Governor Romney met with agriculture representatives and plenty of supporters. He got a lot of questions regarding the strategy of his campaign for the state of Iowa, but he held strong to his message that the details are yet to be determined. Smart to keep his cards close. The media is grasping for anything they can use against him, including insider information regarding his campaign strategy. One humorous side note to the Des Moines event was that a bag of popcorn was overcooked and caught fire, setting off the fire alarms in the entire building, where Mitt Romney then directed everyone to exit the building, and continued taking questions outside the building on the street.

Here is the Fox News video from Des Moines:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/963687256001/mitt-romney-courts-iowa/

Mitt Romney then came to Cedar Rapids for a joint Johnson County and Linn County GOP event at a historic farm on the southwest side of Cedar Rapids. In a barn that was nearly 100 years old, amid horses, carriages, and hay fields, he treated the supporters to a spirited speech about the economy and the pride of being American. He stayed for almost an hour afterwards to speak with all the supporters there, and then wisely grabbed a quick bite to eat on the way out.

Mitt speaking to the crowd.

A view of the historic barn, up in the hay loft.

Greeting supporters upon his arrival

Speaking to future voters in Iowa

More Fans

The big question of the announcement came up at the event, and Romney hinted at a June 2nd announcement in New Hampshire that will be coming. We are all assuming that announcement will be that he is officially running.

Now what? He came to Iowa, saw great support from both old and new supporters, but now what should we expect? All signs point to a smaller campaign and more grass roots communication rather than hitting the pavement for multiple campaign stops per day in the state. Supporters will need to learn how to maximize the potential of communication through social media to stay connected with Mitt in the mean time. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc, are all becoming new players in the political arena. We learned of their importance through all of the college aged young adults who so strongly supported Obama at the last election, and used social media to organize and turnout votes. The only problem now is that all of those college student from 4 years ago are struggling to find real jobs, and their hopes for a better life with Obama have come to a close. Perhaps all the jobless college grads will realize that Mitt Romney knows business, and how to get job growth in America. As Mitt stated today, it's time we have someone in the white house trying to create jobs who actually has held a job!

To find Mitt on Facebook, go to :

http://www.facebook.com/mittromney and

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Iowans-For-Romney/155625597826799

American Family Association Poll

2011-05-23T22:51:00.001-05:00

The American Family Association is running an online Poll for Presidential GOP Candidates. Go vote for Mitt and spread the word!

American Family Association Poll online - - - go vote for Mitt!

www.afa.net

Major Fundraising Day for Mitt! $10.25 Million

2011-05-16T22:45:00.004-05:00

Today was a major fundraising success for Mitt Romney. The fundraising event took place in Las Vegas today, and raised $10.25 Million. Quoting Romney "It's important to me that we get that started, the ball rolling today." That ball just got bigger, and it's definitely rolling now!

Full story below:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_go_ot/us_romney_campaign_money

Mitt Romney is coming to Iowa!

2011-05-13T22:16:00.004-05:00

Mitt Romney is coming to Iowa!

Mark your calenders! Friday May 27th, Mitt Romney invites you to join him for a BBQ Picnic in Cedar Rapids with the Linn and Johnson County GOP, friends and family~

6:00pm at the Dwight Hughes Nursery and Farm
5201 Nursery Road, Cedar Rapids, IA

Come join the fun for an evening with Mitt Romney!

RSVP requested , go to Facebook Event here:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=146317518774763

GREEK WEEK for the freshman candidates!

2011-05-05T21:33:00.007-05:00

Tonight was the first televised Republican Candidate Debate. It was run on the Fox news network, and the freshman were out in force, as if it was Greek Week at the local state college. Some of the freshman included Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, Harman Cain, former CEO of Godfathers Pizza (interesting), Rick Santorum, former representative and senator, and Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota. Obviously these freshman were as eager as new college kids to get to campus for orientation week, and to pledge for the fraternity. Which fraternity, you might ask?? The "legitimate candidate" fraternity house. Lets call it Gamma Omega Pi (GOP). Strangely enough, one of the upperclassmen, Ron Paul, also showed up for rush week because he's still pledging to get into Gamma Omega Pi.

He started the much popular frat Tau Epsilon Alpha (TEA), but he feels he needs to be part of Gamma Omega Pi to make to the top and graduate as the republican nominee. Seriously though, Ron Paul never turns down a chance to get in front of a camera and wave to his revolutionaries.

Where were the rest of the upperclassmen? There were some folks missing from this debate. They know you don't have to show up for orientation week and pledge all over! They are still relaxing on summer break, or still working before the semester starts. Missing from the debate was Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, all legitimate Gamma Omega Pi's. Donald Trump wasn't there either. He is too busy making money to go back to campus. Michelle Bachmann of Tau Epsilon Alpha was also not there. So does it hurt these candidates to not show up to the first televised debate? No. They are already national figures in many diverse ways. Instead, the freshman candidates can have some screen time, get a name drop or two, and then promptly get fired at by the moderators with poignant questions. Poignant questions that are intended for one purpose and one purpose only : to get a candidate to drop out. I am convinced the debate producers and the networks behind them secretly want to be able to make the claim that so-and-so dropped out of the race because of our hard-hitting questions.

The real debate to look forward to will be in August in Ames Iowa. This is right before the famous Iowa Straw Poll. Will the straw poll hold as much weight in Iowa this time around? Who knows. Logic would point to "no" seeing as the media is over occupied with all the other states that have surpassed Iowa in their importance and "reality TV flair". Iowa needs to have a decent turnout if the media is to be impressed this time around. If the GOP were smart, they would try to narrow the pool down sooner than later so we don't fraction up the party again this time like we did in 2008. Unity, faith, and perseverance!! Thats what we need to get Obama out of the president's chair in 2012!! And in my opinion, Mitt Romney is the man to do it. Go Mitt!

RNC Online Straw Poll - Go Vote For Mitt!

2011-04-27T21:33:00.003-05:00

The RNC released their online straw poll today. Be sure to visit the poll and vote for our man, Mitt! They will ask you to make a donation, which obviously goes to help prevent another 4 years of Obamism, but if you don't wish to you can check the box that says "none". They will also ask you to give your contact info. This is a good thing to help the RNC reach it's supporters once our nominee is selected. If you don't agree, make up a name....

Here's the poll:

https://www.gop.com/PresidentialStrawPoll/PresidentialStrawPoll.htm

and be sure to "like" us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Iowans-For-Romney/155625597826799

$1 billion to win a campaign? What have we become?

2011-04-24T23:22:00.003-05:00

Apparently President Obama has been throwing around fundraising goal figures for his 2012 re-election campaign. How much you might ask? Try 1 billion dollars. It almost sounds like something out of an Austin Powers movie, buts its the sad truth in todays political environment. Money wins elections. A recent article stated that the frenzy has begun amongst those looking for a bid in 2012, and on the republican side it is looking like a tough race to come. ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/24/gop-presidential-hopefuls-fundraising-frenzy/ )

The republican candidates are already including financing in their collection of arrows firing amongst the candidates. Donald Trump is already calling Mitt Romney out for being a "small business guy" and boasting in CNN's "State of

the Union" that he has a "much, much bigger net worth. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney". (Full Story http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/17/trump-downplays-romney-small-business-guy-touts-personal-fortune/ )

Despite this financial David vs. Goliath, Mitt leads Trump 2 to one in recent polls. Romney is a household name now, and doesn't need to invest the face time and money to get recognition this time around. Obviously Trump is a household name as well, but he has to introduce to Americans why he is a good presidential candidate, and not just a good CEO. That's going to cost some money and should he decide to move forward with this idea in June, we will really start to see the money fly. One thing for sure: even a failed campaign will still have a significant return on investment for Mr. Trump, otherwise he wouldn't proceed with it!

For now, Mitt Romney can take a step back while freshman candidates like Donald Trump take the media spotlight and take the early rounds of media onslaught and bad press. Once all these greenies fall by the wayside, Mitt Romney can stay the course and win an election on conservative values, small government, a strong military, and a strong economy.

Romney a Favorite among Conservatives

2011-03-19T10:00:00.002-05:00

The Washington Post's "The Fix" hone in on a very interesting and encouraging fact from a recent poll in a post entitled "Mitt Romney, Conservative Darling?":

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has spent the better part of the last five years working to convince conservatives that he is one of them. And, if the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll is right, he’s done it.
Sixty percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the potential GOP presidential candidate favorably, while just 21 percent see him in an unfavorable light.

That’s an improvement from where he stood in early January 2008 – in the heart of the GOP primary fight – when 55 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents viewed him favorably and 36 percent felt unfavorably toward him. And back in November 2007, Romney’s favorable score stood at 42 percent while 28 percent felt unfavorably toward him in Post/ABC data.

Perhaps more important for Romney as he gears up for a second presidential bid in 2012 are his numbers among the most conservative segments in the GOP. Sixty-eight percent of self-identified conservatives view Romney favorably; his numbers are even higher among the portion of that group who identify themselves as “very” conservative – with 71 percent seeing the former governor in a favorable light.

Many of us supporters have seen him as a conservative for years (how he governed in liberal Massachusetts was nothing short of a conservative miracle) . . . but it's nice to see other conservatives finally starting to see the light.

Romney values vs. conservative Christian republican values: What seems to be the difference?

2011-03-12T23:27:00.004-06:00

Here is an article from last month. Click title for direct link:

"The Christian case for Mormon values" by John Mark Reynolds of the Washington Post

The Christian case for Mormon values

With former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney both believed to be gearing up for a run for the presidency, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has again found itself answering questions about what these two prominent members believe.

Post reporter Sandhya Somashekhar wrote in a story published Tuesday that Mormon leaders see the ascendancy of these and other Mormons (such as convert Glenn Beck) as a sign "that the community has finally 'arrived,'" but added "researchers say there remains a deep mistrust of Mormons and that little has changed in public opinion to suggest that voters will be more open this year than they were in 2007."

If conservative Christian and Mormons share a political agenda, why do suspicions still plague Mormon politicians? Do media personalities such as Glenn Beck help or hurt the cause?

God works in mysterious ways to perform His wonders. Old Testament prophets complained about the instruments God chose, but God went on being God despite their complaints. 2012 is likely to give Americans two serious candidates for president that are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). Many conservative Christians, for good and bad, get inspiration and information from Glenn Beck, who is also a member of the Church.

Should Americans be concerned? Bluntly, no, though those of us who are not Mormon should be depressed that such a small group has outworked, out thought, and out hustled us. Mormon success should spur traditional Christians, who outnumber Mormons by tens of millions, to do better.

Sadly ignorance of the LDS Church is widespread in our culture. Despite over a century of faithful citizenship and embracing family values, stupid stereotypes remain. Magically much of the media easily remembers Glenn Beck is Mormon, but keeps forgetting that Harry Reid is as well. Sacred garments on Christians and Jews are normal, but sacred garments on Mormons?

Of course, there is a vocal fringe of Americans who think any religious person is nuts. These equal-opportunity offenders can be ignored as invincibly ignorant. They don't respect Mormons, because they don't respect Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anybody who thinks we are more than computers made out of meat.

There is another group, sadly not so tiny, that cannot be friends or co-laborers with anyone who does not share their theology or ideology. This sectarianism is the bane of any movement, but most Americans know we can learn and work with almost anyone if they share our values in some area.

There are no good reasons not to consider voting for a Mormon. Theologically, I disagree with the faith's teachings. My professional speaking has included pointed academic encounters with LDS professors about our areas of disagreement. Simultaneously, serious disagreements have not prevented our making common cause on many issues.

Studying Mormonism closely did not make me a Mormon, to the contrary, but it did give an abiding respect for certain things the LDS Church gets right. They have demonstrated things worth knowing. If this is a Mormon moment in American history, there is a reason for it. Their virtues have particular civic relevance today and their theological vices (from my point of view) do not. The LDS I know love America, urge good behavior on their members, and promote many traditional American values. If that bothers you, vote for somebody else--the LDS will fight and die in the American forces for your right to do so.

The LDS Church made North America sacred space. With Native Americans and Spanish mission builders in California, they have loved this land and made it part of their story. The Mormon revelation, whatever its origins, is centered in North America.

Part of that epic is actual Mormon history: born, bred, and thriving in the United States of America.

Mormonism is old enough by American standards to feel "ancient," but young enough to make the founding stories easy for Americans to understand. Joseph Smith received his revelations closer than four score years after the American founding. Any literate English speaker can read founding Mormon documents without the need for much translation or scholarly explanation, but knowledge of American history is vital. Most Americans look abroad for "holy land," but Mormons look here.

This gives them a passion for this place difficult for anyone else to match. Other religious groups must work harder to match this sense of place that the LDS Church has naturally.

A great weakness of our lives today is isolation and loneliness. Mormonism is one solution to that problem for many. LDS church services to members and communities are a free market model for private charity. I have personally seen LDS charity help families that were not LDS, but related to a member. The charity gave work-centered help that met needs without sacrificing dignity. The commendable community found in Mormonism should be imitated not attacked.

For good and bad, Mormonism is deeply American. Born on our frontier and nurtured in our wilderness, American values are Mormon values. And yet, no LDS swaggers into the culture assuming he will be accepted. Mormons know the imperfections of American life. An American mob murdered their founder. As a result of their history, Mormons have a thoughtful and subtle take on religion in the public square. This last week Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave an important speech at the Chapman University School of Law in California on religious liberty.

I am sure Glenn Beck would agree that more Americans should read that speech, even if it meant turning off his program. Oaks, a professor and judge, not Beck, represents the best civic face of the LDS Church.

If this is, as the Washington Post suggests, a Mormon moment, it is because Mormons clung to truths now unfashionable and addressed questions others ignore. They suffered exile in their own land, persecution, and the need to change important ideas to be part of the broader culture. This American experience taught them good lessons about America. Being right is powerful and most LDS are right on many of today's big issues: the nature of family, the protection of life, defense of religious liberty, and republican values.

Traditional Christians should learn from their example and patriotic Americans should celebrate their effective service.

I cannot be a Mormon, because I think they are seriously wrong in their theology, but most Mormons are not wrong about the traditional values of our republic. Mormons like Harry Reid will never get my vote, because his policy ideas do not match with mine, but a Mormon like Mitt Romney could, because I support his good ideas.

Providence works in peculiar ways and it is particularly odd for an evangelical and Orthodox Christian to be grateful for this Mormon moment in American history. But if a Biblical prophet could celebrate the pagan emperor Cyrus for being God's man to free His people, surely we can praise our Mormon countrymen for sounding a trumpet call to rally America to life and liberty.

BY JOHN MARK REYNOLDS | FEBRUARY 9, 2011; 7:29 PM ET

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2011/02/an_american_trumpet.html

Romney to Obama : "You lost focus on the economy"

2011-03-09T21:35:00.004-06:00

Romney discusses the Obama Misery Index in his recent post on the Free and Strong America PAC website. Romney calls out Obama for losing focus on the importance of the jobs crisis in America. Iowa may not have seen the job crisis as bad as the rest of the country, but the lack of results in Washington are still affecting the state.

Story Below:

http://freestrongamerica.com/news/op-eds/2011/03/08/obama-misery-index-hits-record-high

Romney hires new communications director Andrea Saul, heads out for Florida, New Hampshire visits

2011-03-04T23:48:00.001-06:00

From The Boston Globe

By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff

Andrea Saul, a veteran of political campaigns in the western US, is joining Mitt Romney's political action committee as the Republican readies for a second presidential campaign.

In a statement today, Romney said Saul will serve as a communications adviser to the Free and Strong America PAC.

She most recently served as press secretary for Carly Fiorina’s unsuccessful US Senate campaign in California. Previously, Saul worked as the top communications aide to Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

The statement said that during the 2008 election, Saul was director of media affairs for the McCain-Palin presidential campaign, responsible for organizing all television, radio, and surrogate activity. She held a similar job at the Republican National Committee, too.

In addition, Saul served briefly served as communications director for Florida Governor Charlie Crist as he ran for the US Senate. She quit when Crist decided to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent.

Much of Romney's communications work has been handled by his longtime spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, but he has been building his own political consulting firm after helping Republican Scott Brown win a US Senate special election last year.

In the upcoming election cycle, Fehrnstrom is planning to spend more time helping Romney develop his advertising strategy and television commercials.

Romney is speaking Saturday in both Florida and New Hampshire, and is expected to kickoff his campaign sometime during the next two months.

Original Story Here

Iowans For Romney is on Facebook

2011-03-03T01:40:00.003-06:00

Click above!

MRC Announcement: April Will Be No Apology Month – Featuring Daily Guest Bloggers

2011-03-03T00:24:00.000-06:00

One year ago today…

the book that would serve as a pre-campaign manual for presidential candidate Mitt Romney was published! In it Governor Romney lays out the challenges America faces and what must be done to overcome them, to preserve freedom, and remain the hope of the earth.

That book, a #1 New York Times bestseller, is No Apology: Believe in America. It is what Mitt Romney is all about. Anyone serious in their study of whether or not to support Romney for President in 2012 needs to read this book. Debates, TV ads, radio spots, and twitter updates will only provide a small glimpse of what it is that makes Mitt Romney tick. To truly know the depth of his knowledge, and passion to see America excel… you must read the book.

I can’t think of a better way to promote Romney as a candidate then to get others to read his book. So in honor of the one year anniversary of No Apology being published, we here at MRC are announcing…

During the month of April we will feature daily guest posts from you our readers! We will be asking for volunteers to write short essays (250 – 750 words) on a topic of your choice from the book. There are 11 chapters and an introduction in the book, so with 30 days in April we will feature 2-3 posts from each chapter (which of course may vary.) Mitt Romney makes hundreds of excellent points in the book – we hope to highlight some of these in the essays and discuss them.

We hope you will consider joining this month-long event and put on your best writing caps to produce quality content and make this a big success. Read below for details and guidelines on No Apology month.

To participate in No Apology Month:

Pick a subject of your choosing from the book. To avoid overlap we will be assigning topics on a first-come-first-serve basis. You may want to have a few subjects in mind in case your first selection is already taken. Be creative – find specific subjects, topics or facts that are perhaps little known about Mitt Romney. Show us something that gives us insight into his character, history, or knowledge of issues facing America. You can draw from personal experiences, quotes from his book, or outside sources. When quoting from his book use only segments (at most a few paragraphs) to avoid copyright issues. Also, feel free to provide images or graphs, though don’t feel obliged too. We recommend that your total write-up be 250 to 750 words. You can do more than 750 words if you feel you really must, but we recommend this cap so readers will be more likely to read it in its entirety.

We will work out a publishing schedule for the month. Please have your final draft submitted at least one week prior to your assigned publish date.

Submit your “application” to essay@mittromneycentral.com. Please include:
1-your real name
2-an alternate (or abbreviated) name if wish to remain anonymous
3-the suggested title of your article
4-subject
5-page and chapter of the book from which your subject is derived
6-a few sentences to describe your ideas for the article

If we end up short of 30 contributors we may allow you to do more than one post, but we will wait to determine that.

Thanks and good luck!

~Nate G.

Click here to buy No Apology from Amazon.com.

More info on No Apology here.

In Memorium: Bob Thomas (IllinoisGuy)

2011-03-01T00:59:00.003-06:00

A Romney Champion recently passed away, and one that I had the priviledge to know not only through his stalwart online support of Mitt, but I had the chance to spend the 2008 Caucus day in Iowa with him as well.

Illinois Guy (Bob) is the second from the right, I'm in the center, and Jason Bonham (co-founder of MyManMitt) is the tall guy in between us. Tough day to remember/relive, but was made better by spending it with friends and fellow Romney supporters like these two.

Bosman has a wonderful tribute to Illinois Guy over at RightSpeak. Thank you Bos, and, thanks always to IG!

Health Care Series: Mitt Romney vs Health Care at Mitt Romney Central

2011-02-26T01:22:00.003-06:00

Addressing the Health Care issues for Romney in the 2012 race will be paramount.

Though I'm pretty sure Mitt will do a better job of "staying on message" during this run than in 2008, he will need to address his history of Health Care reform (e.g. Romneycare) to some degree.

Part 1 of the series is titled Mitt Romney vs. Health Care: “The Problem” (Or is it?)

Part 2: Mitt Romney vs. Health Care: “Why RomneyCare Makes Mitt the BEST Nominee to Face Obama”

And a recent update showing that Mitt's not taking the bait on a call that he "apologize" for RomneyCare . . . "Mitt Owning RomneyCare . . . No Apology"

Back into Blogging! Main blogging at Mitt Romney Central

2011-02-07T17:10:00.003-06:00

I am making the foray back into blogging for Romney! The time is now for new and competent leadership for our great nation, and Mitt Romney is just the right man at the right time.

Although I will be doing some cross-posting at both websites please go to Mitt Romney Central for the most complete and up to date info on Mitt in 2012.

Obama's Health Care Infomercial

2009-09-10T11:48:00.002-05:00

Did Billy Mays reincarnate into Obama's body? Listening to Obama last night had the feel of an infomercial . . . every good thing anyone could want at an UNBELIEVABLY low price! In fact, he went further by basically telling us that if we do not support this plan that we are immoral, cold, greedy and heartless people, trying to guilt us into supporting it. And we better act fast too! THIS IS A LIMITED TIME OFFER! Well, I'm hear to tell you that Oxi-Clean and the Slap-Chop are much better deals than what Obama is selling, despite his claims that they will cost more than his plan.

Like Rep Boustany (who gave the GOP response to Obama) I'm a physician from Louisiana. I live/work/breath healthcare everyday as a vitreoretinal surgeon. I'm informed and aware of the issues at hand and I and my patients are worried to death that Obama's plan will kill our healthcare system if it is passed.

There are major portions of this bill that are great. The health-insurance "exchange" is a very good idea. Making insurance portable as people change/lose jobs is also a must. Providing more accountability/liability to insurance companies who drop people when they get sick needs to happen. I'm even for a "mandate" that all people get some type of catastrophic care coverage . . . this is only because there is already a "mandate" on ERs/Hospitals to treat the uninsured; the resulting costs are already being paid by all of us in the form of higher taxes and higher insurance premiums.

It is no coincidence that all of these laudable points above find their roots in the Mass plan that ROMNEY helped develop under the watchful care and advice of the HERITAGE FOUNDATION think tank. Sure, the Democratic legislature and current Gov in MA have expanded that plan, and it was never perfect, but IT'S A SCARY THING WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO PASS A HEALTHCARE BILL THAT IS MORE LIBERAL AND EXPANSIVE THAN THE RECENLTY PASSED PLAN IN OUR MOST LIBERAL STATE!!

Obama's deceptions were manifold:

1) The bottom line for this plan and last night's infomercial is that it doesn't pass "the smell test." How in the world is it going to offer care to 30 million more Americans, improve Medicare coverage, and force insurance compainies to enroll/keep the sickest people on their rolls AND BE CHEAPER AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?! That's what Obama is promising folks, and he's lying through his teeth. He says that the savings will be found in current Medicare/Medicaid waste/fraud, eh? Well prove to us over the next few years that you can glean this money back out of the system and put it in a trust fund to help pay for any future plan. Essentially Obama admitted that he has been derelict in his duty up until now in allowing this fraud and waste to take place . . . that he'll only go after it if we pass his plan. Can you say "SMOKE AND MIRRORS?"

2) He said that Abortions won't be covered in the new plan . . . I'll believe that when I see it. That flies in the face of what he's said in the past as he's promised that "woman's health" and "reproductive" services would be central and covered in any public option plan. If he's really changing his tune on that then I'm excited . . . but none of the current bills have a "Hyde Amendment" equivalent that will be necessary to ensure that the courts don't find a "fundamental right" to abortion in the public plan after it is passed. America, don't fall for any bill that does not have a Hyde Amendment equivalent to gaurnatee no tax-payer funded abortions.

3) Tort Reform: I loved it when the GOP section cheered for about a minute when he brought up this issue. NONE OF THE BILLS currently have any mention of tort reform. The direct costs of malpractice to the current system are only 2-3% of the current healthcare total . . . but the indirect costs are estimated to be upwards of 20% through the practice of "defensive medicine." As a physician I can truly attest that physicians are now trained and conditioned to "treat the chart" more than we "treat the patient." But Obama just paid "lip service" to Tort Reform by saying he was having his HHS secretary look into pilot programs for tort reform. WHAT A COP OUT! Like I'm supposed to trust a trial lawyer/politician like Obama to go against the trial lawyer lobby and make tort reform happen . . . Did you know that trial lawyers political donations go 99% to Democrats? Hmm . . . IF IT'S NOT IN THE BILL THEN IT WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH! VOW TO NOT SUPPORT ANY HEALTHCARE BILL THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE VITALLY NEEDED TORT REFORM.

4) Insurance Industry Mandates: Maybe laws do need to be written that insurance companies have to do all the things he mentioned last night, but don't think for one second that your premiums won't shoot up in cost as a result. How can they 1) not deny people for pre-existing conditions, 2) not charge women more than men, 2) not drop sick people, and 4) have to offer all the preventative care imaginable and NOT have to pass those increased costs/risks/liabilities on to the rest of the consumers? It is well known that women use healthcare dollars at a higher rate than men (more likely to seek out a doctor, more likely to ask a physician for medication/tests, reproductive issues, etc . . .). I know I pay more for auto insurance because of my sex and I'm fine with that since males do drain auto insurance dollars with more risky driving behavior. Why doesn't the same common sense apply to healthcare? I actually could be talked into not allowing one's gender to alter healthcare premiums, as long as this "ignoring of gender" applied to all realms of insurance as well . And I'm still not sure how to process a company not "Denying someone with a pre-existing condition" . . . that's like calling to get fire insurance as you stand outside watching your home burn down. It's a horrible situation to be sure, but to make insurance compainies bail out irresponsible people doesn't sit well either. I've got a solution to this below!

The biggest problem with all the plans offered so far is that there is NO plan to reduce healthcare costs . . . it's all focused at expanding coverage and is abhorrently fiscally irresponsible. Also, the plan(s) completely ignores the laws of economics. With a public option available, it has been shown that many physicians will take and early retirement or switch careers. Even if none did, there would be 15% more insured people to take care of. The principles of supply and demand don't figure well with those statistics and fears of "rationing of care" and "wait lists" are well-founded.

Also, although one must admit that Obama is a good "salesman" and an effective communicator, his tone was dissappointing. He spent soooo much time attacking critics of his plan dishing out terms like "obstructionist, Un-American, liars, Fear-mongering, riled-up," and many more. This tone made it a highly partisan attack on his detractors and wasn't Presidential at all IMO.

The Fuller Fix to Healthcare:

1) Set up an insurance exchange which will allow interstate selling of insurance policiesand will allow for all types of insurance plans to be offered (including catastrophic care plans, expanded health-savings accounts, etc . . . ) State legilsatures have run-amok with mandates on insurance providers requiring all policies to their citizens offer services like accupucture, sex-changes, substance abuse recovery programs, mental health coverage, fertility treatments, etc . . . These things have been pushed through for decades with pressure coming from these specific lobbies and from union/labor special interests. While most of these services may have their place in the system, to require they be covered for everyone in the state is just absurd. And we wonder why insurance premiums and healthcare costs are rising . . . geez!

2) Tort reform . . . do it! See the practice patterns change as we're able to focus more on patient care and worry less about getting sued frivilously.

3) Allow physicians to deduct the free healthcare they provide in their offices from their personal income tax filings. Do this and there will be much less of a strain on the ERs and the total healthcare costs will be much less in office-based care than in ER-based care. This would also allow much greater access and care to those with "pre-existing conditions" as mentioned above. Obviously, this system would have to be monitored for potential fraud and abuses on both sides (those receiving the free care and the physicians), but it would solve the problem of "the uninsured" withough creating a huge new government plan and beaurocracy.

4) Allow more "co-op" options for healthcare, where people who maintain a certain level of healthy behavior can buy into plans with large communities and/or large companies at reduced costs. This would encourage more healthy behavior and would be a great long-term cost-saver.

5) Don't allow any expansion of government-provided healthcare . . . and if possible, reduce it. Medicare/Medicaid are already too large and have severely hampered the insurance industry from following free-market trends. Any new "public option" is absolutely going to be a Trojan-horse as publically admitted by nearly every proponent of a single-payer system. Don't give them that chance to absolutely destroy our system that allows for the highest quality care anywhere in the world.

Romney got healthcare reform in the most liberal state without a new "public option" . . . why would the nation as a whole accept a plan that has it?

Romney Transcends Negative Opinions of GOP in Recent Poll

2009-07-29T23:53:00.004-05:00

The MSNBC/Wall Street Journal poll released today has some interesting nuggets . . . and one key finding that his HUGELY positive for Mitt.

First, some background on the poll. It was a survey of 1,011 adults . . . not likely voters (which usually makes polls trend more liberal) and was conducted July 24-27.

Respondents Political Identification:
Independent 41%
Democrat 30%
Republican 22%
Political Views:
Conservative 37%
Moderate 35%
Liberal 23%
Would you like to see Mitt Romney as president some day, or not?
Would like to see 24%
Would not like to see 50%

Sounds Bad, right? I mean 50% don't want to see him as POTUS . . . but look by comparison at Palin's numbers:

Would you like to see Sarah Palin as president some day, or not?
Would like to see 21%
Would not like to see 67%

Mitt obviously has much less of a hill to climb right now that Palin.

But for the real important point, let's start by looking at the approval ratings for political figures AND political parties:

Approval Ratings: Positive / Negative [Net]
Hillary Clinton: 53% / 31% [+22%]
Barack Obama: 55% / 34% [+21%]
Mitt Romney: 28% / 20% [+8%]
Democratic Party: 42% / 37% [+5%]
Sonia Sotomayor: 31% / 27% [+4%]
Joe Biden: 38% / 36% [+2%]
Sarah Palin: 32% / 43% [-11%]
Republican Party: 28% / 41% [-13%]
Nancy Pelosi: 25% / 44% [-19%]

Now let’s look at these numbers in a different way that may take some of the sampling bias out (like if they polled too many Dems/libs . . . which it seems like). By comparing each persons approval rating adusted for their political party. I’ll take their net approval/disapproval rating and subtract their parties net rating (Dem. at +5%, GOP at -13% . . . a whopping 18% gap when most generic 2010 congressional ballots are dead even . . . which is proof this poll oversampled Dems/libs). This was not in the poll, but was my own idea to break down the data.

Difference between politician's net approval rating and the approval rating of their party:

Mitt +21%
Hillary +17%
Barack +16%
Palin +2%
Sotomayor -1%
Biden -3%
Pelosi -24%

In other words, Mitt’s net approval is a full 21% better than his party. This,, while even Pres Obama is only 16% better than his party, and Palin is only 2% better than her party. To have accomplished this, Mitt must be bringing in moderate Dems and indys to like him. That's a good good sign for him as a general election candidate. He's obviously got a lot of work to do to get all those "no opinion" folks to view him favorably, but Mitt's showing an ability to transcend negative opinions of the GOP. Something we desperately need in our next cadidate.

*******And one extra little tidbit and point of good news . . . Mitt' leads in yet another 2012 GOP poll (this one by Fox News):

Who would you like to see as the GOP 2012 Presidential Nominee?
Among Republicans (previous poll results, May 12-13, in parentheses):
Mitt Romney 22% (18%)
Mike Huckabee 21% (20%)
Sarah Palin 17% (13%)
Rudy Giuliani 13% (12%)
Newt Gingrich 9% (14%)
Bobby Jindal 3% (3%)
Jeb Bush 1% (3%)
Tim Pawlenty 1%
Too soon to say 10% (7%)
Among Independents:
Mitt Romney 22% (12%)
Rudy Giuliani 16% (19%)
Mike Huckabee 15% (16%)
Sarah Palin 13% (10%)
Newt Gingrich 3% (5%)
Bobby Jindal 3% (2%)
Jeb Bush 2% (2%)
Tim Pawlenty 2%
Too soon to say 8% (14%)
Among Republicans/Independents (Combined):
Mitt Romney 22.0%
Mike Huckabee 18.8%
Sarah Palin 15.5%
Rudy Giuliani 14.1%
Newt Gingrich 6.8%
Bobby Jindal 3.0%
Jeb Bush 1.4%
Tim Pawlenty 1.4%
Too soon to say 9.3%

And as an extra bonus . . . a funny clip from Jon Stewart's Daily Show (love him or hate him, he IS funny) titled "What are you doing to help Mitt Romney?"

Mitt Sits Pretty in Present Polling

2009-07-08T03:48:00.002-05:00

Rasmussen has the first 2012 GOP primary poll post-Palin's press conference . . . and it's good news for Mitt!

(Chart courtesy of SeattlePI.com blog)

THIS IS A SAMPLE OF 750 LIKELY GOP PRIMARY VOTERS

The crosstabs show some interesting points as well . . .

Regardless of who you would vote for, which candidate would you least like to see win the Republican nomination in 2012?
Sarah Palin 21%, Haley Barbour 21%, Newt Gingrich 15%, Tim Pawlenty 15%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Mitt Romney 9%

In the 2012 election, how likely is it that a Republican candidate will defeat Barack Obama?
Very likely 41%, Somewhat likely 34%, Not very likely 14%, Not at all likely 4%

Does Sarah Palin’s resignation help or hurt her chances of winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?
Help 24%, Hurt 40%, No impact 28%
(Note the similarity of the 24% Palin get's in the total vote and the 24% here who say her resignation doesn't hurt her . . . her supporters are VERY loyal to her IMO)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net):
Mike Huckabee 78% / 17% (+61%) , Sarah Palin 76% / 21% (+55%) , Mitt Romney 73% / 19% (+54%) , Newt Gingrich 65% / 29% (+36%) , Dick Cheney 59% / 34% (+25%) , Tim Pawlenty 38% / 33% (+5%) , Haley Barbour 34% / 37% (-3%)

Voters aged of 18-29:
Palin 34% Huckabee 31%, Romney 18%, Newt 3%, Pawlenty 3%, Barbour 0%

Voters 65 and older:
Romney 34%, Huckabee 19%, Palin 18%, Newt 16%, Pawlenty 2%, Barbour 0%

Married:
Romney 26%, Huckabee 25%, Palin 21%, Newt 14%, Pawlenty 1%, Barbour 1%

Not Married:
Palin 33%, Romney 23%, Huckabee 14%, Newt 13%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 1%

Evangelical Christians:
Huckabee 35%, Palin 21%, Romney 17%, Newt 15%, Pawlenty 2%, Barbour 1%

Rarely or Never attend church:
Palin 31%, Romney 28%, Huckabee 14%, Newt 13%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 0%

Attend church more than once a week:
Huckabee 41%, Palin 20%, Gingrich 13%, Romney 11%, Barbour 2%, Pawlenty 1%

Favorables/Unfavorables Among Evangelical Christians (Very favorable/unfavorable):
Huckabee 89/8 (56/4), Palin 84/15 (56/4), Gingrich 74/22 (40/8), Romney 67/25 (36/5), Cheney 68/26 (32/9), Pawlenty 43/32 (11/9), Barbour 36/37 (8/15)

Favorables/Unfavorables Among Likely Voters who Rarely or Never Attend Church(Very favorable/unfavorable):
Palin 75/24 (41/12), Romney 71/22 (39/10), Huckabee 71/24 (30/9), Newt 62/34 (40/16), Cheney 59/38 (32/21), Pawlenty 41/41 (10/16), Barbour 36/46 (10/22)

SUMMING IT ALL UP:

Romney's sitting in a very good position. He's in a statistical tie for the lead among GOP voters. However, Palin and Huckabee have done VERY poorly among independents/moderates/Democrats in other polling whereas Romney has been very strong in these groups (see recent Pew Research Poll).

This Rasmussen poll, once again, shows that Romney still has trouble with what could be called the more devout Evangelical Christians (those that go to church more than once a week, who apparently view Romney on par with Dick "Vader" Cheney while they think Huckabee walks on water). However, Romney is very strong among more mature and more educated voters . . . and this bodes well for actual GOP turnout (not to mention it being a good sign that older, wiser, and more educated people see that Romney is the best man for the job . . . hopefully that sentiment will flow into other age and educational groups over the coming months/years.

BOTTOM LINE:

IF THE ECONOMY, HEALTHCARE, AND/OR FOREIGN POLICY ARE THE ISSUES OF THE DAY IN 2010/2011, ROMNEY WILL BLOW HIS MAJOR CURRENT COMPETITION AWAY IN THE GOP PRIMARY . . . AND EVEN THE MEDIA BIAS FOR OBAMA WON'T BE A MATCH FOR AN ANGRY NATION WANTING THE REAL, COMPETENT, AND STRONG LEADERSHIP THAT ROMNEY EMBODIES.

McCain / Palin - Please Utilize Romney's Talents

2008-09-06T16:13:00.006-05:00

Those who read my posts right as Mitt was getting out of the race may remember that I wasn't all that upset that it looked like McCain was going to take the nomination.

I was rooting for McCain back in 2000 versus George W. Bush. I would have been on the McCain team this time around if it were not for the fact that I fit squarely into the right demographics that get excited about someone like Romney. Articulate, brave, and able to look at all sides of an issue and come up with a solution that makes most of the stakeholders comfortable.The signature achievement that fits that description is the Massachusetts health care plan. It couldn't have taken place without support of the democrats in his state. But it wouldn't have happened if someone else was leading the effort. Romney took what is typically known as a democratic project, and worked on it so that Republicans saw it as something they could support too.

And I'm glad that McCain picked Palin as VP. I think Romney would have been a good pick, but there is a significant block of voters who do not agree with me, who would actually turn away from McCain if he chose Romney as VP. I don't think the GOP can risk it right now.

I'm sure I'm not the only Romney supporter who thinks McCain/Palin do a fantastic job speaking to ordinary non-elitist Americans. I think they've got something good going, and I'm pretty happy about it.

I support you McCain. You've got my vote. You've got my vote for two reasons. The supreme court, and nuclear power.

Supreme court first. I need the republicans to nominate and confirm at least 3 more supreme court justices. The supreme court was the one and only reason I voted for George W. Bush in 2004. As much as I am not crazy about him, Huckabee would have had my vote in a general election specifically so we don't have a democrat nominating / appointing judges.

Nuclear power second. Note to McCain and Palin: You guys hit all the right notes with me on energy policy. Keep talking like you've been talking, then govern like you're campaigning and you will have nothing but my profound thanks on this issue.

You've got my support. But you know what would make me happy? Once you're in office, put Mitt Romney somewhere where he can audit the federal budget. Put him on some task force where he can come up with creative solutions to getting Americans insured.

You've got my vote either way... But if you let everyone know what you're going to use Mitt Romney for in the McCain administration... I'll donate money to your campaign, and I'll actively campaign in your behalf.

One note on Huckabee. I've had some time to cool off.

I still don't appreciate the fact that he piggybacked on the Romney infrastructure to come in 2nd at the Ames Straw poll.

I still haven't forgotten the mean, dishonest and unfair tactics used by the Huckabee supporters to tear Romney apart (pastors4huckabee, all you people posting on the Huckabee for prez website comments sections, I'm thinking of you guys here).

I have noticed recent pot shots, Monday morning quarterbacking by Huckster on certain actions taken by Gov Romney in Mass on the issue of Gay Marriage. And I still don't appreciate it. I realize that all republicans don't see this issue the same way, nor do all republicans agree on what to do about it. But don't you guys realize that without someone handling the situation EXACTLY like Gov Romney handled it, Gay marriage would be legal throughout the entire country?

All the same. Huckabee can be a valuable ally in the Republican party. I saw Huckabee on the Daily Show the other day. He handled it really well. I think I'd be scared for Romney to go on a show like that. Maybe he'd handle it with finesse like almost everything else he does, but I'm not so sure.

Huckabee does a really really good job connecting with small town America. Okay Romney supporters here's a question. Who would do better going down to Louisiana to show support, and provide relief to flood victims? How about connecting with families who are worried about home foreclosure? Huckabee is much better suited for stuff like that. I still tend to think that a Romney Huckabee ticket could have been a good thing. But America isn't there yet. Mormons and Evangelical Christians are too much like oil and water. Unfortunately. One day I hope that changes, I really do.

Back to McCain... I'll be curious to know how you're going to put to use all of the talent of your primary competitors. Rudy Giuliani really has some chops, as do the rest of the GOP primary drop outs.

Congratulations to you, and again, you've got my support.

Best Regards

Big Jay

Romney attendsMcCain's BBQ

2008-05-26T00:52:00.002-05:00

Weekend Barbecue Fuels Speculation About McCain’s VP Choice

Romney was there....keep speculating. All of you.

Story here:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/24/weekend-barbecue-fuels-speculation-about-mccains-vp-choice/

Romney Says He Would Agree to Be McCain VP Running Mate

2008-03-12T00:17:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney had his first public interview since suspending his campaign after super tuesday. He spoke if what I have been predicting : A V.P. nod from McCain. Romney would definitiely be able to draw the conservative republicans to McCain's campaign. Plus he would make an exceleent VP.

Read all about it on Fox:

Romney Says He Would Agree to Be McCain VP Running Mate

Romney to Endorse McCain . . . Today--3PM in Boston

2008-02-14T12:52:00.001-06:00

AP broke the news a few minutes ago.

Discussions on Fox News are saying that this makes Romney a favorite for VP (helps with unifying the right and talk-radio folks, helps in Michigan and the west, helps with potenially drawing upon Romney's money).

Also speculation that Romney's delagate going to McCain get him close to the magic 1191 that will be when Huckabee drops out . . . so this could be the move that makes Huck get out of the race . . . ah, sweet justice.

"The Mittness"

2008-02-08T07:27:00.000-06:00

I know this is sort of an anticlimactic video, but I LOVE IT and can't stop singing the tune.

By far the best music video tribute of the 2008 race.

I'll chime in with my thoughts and opinions about Romney and the race he ran in the near future.

Way to go Mitt!

2008-02-07T13:08:00.000-06:00

What an amazing camaign that Mitt Romney put together! He went from a widely-unknown candidate in January 2007 to a frontrunner! He also became the one candidate that the conservative republican base rallied to.
In a way, I feel that it is partially their fault that McCain is leading at this point. The conservative media and pundits have had Mitt Romney in front of them for over a year now, and they kept hoping for something "better" to come along before they endorsed. Suddenly McCain was leading and they all feared a liberal rebublican nominee, and rallied to Mitt's side. Unfortunately it was too late.
But not for us here in Iowa. We have been supporting him here in Iowa since the Iowa Republican Convention in 2006 where he gave the breakfast meeting speech, and rallied Iowa Republuicans to stand for strong military, strong economy and strong families. He essentially re-aligned conservatives with true conservative principals. We supported him at the Straw poll where he recieved a higher percentage of votes that any previous candidate. We supported him at the caucus, where he won many of the highest population counties, including the one I live in.

Way to go Mitt, way to go.

We look forward to following your lead in the future!

Keith Steurer

Mitt Should Stay In

2008-02-06T15:25:00.000-06:00

I still stand by my last post about the Republican Dream Team Strategy. I've heard the rhetoric of the last week or so, and I still say that I am not a McCain hater. I think Mitt is a better candidate, I think Mitt is more competent in every way to lead this country. But I don't hate John McCain. I'm not one of those republicans that would rather have Hillary Clinton lead this country rather than what I consider to be a less worthy republican than Mitt.

I still think Mitt should stay in either until McCain gets enough delegates to win the nomination, or until the convention.

Obviously, as a Mitt Romney supporter, I am quite demoralized at this stage of the game. I am specifically disappointed by the rejection of Romney the Mormon in rural America. I was glad for those voters when it was Dubya versus John Kerry, so I guess I'll take the good with the bad when it's Huckster versus Mitt Romney.

I do intend to remind rural America that they brought what is coming on themselves by rejecting Mitt Romney.

Rural Iowa, there is one reason why gay marriage isn't legal in your state the same way abortion is legal in your state. That reason is Mitt Romney. The guy rural Iowa voters rejected in favor of Huckster.

Do rural voters care about the future of Social Security?

How about the Supreme Court?

Do rural voters care about the trade deficit? Do they even know what that means?

Do rural voters care about American jobs?

Do rural voters care about health care?

Do rural voters care about the declining dollar?

These are things that will have a huge impact on rural America. Between Mitt, Hillary, Barack, Mike and John, only Mitt can take on all of these challenges at the same time.

I'm not very hopeful about the Mitt Romney campaign moving forward to victory in 2008. And I'm not very optimistic about a republican surge to victory in 2008 either. It's looking like it's gonna be 1996 all over again.

Mitt - I have friends and acquaintances in Virginia, and some in Maryland. They're all ready to vote for you in a couple of weeks. Don't drop out.

We'll be here in 2012, and hopefully by then rural America will be tired of illegal immigration, the declining dollar, recession, social security fubar, and won't care if a Mormon fixes it. I'll be in a better position to donate more money to your campaign, and do fundraising for you.

Meanwhile, rural America can reassure themselves with vapid self help books by Mike Huckster like:

12 Pointless Actions to Prepare for the Coming Recession!
or
Yes! You CAN Stimulate The Economy!
or
Don't Worry About Health Insurance! Solve The Problem Through Diet and Exercise!

Evangelicals Should not Vote for Huckabee or McCain (so says major Evangelical leader)

2008-02-04T17:01:00.000-06:00

This message is going out along the Christian News Wire. Hope it makes it far and wide QUICKLY!!

The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), in his capacity as a private citizen, today released this statement regarding tomorrow's primary votes:

"I have spent the last 33 years as an active evangelical Christian. I am an ordained evangelical minister. I graduated from an evangelical Bible college and an evangelical seminary. I serve on the board of America's oldest association of evangelical church leaders, and I head one of the most active evangelical ministries in Washington, DC.

"I have thought long and hard about the upcoming elections. I have prayed earnestly about them, and I have met many of the candidates and their top campaign people and I have studied their platforms and policy proposals.

"After careful and prayerful consideration, I have concluded that an evangelical vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain, and a vote for John McCain will be a disaster for this country.

"Let me explain. It's clear to me and many others that Mike Huckabee is not broadening his appeal enough to win the primary. Therefore, his only contribution is to siphon off votes, giving McCain a clear path to victory. It's very possible Huckabee is being positioned to be John McCain's pick for vice president. In order to win, McCain needs Mike Huckabee and the evangelical votes he brings with him. The specter of a McCain-Huckabee ticket is bad for evangelicals.

. . .

"Evangelicals must consider both the stakes and the realities in this election. Mike Huckabee's continuation only helps John McCain. The consequences are just too great to take this risk. A McCain victory will hurt this country because of the long-term damage of the wrong judges and justices. Worse, McCain's court legacy will continue to hurt our children and our grandchildren, perhaps even our great grandchildren.

"Evangelicals must choose wisely from among candidates other than Mike Huckabee and John McCain as they vote tomorrow, February 5."

For identification purposes only, the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) is president of Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance and co-founder of the annual National Memorial for the Pre-born and their Mothers and Fathers, the only pro-life worship service held inside the U.S. Capitol complex in Washington, DC.

Strong words there, and from someone who hasn't endorsed Romney . . . just a pragmatic leader who sees how horrible McCain would be as both a nominee and/or President.

Let's hope this makes the rounds QUICKLY!

Rally To Romney!!

2008-02-02T12:39:00.000-06:00

I'm getting a sense of way too much "resignation" among some online Mitt supporters. In the last few days Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rick Santorum have all endorsed Romney and said that they would be voting for him. Although I wish these endorsements came earlier, it's clear that Romney is the conservative alternative to McCain (despite McCain's ads recently that call him "The True Conservative" . . . I spit out my milk when I heard that line).

I will also go on the record (again) that, should he become the nominee, I will not vote for McCain and will not encourage anyone else to vote for him either (probably not even if Romney is his VP). There are several reasons for this:

1) McCain lied about Romney's record on Iraq saying that Romney favored a "timetable for withdrawl like the Democrats." I've detailed the more-than-copious evidence that this is an outright and blatant lie here. I don't want, and we don't need, a liar as our nominee.

2) McCain has made quite a practice of "poking his finger in the eye" of conservatives. I'm guessing that he's man enough to realize and understand that many/most of us feel like returning the favor.

3) If McCain is the nominee, it's clear that, regardless which party wins, our country will have a President to the left of Bush. I don't want the GOP (and, by extension, conservatism) blamed for the ensuing mess of taking our country more to the left. Let the Democrats take the full blame of getting what they're asking for. That could be the best thing in the long run for the GOP and for conservatism.

Granted, I still am fighting and working to make sure that Romney is our nominee and not McCain. I would LOVE to be able to vote for the GOP nominee. We must all Rally to Romney!! He'll be the best President of anyone still in the game. His competence and leadership are unrivaled. People just need to wake up and realize it.

The Republican Dream Team Strategy

2008-01-30T09:42:00.000-06:00

UPDATE: Okay Huckster supporters reading this blog. I said some unflattering words about Huckster down this post and things have gotten a little hot in the comments section. I've got some strong opinions against Mike Huckabee. I don't like him and I really feel that he ran a horribly divisive campaign in Iowa, used below the belt, knife in the back attacks etc... Here's what I'm getting at. I think Mitt supporters should still support Mitt until the convention, but lets be open to the possibility that McCain could unite the Republicans. With the right words, and statesman like behavior/attitude, McCain could smooth over the differences between the varying camps. (Romney could do the same thing if he gets the nomination. That's my opinion)

UPDATE 2: I watched the debate last night, and... So far it isn't looking like a dream team is coming together. I am just crossing my fingers at this point.

I was really really hoping that Mitt Romney would win last night.

Seriously.

I wanted to see Mitt gain a head of steam and take it all the way to victory.

Mitt is still my candidate. I'll support him until the convention. But I do want to put some of my current thoughts out there about McCain.

First - I supported McCain in 2000. I like McCain. I may disagree with him sometimes, but I'll take McCain any day. It's easy to get caught up in a primary election and be overzealous toward your candidates' opponents. If Rudy, or Fred had ran away with the nomination I would not have been upset and would gladly have voted for them. It looks to me like John McCain has the most reasonable trajectory toward the nomination at this moment and I'm not freaking out about it.

I support Mitt still because I think he's better than McCain, Rudy, Fred, and the rest of the crowd. But it was never a question for me of whether or not I would vote for these guys. If Rudy had gotten the nomination, I wouldn't be one of those voters pushing for a 3rd party candiate. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and 2004 specifically because I trust him to pick supreme court justices more than I trusted Al Gore, or John Kerry. I trust GWB with my tax dollars more than I trust them with John Kerry. My opinion: Mitt Romney is the best choice for America. But the other guys would have been okay too.

Let's assume McCain gets the nomination and Mitt tapers off in the next few weeks.

McCain still will have trouble competing financially with Billary Clobama in the general election. Remember both of those candidates have raised over 100 million dollars each.
McCain still needs to reach out to all aspects of the republican coalition.
McCain needs a competent VP pick who has the energy and capacity and competence to take over if McCain keels over and dies in office.
McCain needs an organization with infrastructure that can counter the Clinton Machine.
McCain needs a narrative that can unite the Republicans, and compete with the Democratic narrative that has been shaping up within the mainstream media.
McCain needs to realize that the media support he has enjoyed up to this point will end the moment he receives the nomination, if that happens.

McCain needs to put together a 'Dream Team'

If McCain gets the nod, Romney should be the VP.

He's got the infrastructure
He's got the fundraising capacity
He's got the rhetorical skills to counter the Bill Clintons, and the Barack Obamas.
He's got the executive skills, to be President, but he's also got the consultant skills that can be unleashed behind the scenes to re-reinvent government.
Any point Clinton or Obama could make in a debate in a general election, with Mitt as VP could be countered with... 'Healthcare? My VP has more healthcare experience than all of us in this room put together. We have a team. We're not going to change this country alone, we're going to unite and solve our problems as one America.' 'Budget balancing? We've got more fiscal hawk experience on my team than all the democrats put together.' Etc...

What about the other candidates?

Rudy - Has shown class in the way he has run his campaign. His personal life may not be totally perfect, but he should rightly be proud of what he accomplished in NYC. His talents should be brought to bear in a 2008-2012 republican administration. Rudy should be the Secretary of State.
Fred Thompson - He should be on the ticket somewhere, but I'm not sure where.
Huckster - he needs to be put to use somehow. He has shown an uncanny ability to turn out small town, squirrel eating, narrow minded, uneducated voters in droves. We're going to need all the votes we can get in the general election. Huckster and Romney have reason not to like each other, and in my opinion it has everything to do with Huckster playing the religion card during the primaries, and the fact that Huckster is a big idiot. McCain could very well be the best person to convince Romney and Huckster, and their supporters (like me) to bury the hatchet. Also Romney could easily hook Huckster up with some legitimate way to pay his mortgage without accepting bribes.

With a dream team put together, the republicans can counter the democrats. What I don't want to see is personal vendettas that tear apart the republican party. I've read several places that McCain 'hates' Mitt Romney. I don't want the democrats picking our judges for the next decade. I don't want the democrats dealing with health care, or social security or anything else. PLEASE? Can't we all just get along?

Mitt. In my opinion, you should just run your organization for the next 14 days. Get all the delegates you can. Don't blow a lot of money on advertising. Everybody knows you've got plenty. You're the obvious choice for President. You're also the obvious VP pick. You and McCain could unite the party.

Mitt, you've had my vote this whole time. You're my guy. Play this right please?

McCain. You and I are cool with each other. Please play this right? Please do this in such a way that if you get the nomination you can unite the repubicans.

PLEASE?????

Romney takes a respectable "silver", McCain continues dirty politics

2008-01-29T23:18:00.000-06:00

Romney placed second in Florida, and gave a great speech. By contract, McCain gave a mediocre politicized speech. Let's compare! Feel free to watch both, and notice the following:

1. Romney did not use a teleprompter, McCain did, and looked as if he'd never used one before. He can't remember more than 3 words at a time. He's nothing but a Washington-insider puppet that the Democrats are happily supporting so that he can divide the republican party. Could anyone list all the people McCain owes favors to on a single legal pad of paper? Probably not. OK, back to the comparisons...
2. Romney talked about all core conservative values, McCain talked about national security since thats his only conservative edge.
3. Romney talked about his plan for America, McCain didn't.
4. Romney talked about the road ahead, McCain bragged about his endorsements.
5. Romney took the time to offer his respect for "W" in his speech, McCain continues to slam "W" in order to gain popularity. McCain is such a hypocrite. I saw him just 4 years ago in Madison, WI speaking on behalf of George W. Bush as a surrogate, touting what a brilliant man "W" is, and now he is trashing him to gain popularity. And when I saw him, the war in Iraq had already started, and he was praising the operation back then.
7. Romney had his family surrounding him, McCain had his wife and daughter, and some more off stage, but what I thought was weird was the random woman that ran up to him after his speech and hugged him before his wife could even get to him. (huh?)

Let's face it, McCain represents all those in Washington, dems and republicans, who are scared stiff to think that Romney could win the election to become President. They all know he will cut spending, and bring down all of their corruption. Run little rabbits, run!

ROMNEY VIDEO

McCAIN VIDEO

"I'M MAD AS HELL . . . AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!": How McCain Lost His Integrity in Dishonest Political Trick Against Romney

2008-01-27T14:51:00.000-06:00

(Apologies to the film Network for borrowing the headline above . . . YouTube here--a great moment in cinematic history and worth the 4 minutes)

Much has been said on Romney blogs and elsewhere expressing outrage at McCain's desperate tactic to dishonestly smear Gov. Romney's stance on "timetables" and the Iraq war. It's blatantly apparent that McCain only did this to bring the issue of "Iraq" back into the race. McCain knows (and has repeatedly admitted) that "the Economy" is not his strong point, and that he'll lose to Romney in a head to head fight when that is the #1 issue. So, McCain's solution is to invent a controversial position for his main rival that plays to his own strength. Pitiful politics at its worst.

I've heard this false "timetables" accusation once before (good old Huck), so I was initially willing to believe that McCain was maybe just going off of bad information--that he would correct the situation once he realized the context. But when Romney's recommendation for a McCain apology was met with a "Romney should apologize to the troops for being willing to abandon them" (paraphrased) rebuttal I started getting downright angry.

When I realized that yesterday McCain said "My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal" my anger turned to OUTRAGE!

Then on Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert went softball on McCain on this issue with no follow-up, allowing McCain to repeat his position unchallenged with the follow-up of "please read on Senator" when Romney says that he would, like President Bush, veto any legislation setting timetables for Iraq. That's either biased or shoddy journalism folks.

McCain is LYING! He's inventing this pseudo-smear to bring back his preferred issue into the limelight . . . Iraq. Then I find out that, last year, McCain recommended a similar strategy (and his would have been PUBLIC . . . in contrast to Romney's) of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain date, would lead to pulling out of Iraq before success was achieved!! This took my OUTRAGE to the next level . . . the "I'M MAD AS HELL! AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!" level.

Who's with me here?

I'm sure every Romney supporter is at least outraged. Most may be outraged enough to make it harder for McCain to count on any significant support from Romney's base if he were to get the nomination. I can tell you that I'm mad enough that I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND I'LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO INFLUENCE OTHERS TO WITHHOLD THEIR SUPPORT AND VOTES FROM HIM AS WELL. Romney has always supported the troops and the war, even while governing liberal Mass. For McCain to imply otherwise is sickening (McCain went further and actually implied that Romney's position was the same as Hillary Clinton's on timetables!).

Beyond Romney's supporters "McCain Disdain" should be felt by every conservative and pro-Military American, who should view him with much less respect for dragging the American soldiers into this contrived controversy. Utterly shameless Senator McCain.

I know a lot of conservatives with influence see how dishonest McCain is being. But even the liberal MSM is calling this "scuffle" for Romney. This isn't just a nuanced misunderstanding, this is dirty politics full of tricks and lies, and it's pretty easy to see where the facts stand.

The evidence:

I've documented before how slanted the AP has been in their pro-McCain/anti-Romney bias.

So when the AP sides with Romney over McCain, you KNOW it's iron clad and there's no way for ANYONE to honestly see things from McCain's point of view.

The Arizona senator stood before a crowd in Sun City, Fla., and said he was quoting Romney as favoring a ''timetable for withdrawal.'' However, quotes circulated by McCain's campaign didn't show Romney making that comment.
. . .
By raising Iraq, McCain sought to shift the campaign in Florida back to his strength, national security, and away from Romney's, the economy.
. . .
During the campaign stop later in Sun City, McCain clipped three words from a quotation of Romney's last April, saying the former Massachusetts believed the country should set a ''timetable for withdrawal.''

In an interview with ABC News last April, Romney never uttered those words
. . .
Romney aides labeled McCain's charge ''stunningly false'' in an e-mail to campaign reporters.

Other liberal sources that see McCain's misleading dishonesty include the New York Times (yep, the same paper that just endorsed McCain again . . . and yes, McCain sought out that endorsement), and Time Magazine (yep, the same magazine that just ran an incredibly positive cover and story about McCain being the "Phoenix Rising" in the race).

And CNN legal analyst calls it right in the YouTube below:

Text here:

JEFF TOOBIN: Speaking of straight talk, no American politician has gotten more adoring press coverage than John McCain. But let's be clear about what John McCain is doing about Mitt Romney. He's lying. He's lying about Mitt Romney's position, no question about it. And you know I think that — this idea that Mitt Romney supports timetables, in fact most Americans support timetables to get out of Iraq, Mitt Romney doesn't happen to be one of them. That's really outrageous what McCain is doing bringing up this ancient interview and distorting it at the last minute so he doesn't have to talk about the economy.

Among conservatives there's plenty of displeasure with McCain's tactic as well:

Brit Hume flat out said that "McCain was dishonest" on this issue on Fox News Sunday this morning. Hume said it TWICE! He was even exasperated that Chris Wallace was trying to present McCain's side of it by rebutting (paraphrased) "Chris, as journalists we have a duty to try to present things accurately . . ." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 1/27/08)

Sean Hannity was railing on McCain for this tactic last night on a special Saturday edition of Hannity and Colmes. Expect more of it from Sean on his Radio and TV shows tomorrow (not to mention what Rush will have to say tomorrow!!)

"The Great One" Mark Levin, has seemed to make somewhat of a personal crusade out of this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here.

Center-Right influential blogger Ed Morrissey has plenty to say about the whole affair, but even his title "The Low Blow" pretty much sums it up. (BTW, he just endorsed Romney over at Captain's Quarters)

Katherine Jean Lopez of the National Review has chimed in too.

Powerline's Paul Mirengoff blast's Lindsey Graham for trying to defend McCain (and mis-characterize Romney) on this issue.

Bill Bennett (a strong McCain apologist and friend) said on CNN (CNN's "Newsroom," 1/26/08) that McCain's Iraq hit on Romney [was] "Way Below The Belt.":

"But the blow he took at Romney was way below the belt." . . .
"He's a maverick candidate. He should apologize for it." . . .
"He Twisted That Entirely Out Of Context." . . .
"He's always criticizing people doing that to him and he absolutely should not have done it." . . .
"It just wasn't fair and honor is his watch word and he -- I think it would be great if he said I got that one wrong. And that would be a rare thing."

Mark Steyn gets in on the act at NRO's "The Corner" by calling McCain's petty attacks unseemly for a candidate trying to give the impression that he always "takes the high road of honor"

Hugh Hewitt presents the Romney Campaign's defense.

Andy McCarthy also chimes in with a little sarcasm directed McCain's way (saying he should follow his own Campaign Finance Reform guidelines and not drop baseless bombshells within 30 days of an election)

By contrast, Huckabee (on Fox News Sunday) said that McCain has NEVER been dishonest, and sided with the Senator's opinion that Romney really did support a timetable for withdrawl. Big surprise there, eh?

If Romney survives this tag-team from his two main GOP rivals in addition to the nearly incessant negative media coverage (present topic excluded) he'll really be "The Resilient One"--a nominee we can put up against the Dems and their MSM machine with no fear of whether he can survive such a media/DNC onslaught.

Update: Adding to the sources above, Kyle Hampton's post adds some more confirmatory evidence of McCain's lie.

Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.

Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.

Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq. (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)

David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.

Update #2 (2/3/08) Yet more evidence of McCain's blatant dishonesty:

Michael Reagan, in a piece that strongly argues that "McCain's no Reagan", says:

In last night’s debate, McCain stubbornly defended his charge, false on the face of it, that Romney wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I have never, ever supported a specific timetable" for withdrawing troops, Romney said, adding that McCain's accusation on the eve of Tuesday's primary "sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible."

What Romney said last April, was merely that U.S. and Iraqi leaders "have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about" in private, which in no way suggests he was in any sense talking about troop withdrawals.

Despite the evidence, McCain charged that "of course he said he wanted a timetable" for a withdrawal, even though he had never said any such thing. It was McCain daring to ask us if we wanted to believe our lying eyes or his demonstrably false allegation.

McCain must think conservatives are dumb . . .

Thomas Sowell (who rarely ventures deeply into "horserace" politics) penned a piece entitled "McCain's Straight Lies":

The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker.

There are short, blunt lies — and he told a big one on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
. . .

Confronted with his lie on Wednesday night's debate, McCain blustered and filibustered in a manner reminiscent of Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny," when he was caught in a lie during a navy inquiry.

When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.

Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.

The Washington Post (who has endorsed McCain) even gave him "Three Pinnochio's" for this whopper:

Talking vaguely about "timetables and milestones" is not the same thing as setting "a date for withdrawal," from Iraq, as Senator McCain has tried to argue. And while Romney has talked about secret understandings with the Iraqi government, that is very different from promises by Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates to remove most U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2009.

The AP's follow-up story "Fact Check: Romney didn't say what McCain says he said on withdrawing from Iraq" also bashes McCain's dishonesty:

Republican John McCain tried to lump Mitt Romney with Democrats who want a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

But Romney never called for the kind of public withdrawal date or timeline that Democrats in Congress sought last year.
. . .
THE FACTS:

Romney never embraced the idea of a public withdrawal date.

Reuters saw the distortion and political ploy for what it was:

SHIFTING TOPICS

A day earlier, McCain accused Romney of backing a set withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Iraq, a distortion of Romney's record that he angrily denied.

George Will condemned McCain on this, accusing him of "Crooked-talk" in his recent piece "Staying the Coarse":

This was a garden-variety dishonesty, the manufacture of which does not cause a Clinton in midseason form to break a sweat. And it was no worse than -- actually, not as gross as -- St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business. That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.
But that dreary scenario need not come to pass. Romney seems to have found his voice as attention turns to the economy, a subject concerning which McCain seems neither conversant nor eager to become so.

Rush Limbaugh of course, covered the topic and chose to title the segment "McCain's Clintonesque Lie About Romney and Iraq Is Disappointing"

Now, this was totally dishonest. This attack by Senator McCain just wasn't true. Romney has never advocated timetables. The New York Times labeled this as untrue. The AP leveled it as untrue. Senator McCain had to change the subject because I think they got some bad polling data to indicate that they had to change the subject. But this really roiled a lot of people over the weekend. This was just blatant, this was just an out-and-out lie, and many people thought that the McCain camp thought they would get away with it because of their love and slavish devotion of the Drive-By Media. But it didn't work. He didn't get away with it. It remains to be seen what impact it will have on primary voters in Florida tomorrow. My friend Andrew McCarthy had the funniest take on this. I so wanted to steal this as my own, but I have ethics, and I think when people come up with great stuff, they deserve the credit for it. Andrew McCarthy, on Saturday afternoon in the midst of all of this, said, "I'm starting to think Senator McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates' names within 30 days before a primary."

He levels an allegation about Romney that's just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an ad calling him on it they'd be in violation of McCain's reform of campaign finance regulations. What a racket McCain is running. Is that not brilliant? And it's absolutely right. McCain comes out with this lie about Romney in the middle of the afternoon on Saturday, and there's no way a Romney camp or group can run an ad on television here in Florida refuting it because you can't do that 30 days before a primary under McCain-Feingold's restrictions on free speech, but the candidates can go out there and say what they want. So Romney had to do the replying himself. He put a video up, and they were quick getting it out, but McCarthy's point is right on the money. It's hilarious. Hey, Senator McCain, you can't say anything about any candidate within 30 days before the election. McCain-Feingold ought to extend to the candidates, too, don't you think?

And even more from liberal networks that I'm pasting in from a Romney Campaign Press Release:

CNN's John King: "Governor Romney Did Not Say That." "He did not say the president should go to Iraq and give Al-Maliki a timeline for withdrawal in private. Governor Romney did not say that." (CNN's "Newsroom," 1/26/08)

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "He's Desperately Trying To Change The Topic From The Economy..." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)

· Scarborough: "He Did Lie About, Everybody Knows That He Lied About Mitt Romney." "If John McCain did lie and he did lie about it, everybody knows that he lied about Mitt Romney, everybody knows he lied when he said that he wanted to put a timeline on it and get us out of there." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/30/08)

· Scarborough: "I Haven't Met Anybody In The Media That Hasn't Said John McCain Lied About Mitt Romney." "I haven't met anybody in the media that hasn't said John McCain lied about Mitt Romney and it threw Romney off for two days. What's wrong with saying that?" (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/30/08)

MSNBC's David Shuster: "John McCain Is Being Misleading." "Actually, Mitt Romney is on the money with this one, and John McCain is being misleading." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)

· Shuster: McCain's Attack Was "Not Right." "But the fact of the matter is, when John McCain says that Mitt Romney was for public timetables, in other words, letting the Iraqis know when U.S. troops are leaving and that therefore Mitt Romney should apologize to the troops, as John McCain said, that's not right." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)

On Hannity and Colmes lastFriday night (Feb 1st) Newt Gingrich was giving his opinion on the GOP race and distinctly mentioned that McCain was "wrong" and "dishonest" in this attack.

Bob Dole even chimed in on the issue:

I do not agree that Governor Romney ever suggested a timetable for troop withdrawals in Iraq.

Is it sinking in that this isn't just a bunch of pro-Romney people making this point?

Fred Is Out

2008-01-22T13:27:00.000-06:00

Fred Thompson announced that he is withdrawing today.

Its kind of sad. I liked Fred better than a lot of the other candidates running. In an ideal world, the less desirable candidates get knocked out when people start voting.

FredHeads Will Decide the GOP Nominee

2008-01-22T00:55:00.000-06:00

FredHeads will play a vital role in this race and WILL end up choosing the nominee, though, to their obvious chagrin, it will not be for their first choice candidate.

I've been watching and analyzing this race for two years now, reading and commenting nearly daily at forumns such as RedState, FreeRepublic, and Race42008. I've seen the slow dance of Fred's entrance, his surge in popularity and polls, and his steady decline. I've debated with FredHeads about both Fred and Mitt, their strengths and weaknesses. Interestingly, there has been a significant "warming" to Mitt among FredHeads and vice-a-versa over the last several weeks. Most Mitt supporters I know have Fred #2 on their list (me included . . . though it's a close call with Rudy because I like his executive experience).

Whether or not Fred officially drops out, it's clear that he does not have a realistic shot at becoming the nominee. His supporters will probably join other camps shortly.

Two online polls taken in the wake of last Saturday's results asked folks who they'd vote for in a "Fred-less" field.

Over at RedState (jokingly referred to as "FredState") this poll was asked . . . and here are the results as of now:

Now that South Carolina is done, who will you vote for in your state?

Selection		Votes
John McCain	14%	307
Mike Huckabee	6%	135
Rudy Giuliani	11%	233
Mitt Romney	68%	1,458

2,133 votes total

Over at HotAir.com (another very pro-Fred blog), the question was even more direct:

For Fred Supporters: If Fred Thompson drops out of the race, which major candidate would you support?

Selection		Votes
Rudy Giuliani	15%	706
Mike Huckabee	4%	213
John McCain	7%	341
Mitt Romney	74%	3,535

4,795 votes total

There is much speculation that Fred will endorse McCain, so HotAir's readership was asked if such an ensdorsement would effect their vote:

If Fred Thompson endorses John McCain, what impact would that have on your vote?

Selection		Votes
No impact	88%	2,862
Somewhat more likely to vote for McCain	6%	205
Much more likely to vote for McCain	5%	172

3,239 votes total

Looks like FredHeads are the independent-minded voters that we'd expect of those supporting such a plain-spoken candidate.

For further evidence of FredHeads breaking for Mitt check out the comment section at HotAir (sorry, I didn't read all 1400 of them).

Some are even calling for a Romney/Fred ticket! I wouldn't have a problem with that personally. As Mitt supporters, we welcome any and all FredHeads into the fold.

Two-Week Flashback: McCain Lacks Understanding of Economic Issues

2008-01-21T23:45:00.000-06:00

I wrote the following blog back on Jan 5th . . . and the issue has only become more and more important. However, with the worldwide stock market crashes today (here too) and Wall Street likely to suffer as well (the Dow Futures look dismal) it bears repeating now. I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that we NEED Mitt Romney at the helm of our country and economy. And we absolutely DON'T NEED John McCain anywhere near the control panel of our economy.

So "The Economy" constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.

Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without healthcare insurance).

In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.

So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn't think so. His new economic plan isn't impressing many. And let's not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain's economic record (Their main points are that "John McCain is No Supply-Sider" and that he has a "Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative")

Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the ecomony?

Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:

SALEM, N.H. -- John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn't know much about economics . . .

Later in the piece:
McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign's alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he's weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.

Yet further:
Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."
Sorry John, but if you haven't gotten a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you're not ever going to "get it" . . . even if Greenspan's book is really good.

If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama? I think we have much better options to have at the TOP of the ticket.

Update Jan 14th:
I was just watching Road to the White House 2008 on C-Span (DVR'd) and John McCain, in a Saturday town hall meeting in MI, got a question about the economy and the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

He promptly said he knew it was a problem, but didn't know much about the details and so he brought up Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard to discuss the issue. After she answered the question, McCain mentioned that he wasn't an expert on every issue, but that he'd get people like her to advise him. I mean, this is a major issue in our economy and every other POTUS candidate can grasp it enough to say a few nice lines. Even Huck can sound conversant on the issue!

Update Jan 20th:
McCain is showing his lack of depth on economic understanding . . . and is proposing policy based on his faulty logic. It's SCARY folks!

I also noticed that the Romney campaign has been reading my blog :)

Jeff Fuller

Post SC/NV Evangelical vs non-Evangelical Scorecard (with NV Mormon vote analysis)

2008-01-20T16:01:00.000-06:00

Based on Exit polling from SC, NV, MI, NH, and IA (as well as real vote tallies from the five states--apologies to WY!):

Total voters thusfar: 1,731,000

Total "Evangelical/""Born Again" voters: 734,200

Total non-Evangelical voters: 996,800

Evangelical Numbers

Percent of total votes cast that were from Evangelicals: 42%

Evangelical Voters by candidate:

Huckabee -- 36%

Romney -- 25%
McCain -- 24%

Thompson -- 10%

Paul -- 4%

Giuliani -- 1%

Before SC, Romney was tied with Huckabee at 31% each with the Evangelical voters. Huckabee has an undisputed "base" among Evangelicals, but both Romney and McCain have proven that they can get a significant portion of the "Evangelical vote."

Non-Evangelical Numbers

Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 58%

Non-Evangelical Voters by candidate:

Romney -- 36%
McCain -- 35%
Paul -- 9%
Huckabee -- 9%

Thompson -- 6%
Giuliani -- 5%

Yes folks . . . the appeal for Huckabee to non-Evangelical voters is on par with Ron Paul's (before this Sat he actually trailed Ron Paul among non-Evangelical votes by quite a large margin). Huckabee definitely HAS NOT proven in any contest thus far that he can get non-Evangelicals to support him in large numbers.

Huck's best showing for the non-Evangelical votes was 14% (both in IA and SC--4th place in both instances). In MI he got 8% of non-Evangelical votes. In NH he got just 6%, and in Nevada he got a Hunter-esque 3% of the non-Evangelical votes. This does not bode well for Huckabee from Feb 5th onward (let alone how in the world he could compete in a general election). He's yet to prove that he can move beyond his base (and his gaffe-prone campaigning the last few weeks isn't helping with any "outreach"). Additionally MI, NV, and even SC have shown that he's even having a hard time "locking up" his Evangelical base effectively.

I maintain my position from last week's similar post: Mike Huckabee's sole purpose in this race right now is to dilute Romney's access to social conservative voters so that McCain can win and then Huck can hope to be chosen as VP.

***************

Now onto the Mormon vote in Nevada. Most media outlets seemed to delight in repeating that Romney got 94% of the LDS vote in Nevada. It was repeated time and again as I watched the coverage live and many pundits said/inferred that this factor accounted for Romney's win. Actually, if you subtracted out every single Mormon vote for Romney he still would have won by a double digit margin and had nearly double the votes of either of his next two competitors.

But others seemed to express dismay that one religious group would be so absolutely monolithic in it's support. However, they fail to recognize that Dems NV Exit polling shows that 3% of those participating in the Democratic caucus were Mormons. I'm guessing NONE of them voted for Romney (sarcasm intended).

With voting totals around 115,000 in the Dem race (I saw that number on Fox News) that would come out to approximately 3500 LDS voters NOT voting for Romney in the Dem caucus.

By contrast, 25% of the GOP caucus in NV that were Mormon with nearly 45,000 total GOP voters --- therefore around 11250 LDS voters and 94% of them were for Romney . . . but that means nearly 500 were not.

So, 4000 LDS in Nevada voted "Not for Romney" and 10,750 voted for Romney. That breaks down to 73% LDS for Romney and 27% LDS that were not for Romney. Not quite the absolutely robotic block-voting group that many media outlets are trying to play up, but, still, a solid base for Romney in the western/mountain states.

An interesting counter-argument about such huge LDS support for Mitt is that LDS have absolutely NO reservations about or aversion to Romney based on his religion, and can therefore view him outside of that context (while most non-LDS cannot) and therefore judge him solely on his record, experience, and issue stances. Romney surely hasn't "pandered" to the LDS base like Huckabee has to his Evangelical base. Historically speaking, there was no huge LDS groundswell of support for Orrin Hatch in 2000, or Mo Udall back in the 70s. Similarly, Harry Reid is a guy that only a tiny fraction of LDS would ever consider voting for based on co-religiosity. In Romney most LDS are able to see, outside of the context of him having a "weird religion," that he is an incredibly competent, faithful, successful, and articulate leader with a record of conservative governance and broad-based executive experience.

I've never thought there was any "upside" for Romney or his supporters to decry the hard or soft bigotry that he's faced because of his religion. Most of us have know it exists, but it is something difficult to quantify. It is what it is and it's hard to change, so why focus on it, right? No one likes a "whiner" and Romney certainly can't be criticized for being one.

However, a recent study out of Vanderbilt University provides pretty convincing evidence that religious aversion to Romney is very real, but has hidden under the cover of his branding as a "flip-flopper." The researchers conclude that such negative perceptions and labels have "stuck" to Romney because of underlying or overt theological misgivings about his religion.

Bias against Mitt Romney’s religion is one of the reasons that the tag “flip-flopper” sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist[s] . . .

“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.

The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.

“As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee,” Geer said.

Again, I present this not as a complaint or "whining" about it, but in an informational sense. Like Romney, I love data and believe in it's power. Having this new data out there might help people see deeper into the dynamics of this race and self-analyze why there may be an aversion to Romney for which he can hardly be blamed. That he has succeeded and progressed despite this "handicap" is quite impressive IMO.

Thoughts?

RedState poll: Who would you vote for now that Fred's gone

2008-01-20T01:15:00.000-06:00

New RedState poll: Who would you vote for now that Fred's gone

Romney's ahead now, but let's get him a convincing win!

Pre-Florida GOP Election Scorecard

2008-01-19T22:03:00.000-06:00

Election Scorecard:

Delegate Count (via CNN):

Romney

McCain

Huckabee

Thompson

Paul

Giuliani

Hunter

Total Cumulative Vote Tally (after 95% of SC vote)--1,679,675 votes cast thusfar in GOP contests (excluding Hunter and Keyes):
Romney - 537,070 -- 32%
McCain - 513,131 -- 30%
Huckabee - 339,801 -- 20%
Thompson - 121,628-- 7%
Paul - 107,428 -- 6%
Giuliani - 60,617 -- 4%

Medals Count (can you tell who I support?):
Romney - 3 Gold, 2 Silver
McCain - 2 Gold, 1 Silver, 1 Bronze
Huckabee - 1 Gold, 1 Silver, 2 Bronze
Thompson - 1 Silver, 1 Bronze
Paul -1 Silver
Hunter - 1 Bronze
Giuliani - NADA

In the face of all the data above, the media are now saying that McCain is unstoppable.

Some other considerations:
Romney also has:
1) RAISED the most money AND has the biggest purse to continue on to future states?

2)Won the largest plurality of voters in any contest ested state thusfar (39% of the vote, Romney's total in Michigan, is the highest percentage of any candidate in any contested state thusfar)

3) Won the most demographically diverse and most populous state thusfar (significant Urban, Suburban, and rural populations in MI)

94% of Nevada Mormons DID NOT Vote for Mitt (Contrary To Media Reports)

2008-01-19T19:27:00.000-06:00

Check out this . . .

Dems Exit polling shows that 3% of those participating in the Democratic were Mormons.

I'm guessing NONE of them voted for Romney (sarcasm intended).

With voting totals around 115,000 in the Dem race (I saw that number on Fox News) that would come out to approximately 3500 LDS voters NOT voting for ROmney.

Interesting, eh?

Nevada Called for Romney in 3.5 seconds

2008-01-19T12:39:00.000-06:00

The states where Romney wins, he wins convincingly.

Good job Mitt!!

Lee Bandy: "This Time Around, South Carolina is NOT going to pick the [eventual] winner"

2008-01-18T08:08:00.000-06:00

About 15 minutes into FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume yesterday honored veteran political journalist of The State in SC, Lee Bandy said (direct quote from re-watching it on my DVR):

"What the voter says here . . . I don't think there's gonna be any clear winner.
So, this time around, South Carolina is not going to pick the winner.
Somebody else may do that this time."

Most pundits and South Carolinians will be quick to remind you that the winner of SC has been the eventual nominee since 1980. Not this time . . . at least according to someone a lot more "in the know" than just about anyone else.

UPDATE: YouTube Obtained!

Ross Perot Intends to Vote Mitt Romney!

2008-01-17T10:41:00.000-06:00

I happen to have a deep affection for Ross Perot. I have spent several months working at the Perot Systems campus in Plano TX, and I even have an autographed copy of Ross Perot's autobiography.

Ross Perot is a good human being.

Remember when Jimmy Carter didn't have the cojones to rescue American hostages in Iran? Two of those hostages were Ross Perot's employees. Ross Perot and his team mounted a rescue effort. The US Government didn't do it. Ross Perot did.

Ross Perot is voting for Mitt Romney. Sweet.

Read the whole article. Ross doesn't have good things to say about John McCain. Read why - does anybody else see a possible swiftboating of McCain?

Huckabee has opened the bag of dirty tricks again......in South Carolina

2008-01-16T18:46:00.000-06:00

It looks as if Huckabee's dirty background support groups are push-polling in South Carolina, and slandering Romney, McCain and Thompson. The first two I understand, but Thompson? He's not really a threat, but I suppose they are covering all their bases. Interesting that they did not even show up in Michigan. Romney is the only candidate who has CONSISTENTLY CAMPAIGNED IN EVERY STATE. The others have picked and chosen the states where they thought they had the best chance. So long as Romney keeps bringing in the Gold Medals, he'll win the nomination despite a couple of silvers.

Excerpts: (Original Article from Foxnews.com)

Huckabee began circulating a statement accusing Romney backers of smearing him through The Club for Growth — an economic watchdog that has aggressively gone after the former Arkansas governor for raising taxes in his state.
Huckabee’s campaign released a list of seven Romney donors it claims
have given at least $585,000 to The Club for Growth. “What does $585,000 buy you?” a campaign statement asks. “It bought Mitt Romney backers a smear job against Mike Huckabee orchestrated by Beltway insiders.”
The Club for Growth held its own press conference Wednesday to slam what it calls Huckabee’s “liberal economic record,” but the blast against Romney is particularly poignant, not only because he is a successful businessman who has funded a good portion of his own campaign, but because the former Massachusetts governor has been running on the theme that Washington is broken and must be fixed by someone outside the I-495 loop.

Why is he so concerned that Romney supporters have donated to the club for growth? Even if they did, they have the right to. And who are the other thousands of CFG donors? If he trying to draw ties from them to every other candidate. I guess he is tired of hearing the truth in their commercials.

Elsewhere, however, a group of McCain supporters known as the South Carolina Truth Squad issued a statement condemning reported push-polling efforts by Colorado-based Common Sense Issues, which has been allegedly distorting McCain’s record on abortion. The pro-Huckabee organization ignored early pleas by their candidate to stop previous push polls.

We got similar push-polls here in Iowa, but they were against Romney and his religion. They were obviously from one of the many Huckabee dirty-trick factories cranking out push-poll calls.

Meanwhile, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who has yet to win a contest and has marked South Carolina as a line in the sand, also accused Huckabee’s backers of using push polling to distort his record on illegal immigration and abortion.
Thompson, who has repeatedly stated that he must do very well in South Carolina, decried rumors being floated that Huckabee’s campaign had asserted the former Tennessee senator was only staying in the race to pull votes from Huckabee and help his old friend, McCain. “It’s an attempt by the Huckabee campaign to get me to attack McCain so they don’t have to,” Thompson said. “Huckabee hasn’t said anything about McCain … mighty strange that McCain is leading the race and their focus is on me … just kind of South Carolina politics.”

Evangelical vs. non-Evangelical Scorecard: Some Surprising Results

2008-01-16T15:52:00.000-06:00

Based on Exit polling from MI, NH, and IA (as well as real vote tallies from the three states):

Total voters thusfar: 1,226,000

Total "Evangelical/""Born Again" voters: 465,150

Total non-Evangelical voters: 760,850

Evangelical Numbers

Percent of total votes cast that were from Evangelicals: 38%

Evangelical Voters by candidate:

Huckabee -- 31%

Romney -- 31%

McCain -- 21%

Thompson -- 6.4%

Paul -- 5.5%

Giuliani -- 1.6%

I think many would be surprised to find out that as many Evagelicals have chosen to vote for Romney as they have for Huckabee. Romney has definitely proved that he can get the "Evangelical vote."

Non-Evangelical Numbers

Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 62%

Non-Evangelical Voters by candidate:

Romney -- 38%
McCain -- 33%
Paul -- 9.1%
Huckabee -- 7.9%

Giuliani -- 5.7%

Thompson -- 3.4%

Yes folks . . . the appeal for Huckabee to non-Evangelical voters is LOWER than Ron Paul's. OUCH!! Huckabee definitely HAS NOT proven in any contest thusfar that he can get non-Evangelicals to support him in large numbers. This does not bode well for Huckabee from Feb 5th onward (let alone how in the world he could compete in a general election).

For all the talk of who can unify the three legs of the conservative base we are seeing living evidence that someone already is. Romney's supposed weakness among religious social conservatives/Evangelicals isn't bearing out in the votes cast thus far.

Roughly 1 out of every 3 Evangelicals who have cast their vote thus far have cast it for Romney.

Roughly 1 out of every 13 non-Evangelicals who have cast their vote thus far have cast it for Huckabee.

And therein lies the difference.

Mike Huckabee's sole purpose in this race right now is to dilute Romney's access to social conservative voters so that McCain can win and choose him as VP. There, I said it.

Election Scorecard

2008-01-16T01:37:00.000-06:00

Election Scorecard:

Total Cumulative Vote Tally:
Romney - 450,740 -- 37%
McCain - 367,126 -- 30%
Huckabee - 210,402 -- 17%
Paul - 85,807 -- 7%
Thompson - 51,536 -- 4%
Giuliani - 49,772 -- 4%
Winner: Mitt Romney (he was winning this BEFORE MI too)

Delegate Count (via CNN):
Winner: Mitt Romney (he has more delegates than Huckabee, McCain, and Rudy COMBINED)

Medals Count:
Romney - 2 Gold, 2 Silver
Huckabee - 1 Gold, 2 Bronze
McCain - 1 Gold, 1 Silver
Thompson - 1 Silver, 1 Bronze
Hunter - 1 Bronze
Giuliani -
Paul -
Winner: Mitt Romney

Which candidate has both RAISED the most money AND has the biggest purse to continue on to future states? Mitt Romney

Which candidate has won the largest plurality of voters in any contest thusfar? Mitt Romney (39% of the vote is the highest percentage of any candidate on either side in any contested state thusfar)

Which candidate won the most demographically diverse and most populous state thusfar? Mitt Romney (significant Urban, Suburban, and rural populations in MI)

A Contrast--Associated Press Has Blatant Pro-McCain/Anti-Romney Bias

2008-01-16T01:11:00.000-06:00

When McCain won New Hampshire by 5% (37% for him vs 32% for Mitt) the AP headline read: "McCain wins in New Hampshire, where he bet it all" (incidentally, if you look at the top bar of your Internet browser it reads "McCain Triumphs Where He Bet It All."

The contrast . . . When Romney won Michigan by nearly 10% and nearly 100,000 votes the AP headline reads: "Romney Edges McCain to Win Michigan"
And if that's not bad enough, check out the lead paragraphs to those AP articles . . .

McCain:

John McCain rode the Straight Talk Express straight into first place in New Hampshire, and back into the thick of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

''I hate to use to the word kid, but I think we showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like,'' the Arizona senator told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday, savoring victory . . .

Another AP article about McCain's NH win leads with:

CONDORD, N.H. (AP) — Arizona Sen. John McCain won the New Hampshire Republican primary Tuesday night, completing a remarkable comeback and climbing back into contention for the presidential nomination.
"We showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like," McCain told The Associated Press in an interview as he savored his triumph. "We're going to move on to Michigan and South Carolina and win the nomination."
The Arizona senator rode a wave of support from independent voters to defeat former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a showing that reprised his victory in the traditional first-in-the-nation primary in 2000.
It was a bitter blow for Romney, who spent millions of dollars of his own money in hopes of winning the kickoff Iowa caucuses and the first primary — and finished second in both.

Now the contrast to the AP article linked to above about Romney's Michigan victory:

DETROIT (AP) - Mitt Romney scored his first major primary victory Tuesday in his native Michigan, a win he desperately needed to give his weakened candidacy new life and set the stage for a wide-open Republican showdown in South Carolina in just four days.

Romney was the third Republican victor in the first four states to vote in the 2008 primary season, further roiling a volatile nomination fight that lacks a clear favorite.

No agenda there, eh?

Then they have the audacity to give McCain the last word in the AP article about Romney's win!

McCain said he had called Romney to congratulate him ``that Michigan welcomed their native son with their support.''

``Starting tomorrow, we're going to win South Carolina, and we're going to go on and win the nomination,'' McCain declared, also in an AP interview.

Yes folks, McCain got more quoted words/sentences in the AP article about Romney's MI win than Romney himself did. Shameless.

I've blogged before that McCain's resurgence in NH and nationally has been a completely media created, directed, and propagated affair. I repeat my questions here:

Which do you think will have a better chance in the general election . . . the one who's a front-runner DESPITE the MSM coverage or the one(s) that's a challenger BECAUSE of the MSM coverage? I think the answer to that is clear. I'd want the guy who's truly battle-tested.

Lest there be any doubt, that guy is Mitt Romney!

Mitt Romney takes Michigan!

2008-01-15T22:47:00.001-06:00

Mitt Romney showed America how to get it done in Michigan tonight. Below is the success speech from Michigan. There is quite the interesting scenario taking shape now. Romney is definitiely leading based on delegate votes now. 2 Golds, 2 Silvers, 46 more states to go! Romneys win in Michigan will push him up in the upcoming states. South Carolina will be a tough battle, but nothing is too tough for Mitt. Let's see how Nevada goes, too. Any predictions? I think we all know who the winner will be.... MITT ROMNEY!

NEVADA LOOMING: Let's insist the media give the GOP Nevada caucus the coverage and respect it deserves

2008-01-15T00:20:00.000-06:00

Most Romney supporters were pretty peeved about how the media has downplayed his WY victory. (a recent Newsmax story addresses this) However, I can see how it was easy for the media to ignore WY results since it's the least populous state and due to the odd caucus system they used (mostly party insiders and/or major activists.) However, their 12 delegates were as many as NH awarded, and Mitt actually got more delegates out of WY (8) than McCain got out of NH (7).

But that's in the past already . . . but NV looms in the future and we need to insist that it should count. Sadly, we're already seeing how downplayed NV is in the national media coverage.

Even though the the media is covering NV pretty heavily for the it for the Democratic side, they're relatively ignoring it for the GOP. My paranoid side says: "Figures, since Romney stands a good chance of winning it . . . of course the MSM will downplay it." I'm actually convinced that Romney will win it (and if he wins MI, Romney will win NV BIG). Unfortunate timing has the NV caucus on the same day as the SC primary (which is monopolizing the media's coverage.)

But is SC inherently more important than NV for this nomination?

OK, so we know that in recent history, no GOP candidate has won the nomination without winning SC. But this year is very different with at least three candidates still with very credible claims to taking it all, and two others who are still considered "top-teir" candidates. Usually, someone has established themselves after IA and NH and races into SC with the mighty momentum. Or, in the past, the race has been winnowed down to two people already and SC has been the final elimination round for one of them. Not so this year. Some are arguing that FL may play the role this year that SC has played in the past.

But lets look at the two states objectively.

Both are on Jan 19th

NV: 34 delegates up for grabs
SC: 24 delegates up for grabs

NV: Important swing state/purple state (i.e. we need someone who can show/run strong in such a state for the general election)
SC: Solid Red state . . . whoever the nominee is will win SC and most of the south no matter what.

NV: First western state on the docket (and much of that region are swing states)
SC: First southern state primary . . . and the south is pretty much locked up for the GOP.

Objectively, NV looks MORE important than SC to me!

Romney supporters need to start trumpeting the importance of NV relative to SC. Let's get this message on blogs, in comment sections on important blogs/articles/etc . . . I encourgage people to forward this message to your friends/contacts. It would be great if we could get an email campaign together focused at news organizations/journalists/prominent bloggers and asking them why it's being ignored so much . . . demanding that it get fair coverage (at least as much as their giving to the Dems in NV. I don't think any of us want another of Romney's wins to be written off like WY was. LET'S MAKE NEVADA COUNT!

Liberal Types Give New Hampshire Win to McCain

2008-01-11T23:13:00.000-06:00

The CNN New Hampshire exit polling confirms that those with the liberal mindset were the ones responsible for vaulting John McCain to win there and thereby granting him somewhat of a "front-runner" status.

Numbers don't lie (and remember, these are just the numbers from the voters in the GOP NH primary):

52% think that Abortion should be "legal"

53% go to church "never" or "a few times a year"

49% have a negative opinion of Bush

57% do not "strongly oppose" civil unions

50% support a "path to citizenship" or a "guest worker program" for illegals already here.

39% of them are not Republicans

Only 21% say they're "very conservative" (BTW, Romney beat McCain 43% to 18% among them).

45% admit to being moderates or liberals.

Finally, 50% made their decision within the last week (with a full 19% admitting to deciding on the day of the primary).

So they're not just liberals . . . they're fickle liberals.

Thanks for nothing New Hampshire.

Now Playing: Post-Debate Panel: "Very Good Night for Romney"

2008-01-07T14:53:00.000-06:00

Sunday's Debate on Fox news showed a solid win for Mitt Romney. See Frank Luntz's focus group give Mitt the Thumbs Up!

2007 Year in Review

2008-01-05T22:07:00.000-06:00

Mitt's Post-Caucus speech in Iowa

2008-01-05T22:03:00.001-06:00

"It's the Economy Stupid": John McCain Admits He Isn't Ready to Oversee Economy

2008-01-05T15:43:00.000-06:00

So "The Economy" constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.

Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without healthcare insurance).

In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.

So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn't think so. His new economic plan isn't impressing many. And let's not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain's economic record (Their main points are that "John McCain is No Supply-Sider" and that he has a "Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative")

Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the ecomony?

Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:

SALEM, N.H. -- John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn't know much about economics . . .

Later in the piece:

McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign's alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he's weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.

Yet further:

Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."

Sorry John, but if you haven't gotten a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you're not ever going to "get it" . . . even if Greenspan's book is really good.

If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama? I think we have much better options to have at the TOP of the ticket.

Update Jan 14th:
I was just watching Road to the White House 2008 on C-Span (DVR'd) and John McCain, in a Saturday town hall meeting in MI, got a question about the economy and the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

He promptly said he knew it was a problem, but didn't know much about the details and so he brought up Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard to discuss the issue. After she answered the question, McCain mentioned that he wasn't an expert on every issue, but that he'd get people like her to advise him. I mean, this is a major issue in our economy and every other POTUS candidate can grasp it enough to say a few nice lines. Even Huck can sound conversant on the issue!

Update Jan 20th:
McCain is showing his lack of depth on economic understanding . . . and is proposing policy based on his faulty logic. It's SCARY folks!

I also noticed that the Romney campaign has been reading my blog :)

Huck/Obama Win and Wall Street Tanks

2008-01-05T00:27:00.000-06:00

OK . . . so there are other factors too, but the Dow Jones dropped 2% today (257 pts) on the heels of two populist candidates winning the Iowa caucuses.

Coincidence?

I report . . . you decide.

Update: I was watching Kudlow & Company from yesterday on my DVR (OK, so I'm a nerd) and this same question/idea was presented to the panel by Kudlow. Kudlow himself seemed to think there was an effect as did 2 of the 3 people on the panel he presented the question to. So whoever in the comments called me a "dolt" for suggesting such might need to look in the mirror.

Huckabee Wins Evangelical Vote . . . Romney Wins Everybody Else

2008-01-04T11:53:00.000-06:00

Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucuses. In the spirit of graciousness that Mitt Romney exuded last night, Huckabee is to be congratulated. Good job, you won fair and square.

However, in the spirit of an ardent Romney supporter and as someone who likes to look into the detailed demographics of voting/polls, I'd be worried if I were Mike Huckabee.

The New York Times is reporting that OVER 80% of Huckabee caucus supporters described themselves as Evangelical Christians.

Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, rode a crest of evangelical Christian support to victory on Thursday over his rival Mitt Romney, capping a remarkable ascent over the last two months from near the bottom of the Republican field. A poll of people entering the Republican caucuses on Thursday showed more than 8 in 10 of his supporters identified themselves as evangelicals.
The same surveys showed extraordinary turnout among evangelicals, who represented some 60 percent of Republican caucusgoers. In years past, Republican Party leaders in Iowa put evangelical turnout at about 40 percent [actually, this story reports that the 2000 evangelical turnout was 39%].
Mr. Romney’s advisers had been saying that if evangelical turnout rose to more than 50 percent, victory would be impossible for Mr. Romney, whose Mormon faith is regarded as heretical by many evangelicals.

And lead paragraphs like this don't help the image of Huckabee's win here:

DES MOINES — Just as the Republican caucuses began on Thursday at 6:30 p.m., a small group of women and children joined hands in the middle of the ballroom at Mike Huckabee's headquarters here and began to pray for his election.

Now I want to be clear, I love the evangelical community. In the conservative coalition I align myself strongly with Christian conservatism. We all need eachother. And I can definitely see the appeal of Huckabee to Evangelical voters (at least superfiscially, and before a deep probing of him and his campaign).

Going back to the numbers . . . Rich Lowry put it pretty clearly:

Here's one way to look at it: 60% of voters were evangelicals. Huck beat Romney among them 45-19%. 40% weren't evangelicals. Romney beat Huck among them 33-13%.

The breakdown goes as such:

Evangelicals:

Huckabee 46%
Romney 19%
Thompson 11%
Paul 10%
McCain 10%
Giuliani 2%

Everyone else:

Romney 33%
McCain 18%
Thompson 17%
Huckabee 13%
Paul 11%
Giuliani 6%

So in Iowa, Romney beat Huckabee almost 3 to 1 among non-evangelicals. That doesn't bode well for Huckabee outside of the southern states. What's also encouraging is that Romney came in 2nd place among Evangelicals.

Turnout for the GOP in the Iowa Caucuses was projected to be 80,000. It turns out that there were 114,000 voters . . . and it represents the highest turnout of Evangelicals ever (by a long shot) at nearly 70,000.

However, this other New York Times article shows that, while 25% of the US population consider themselves Evangelicals, only 12% of the US population are "traditionalist" Evangelicals. The rest are "centrists" or "modernists" and their votes split between the parties. If Huckabee thinks that he can count on the "traditionalist" Evangelical vote to carry him to the nomination, he's sorely misinformed. If he somehow manages to get the nomination, Evangelicals surely won't be enough to carry him into the White House. The Dems are still licking their chops at the prospect of him being the nominee.

The good news heading into New Hampshire is that the Romney camp turned out MORE people than they thought they would--over 30,000 votes. But if not for the super showing by the evangelicals, Romney would have won this going away. His 30,000+ votes among the projected 80,000 voters would have been nearly 40% of the vote . . . a convincing victory similar to Bush's Iowa win in 2000. Huckabee over-performed last night at nearly 40,000 votes. But LESS THAN 10,000 of those voters were NOT evangelicals (fewer votes than even Ron Paul got in the caucuses). Put another way, only 1 out of every 330 non-evangelical Iowans turned out to vote for Huckabee as their next commander in chief. Hardly a "mandate" for him.

The likely outcome of the Iowa GOP delegate count is very interesting too:

Huckabee - 34% (17 delegates)
Romney - 25% (12 delegates)
Thompson - 13% (3 delegates)
McCain - 13% (3 delegates)
Paul - 10% (2 delegates)
Giuliani - 4% (no delegates)

New Hampshire is not "winner take all" for their GOP delegates either (all 12 of them). However NH shakes out, it's still pretty clear that Romney will be the leader in total delegates after NH (counting the delegates he'll probably pick up tomorrow in Wyoming). That may be a convincing argument to Romney passing the viability and electability test and being the one who can re-unite the conservative coalition.

Romney supporters need to realize what a strange aberration of evangelical outpouring the Iowa caucus was. Romney turned out his supporters. He'll do the same in NH. He's the best candidate we have bar none. As another Romney supporter said, it's time to quickly lick our wounds and battle on.

Johnson County Update part 2 : MITT WINS ! ! !

2008-01-04T08:36:00.000-06:00

It's official! With 96.5% of votes repoted, I think I will call it.....

Johnson County has definitely been won by MITT ROMNEY!!

Results are HERE. and see below:

1. Mitt Romney 1247 31.4%
2. Mike Huckabee 883 22.2%
3. John McCain 608 15.3%
4. Ron Paul 604 15.2%
5. Fred Thompson 349 8.8%
6. Rudolph Giuliani 269 6.8%
7. Duncan Hunter 10 0.3%

I couldn't be happier!! Thanks to all of our Johnson County volunteers and voters!

Keith

North Liberty / Johnson County update

2008-01-03T23:56:00.001-06:00

Here in Johnson county the big news is turnout. As we were turning in the binders to the county, the buzz was the huge turnout. I was the temporary and then permanent chair in North Liberty 01 precinct (I ran the caucus and elections). We are the largest precinct in Johnson County because the county auditor is too lazy to split us up. We ended up having 233 voters and another 100 kids at our site. We completely filled the bleachers at the middle school gym. Two years ago, the turnout in this precinct was 10 voters. Big difference. This has been a common theme to other precincts reporting in throughout the night. We also had about 70 same-day-voter-registrations. Those caused some delays at check-in, but it got people in the door. Interestingly, Mitt Romney was the only candidate to have any stickers or signs handed out at the caucus. I saw a few other stickers, but I think they were brought from home.

So, of course, this was a huge victory for our county republican party, too. We have added a huge number of central committee members and we have plenty of delegates to go around.

As for the numbers between the big rivals, North Liberty 01 was won by MITT ROMNEY! The final was 75 Romney votes to 66 Huckabee votes out of 233 voters (32% to 28%). I am so happy that my own precinct won. Of course, we are still waiting to hear about Johnson County composite results, but I would take a guess that Mitt Romney has also won the county. I will throw up numbers once we get them next week.

Indeed, all votes count in Iowa for the Republican caucus, and at 85% reporting, Huck is leading Romney with 9 points. Huck has been called as the winner, but I have some other ideas on who won.
-First, the volunteers helping the Romney campaign in Iowa are winners. They helped Mitt go from an unknown name to a front runner who secured 25% of the votes in Iowa. We've had deidcated volunteers in Johnson County since January. We had a huge number of supporters travel to Ames to vote at the Straw poll. We had a campaign office here in Iowa City packed with volunteers all week to get the last push. We saw amazing sacrifices made by our supporters to help the campaign here in the county, and I am so thankful for that! Thank you to all our volunteers and supporters here!
-Second, the campaign staff are winners! They organized an amazing feat here in Iowa. I don't know how many precincts we have total here, but they had to put together packets for every precinct in the state. They made the straw poll look like nothing compared to what they put together since then. The leadership here in Iowa was great, and a pleasure to volunteer with.
-Third, Mitt Romney is a winner tonight. He proved tonight that someone from outside of Washington can get thru to voters. Let's ignore the evangelical tidal wave that Huck rode in on today, and realize that second place in Iowa is still a huge feat. By no means is Romney done just because of a silver medal in Iowa. He has a lot of campaign resources left over, and he has plenty of organization to carry him thru the upcoming primaries. He's going to hunker down in New Hampshire where the evangelicals don't have a chance, and he is going to focus on the economy to reel in Michigan. Wyoming is in the bag for Romney, and so is Nevada, despite it's lack of legitimacy as a state. Without a doubt, New Hampshire is going to be a vicious contest now. I can't wait to see how it turns out. I am so glad I was part of this in Iowa. Truly amazing! I am still quite happy that NL 01 went to Mitt Romney!

The Speech: YouTube Version

2008-01-03T23:56:00.000-06:00

Date altered above to keep this at the top of the blog (and the next two blog entries as well).

It's 20 minutes but well worth the time. Especially the last 3-4 minutes.

Loved it more the third time. Truly a great speech that he wrote himself. Very presidential delivery. This man is what American needs!!!

Caucus Training from Gentry Collins, Mitt Romney, and Ann Romney

2008-01-03T23:35:00.000-06:00

Trouble Ahead for Mike Huckabee in Iowa? Updated and Expanded

2008-01-03T23:25:00.000-06:00

I altered the date on this post to keep it at the top of the blog entries until caucus day (by popular demand)

Huckabee and his supporters always seem to point out that Romney's attacking him. The already nascent Huck-a-bust will undoubtedly be blamed on Romney by Huck and his supporters. However . . . I don't think that Romney had anything to do with the fact that essentially every conservative with a microphone or blog has been railing against Huckabee for the last few weeks. Need some evidence?:

Rush Limbaugh
Condoleezza Rice
Michelle Malkin
Ann Coulter (new one here)
Phyllis Schlafly
Bob Novak (others here & here)
Peggy Noonan
Charles Krauthammer
Bob Dole
Sean Hannity (not frontal attacks, but plenty of concerns about him being the nominee)
Laura Ingraham
Fred Barnes
Joseph Farah (Founder/CEO/Editor of World Net Daily also expresses concern for homeschoolers who support Huck)
Thomas Sowell
George Will (these comments too on a TV news show)
Michael Reagan
Glenn Beck (semi "reconciliation" ---- but then he's still not too impressed )
Donald Lambro
David Limbaugh (another here)
Doug Giles
Michael Barone
Mark Steyn
Kim Strassell
Matt Drudge (it's obvious that he has a bone to pick with Huckabee given his coverage of late)
Pat Buchanan
Jonah Goldberg
John Fund (an interesting video here)
Jim Geraghty
Kathryn Jean Lopez (another here)
Tony Blankley
Howie Carr
James Taranto (here too, don't miss, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 of "No Truck with Huck")
Clarence Page
Dean Barnett
Rich Karlgaard
Rich Lowry (this one too)
Mark Hemingway
Austin Hill
Quin Hillyer
Tom Bevan
Jack Kelly
Deroy Murdock
David Frum
Jonathan Alder
John Hinderaker
Bruce Bartlett
Victor Davis Hanson
Johnathan Tobin
Hugh Hewitt (and another)
Walter E. Williams
David Reinhard
Frank Gaffney (who Huck claimed was one of his Foreign Policy advisors)
Lori Byrd
Peter Wehner
Douglas MacKinnon
Paul Mirengoff ( here and here too)
Jerome Corsi
The Editors of National Review (Oh yeah, this one too and both were written BEFORE the NR endorsed Romney)
The Club for Growth
The Cato Institute (Huckabee's F grade for fiscal issue . . . 46th out of the 50 governors ranked. Yes, that's worse than the vast majority of Democratic governors!--PDF here)
Mitt Romney :)
Ron Paul :)
Fred Thompson :)
Rudy Giuliani :)

You can just hear and feel all of these conservative/GOP icons pleading with the voters: "PLEASE DON'T MAKE US TRY TO DEFEND THIS GUY!!!" (should he be the nominee).

Conclusion: Huckabee's not a full-spectrum conservative and the GOP would be unwise to give him the nomination. Romney has had to point out the un-conservative spots in Huck's record because the MSM/DNC axis sure hasn't been (they want him as the GOP nominee) and because McCain and Rudy want Huck to win Iowa to stifle Romney's path to the nomination. However, Romney is hardly alone in pointing out Huckabee's worrisome record.

Update: This post has attracted some attention! Hugh Hewitt's Townhall.com blog linked to my cross-posting over at MyManMitt. Also, Quin Hillyer's recent article "The Republican Party: All Hucked Up" contains a list that is interestingly familiar to mine.

What Happened In The Rest Of Iowa?

2008-01-03T23:18:00.000-06:00

In my precinct, Romney won more than twice as many votes as Huckabee, who only had one more vote than Fred. What a surprise to come home and pull up drudge report and see that the rest of Iowa had gone strongly for Huck?

Well, you know how it is. Everyone gets a vote.

Clearly this is an evangelical phenomenon. Evangelicals turned out in uncharacteristically huge numbers and voted for Huckabee.

Just a couple of random thoughts.

First of all, kudos to Obama. I'm happy he won, so that New Hampshire Independents won't be artificially boosting McCain's numbers.

Take a look at http://www.iowagop.net/ and there's a map that shows the votes for each individual county. Up in the northwest of Iowa, Huckabee really pulled out huge victory. Those are the same counties that delivered the state to George W Bush back in 2004.

I think there is enough dis-satisfaction within other segments of the republican coalition with the Iowa process that we're going to see some efforts to take away its first in the nation status. What if Nevada were to pass a law saying that the republican primaries are on the same day as Iowa. It could happen.

Wyoming is SO going Romney's way.

New Hampshire voters, it's up to you. Remember 1996, when Bob Dole was running against Bill Clinton? Remember how he had no money? That's how it's going to be if McCain is the nominee. I like McCain and everything, nothing against McCain. He's talking about taking matching funds though, and all the potential democratic nominees have the ability to outspend him 10 to 1.

Michigan is going to be close. Come on Michigan!!!

South Carolina--- It's going to be a major battle. This is where we see if Huck means it about running a positive campaign. My bet - I don't see it happening. We're going to see a lot of the so far quiet under the table machinations from the Huckabee camp coming out into the open.

I look forward to seeing it.

Romney at Principle Financial Group--Live Blogging

2008-01-03T10:42:00.000-06:00

Here at the Principal Financial Group in Des Moines.

I'm sitting next to Townhall's Amanda Carpenter and embedded with the media group following Romney around today . . . IT'S CAUCUS DAY!

Many of the media was put into an overflow room due to an oversized crowd of Principal Financial Group's employees.

He's got three sitting US Senators in tow: Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), and Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO).

Romney states this is his 236th public event here in Iowa.

He commented that Huckabee's campaign manager recently said that he'd "like to knock Romney's teeth out." Romney responded today with . . . "Just don't touch the hair." That got a rousing laugh from the media here in our room (laughing WITH him, not like they were laughing AT him like at the now-famed Huckabee press conference).

He's now into his normal stump speech.

Taking questions . . . gotta run.

Liberal Networks still pushing "Huck and Hillary"

2008-01-03T00:06:00.000-06:00

In what can easily be seen as a liberal publicity stunt, the networks brought back late night TV with Huckabee on Jay Leno, and Hillary on Letterman. Huck's dialogue with Jay Leno seemed too prepared and all his jokes seemed like they had been served to him with wind-ups on silver platters. see story here:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/02/writers-strike-wound-into-iowas-presidential-politics/
There was also some controversy surrounding his appearance in the first place (quoted from the story on Fox):

The return of TV’s late-night funnymen after a two-month strike hiatus turned
into a bizarre mix of picketing and presidential politics Wednesday as Mike
Huckabee headed for Jay Leno’s show and Clinton turned to Letterman.
GOP
hopeful Huckabee appeared confused over which of the two late-night hosts had
reached a separate deal with the union representing striking TV and movie
writers.
Huckabee said he supports the writers and did not think he would be
crossing a picket line, because he believed the writers had made an agreement to
allow late-night shows on the air. That’s not the case with Leno, and pickets
outside Leno’s Burbank, Calif., studio targeted Huckabee.
“Huckabee is a
scab,” read one picket sign.
Late Wednesday, the Writers Guild of America
issued a statement saying that the guild “thanks the former governor for his
strong statement of support for striking writers and hopes that he will not
cross the picket lines at NBC.”
However, Huckabee appeared on the show
despite the calls from the striking writers, according to NBC.

Why the change of heart, Huck? Does this coincide with your change in heart about the negative ad, too? All were media stunts, nothing more. Does poor Huckabee realize why they are loving him so much yet?

Hillary passed a taped message to Letterman as well. This seems obvious to me that the liberal networks couldn't stand not having their political agenda played out on the late night shows and had to get these 2 shows up and running in time to get one last shot at what they want: Hillary in the White House. So what about Huckabee? They want him to run against Hillary because they know he is an easy kill. We have blogged about this on multiple occasions. It's my opinion and my theory, and I am sticking to it.

One last reminder: head out Thursday night and caucus for America's true conservative and problem solver: Mitt Romney! Tomorrow is the big day!

More Christian Conservative Leaders Coalesce with Romney

2008-01-02T13:19:00.001-06:00

Per Iowa Independant . . .

Mitt Romney received the endorsement of two prominent Christian
conservatives over the weekend, a sign that rival Mike Huckabee hasn't cornered
the market on self-described "pro-family" voters.

Romney was endorsed by the Rev. Morris Hurd, a Burlington pastor and
chairman of the Iowa Christian Alliance and State Rep. Betty De Boef, a What
Cheer Republican and one of the most strident social conservatives in the Iowa
legislature.

The Charlatan's Cynical Charade: Iowa Voters Are Not Fooled So Easily Mr. Huckabee

2008-01-02T12:42:00.000-06:00

Jim Geraghty at NRO’s Campaign Spot reports that a local Iowa TV station was told to pull Gov. Huckabee’s negative ad at 10:01am on Monday, at least an hour before Gov. Huckabee, Iowa campaign chair Bob Vander Plaats and campaign chairman Ed Rollins claim that the decision to pull the ad was made.

This discrepancy provides proof for what we all know: Gov. Huckabee’s press conference was a transparently cynical charade. Hopefully Iowa voters will not reward him with a victory tomorrow after he's playing us all for dupes (or at least he's convinced his supporters are).

Per Geraghty (who has not endorsed Romney):

Why Did An Iowa TV Station Yank Huck’s Negative Ad Early?

By Jim Geraghty
January 2, 2008

There’s something of an oddity to the timeline of Mike Huckabee’s decision not to run that negative ad against Mitt Romney.
The word from the Huckabee folks has been that this was a last-minute decision. During the press conference which began at 12:30 p.m. local time, Huckabee said, “That was in fact the press conference that we had scheduled. And the one that even our staff thought we were going have here until about 10 minutes ago. About an hour ago, I just decided that’s not the way that we want to run it.”
The event was scheduled to start at noon, so let's say Huckabee meant an hour before the scheduled time, which would put his decision at around 11 a.m.
Huckabee's campaign chairman Ed Rollins puts the decision around that time:
As for the gathering, Rollins says, "Now would I have loved to cancel the press conference? You betcha. Would I have loved to pull the signs down? Yes. But this decision was made about 11, 11:10 in the morning." The news conference was scheduled for noon.

The Politico reports:
Bob VanDerPlaats said Huckabee informed his entire senior campaign
team of his decision upon boarding his campaign bus at around 11:30 to go the press conference.
The problem is, someone on Huckabee's team told KCRG, a television station in Cedar Rapids, not to run the ad at 10 a.m., according to the local Gazette.
An official at KCRG-TV9 TV9 in Cedar Rapids confirmed that the station received the 30-second spot from the Huckabee campaign shortly after 6 a.m. today but was told at 10:01 a.m. not to air the commercial and the
station did not show the paid advertisement.
So why was a local station told at 10 a.m. not to show it, if Huckabee only decided to cancel the ad around 11 a.m.? Did somebody on the campaign cancel the ad without Huckabee's approval? Or is the campaign suggesting that the decision was more last-minute than it really was?

Romney Rules In Iowa Endorsements

2008-01-01T11:00:00.000-06:00

Sure, McCain's proved deft in obtaining the endorsements of liberal newspaper editorial boards, but who have Iowa GOP legislators been lining up with?

It's Romney by a long shot. His 17 endorsements form the Iowa State House is more than McCain, Huckabee, AND Giuliani COMBINED!! (even throw in Fred's endorsements and Romney's on par with the total of the other top-tier candidates combined)

PS HAPPY NEW YEAR!! LET'S GET A ROMNEY WIN IN THE CAUCUSES IN TWO NIGHTS!!

Huckabee tapes ad, doesn't show it, then shows it???

2007-12-31T17:38:00.000-06:00

Today the Huck held a press conference and said that he had taped a negative ad against Mitt Romney, but then said he would be the "better man" and not air the commercial, but then he played the commercial to all the press at the press conference. I saw it on NBC news at 5:30 pm. I am still trying to find the video online. If you have it, paste the URL in a comment.
Guess what, Huck, that's the same thing as airing the ad. Now all the press are airing out the ad like laundry. Way to shoot yourself in your foot, Mike. Ummmm.... is anyone else as confused as I am. Is he thinking this will drum up support for him? Or is he throwing the election because he bet his salary on himself losing? You can't have that cake and eat it, too. Example given: You can't walk into a bank, and say "I don't have a gun, and I am not robbing this bank" and then slip a note to the teller damanding all the money". It is still technically robbing a bank.

Confused.......

Great New Romney Ad: "Everywhere"

2007-12-31T13:29:00.000-06:00

Solid "closing argument" for Romney . . . entitled "Everywhere":

Guest Blog: Why I Support Mitt Romney for President

2007-12-31T09:55:00.000-06:00

From a Romney Supporter (who lives and works in Waukee Iowa):

For disclosure sake, my career is no longer made in the world of politics, but I feel so strongly about Mitt Romney, I am inclined to write this email this evening. As a friend and acquaintance, I want to tell you a little about why I am supporting Governor Romney for President. I first met Mitt Romney during the 2004 campaign when he was in Iowa campaigning for President Bush. I was immediately impressed by him, and as 2006 neared and it looked as though he might be thinking of running for President I did some extensive research on him. And, I liked what I found.

I found he was successful in business. His business was to fix broken businesses. He got so good at it, the 2002 Olympics called upon him to fix the Olympics when they were $379 million in debt. Mitt Romney came in and applied the same business models he had used in business to help fix the broken structure of the Olympics, and I think we all remember how successful the 2002 Olympics were, just months after 9/11. His success in the Olympics drew the eye of many at home in Massachusetts, and they asked him to run for Governor. Massachusetts faced immense problems, including a $3 billion debt. Mitt Romney was elected, and applied the same models he had in business, and at the Olympics, and he fixed the problems of Massachusetts without raising taxes or borrowing money, in a state with an 85% democrat legislature. He turned the deficit into a surplus and he put in place private sector health care for all citizens of Massachusetts without raising taxes. His fiscal conservative principles prevailed and turned Massachusetts back around, and got them on the right path again. He also improved the schools to become the best in the nation, stood up for traditional marriage and fought the Supreme Court to preserve marriage as being between one man and one woman only. He stood for life in Massachusetts, where it wasn’t the popular thing to do; but he stood for life because it was the right thing to do. He believes strongly like me that we need to secure our borders, and that children that come to America legally are taught in English.

Over the last couple of years I have gotten to know Mitt Romney as a man of character and integrity. He believes in Strong Families, Strong Economy and a Strong Military. He believes in what we believe in as Iowans; faith, family, hard work and Midwestern values. He has an outstanding record of accomplishment in terms of standing up for Republican values in one of the most liberal parts of America, and proving that Republican principals work. These are just a few reasons why I feel he should be our parties’ nominee. I hope you will help to make him our parties’ nominee by showing up Thursday evening and casting your vote for Mitt Romney in the Iowa Caucus. If you do that, he will be our nominee, and the next President of the United States.

Thanks, and I hope you caucus for Governor Mitt Romney this Thursday evening!

From Rhinotimes.com

2007-12-31T02:29:00.000-06:00

We need to determine which candidates are honorable and say what they mean and mean what they say; which candidates know how to make a promise and keep it, no matter what.

I remember back in 1992, as I looked at Bill Clinton, saying to anyone who would listen: If he can't keep his promises to his wife, why should we believe any of the promises he makes to us? And, sure enough, he was in office about 20 minutes before he was breaking promises to almost everyone.

(The only exception was his stand in favor of limitless abortion – which is what won him the silence of the so-called women's movement when he was committing perjury to conceal his exploitation of powerless women.)

His life already revealed his moral character, and we got the president we paid for.

In an election year, we can't possibly guess what future the president will be presiding over. But we can decide what kind of person will lead us through that future, and what moral principles will guide him.

Will it be the person who obviously took bribes but simply denies it?

The person who used public money to conceal an adulterous relationship?

The person who uses religious bigotry as a tool to bring down a front-runner, even as he claims to stand for constitutional values?

The person who claims to champion the poor, but treats ordinary people with disdain when he happens to run into them?

The person who kind of wants to be president but doesn't want to do any of the work required to actually get the office?

I remember commentators nodding wisely and saying that the "character issue" doesn't really matter. I shook my head in despair. If a candidate's character is bad, if they can't be trusted, what does it matter what he or she might promise us?

Look at their life, at their past, at what they actually do. That's how you find out the kind of person you're going to have in charge.

Mitt visits Iowa City at the Hamburg Inn

2007-12-31T00:26:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney stopped thru Iowa City today for a visit at the famous Hamburg Inn restaurant. There were a ton of supporters that turned out, and the amazing thing is that I didn't recognize the majority of them from our other visits. There are Mitt supporters coming out of the woodwork!

Mitt speaking to a local supporter, with our Johnson County Chair in the background!

Mitt and Ann with owner of the Hamburg Inn No. 2

Media Madness!

A supporter and his youngster grabbing a photo op with the future President and First Lady!

A local news station had a video story on the visit today (click here for video), and got some great supporter comments. They highlighted that Huckabee is trying to get some sympathy for being "attacked" and tried to call out Mitt as having run "attack ads" and being "dishonest". Fact remains, Huckabee won't answer to the information in the ads, he'd rather not face the truth, and instead divert attention elsewhere. A local supporter, Stephen Hunter, said it best that "they aren't attack ads, they are comparative and informative". The fact remains, Romney has not attacked anyone's character. Only Huckabee is doing that now. (See story)

Mitt's Iowa polling numbers have now topped over Huckabee in the latest ARG poll, Mitt at 32% and Huckabee at 23%, and Huckabee is resorting to personal attacks about Mitt's "honesty" now, and trying to pull the "victim" card. He's even trying to make an alliance with McCain for some reason. He's as desperate looking as Hilary pulling the "woman" card with her campaign. Ugh! 4 more days. 4 MORE DAYS!

Update on the Mitt Stocking : it's now been signed. Awesome!

If anyone needs info on where to go to vote for Mitt Romney on Thursday, call the campaign office at

866-505-2008

And remember to bring 5 friends to the caucus for Mitt!

Mitt Romney is Dishonest

2007-12-30T23:44:00.000-06:00

Or so says Mike Huckabee.

For what it's worth here is the fact check from mittromney.com responding to Huckabee on Meet the Press.

Here is another one setting the record straight on Huckabee's questioning whether or not Mitt can be trusted on abortion or gun rights.

Here's what I'd like from Mike Huckabee. Stick to the issues. If you're going to call Mitt Romney dishonest, you'd better POINT OUT AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE of where he was dishonest.

Here's a two minute video of Mike Huckabee where he never once gets down to the substance of Romney's criticism of his record. He just calls Mitt Romney dishonest and mean.

If he stoops to personal attacks like calling his opponent dishonest he better have something to back it up with.

Mike Huckabee - did you grant 1033 commutations and pardons during your time as governor? If not, what is the actual number of commutations and pardons?

Mike Huckabee - did the Arkansas budget go from 6 billion dollars to 16 billion dollars during your time as governor? If not, what is that actual dollar amount your budget increased during your time as governor?

Mike Huckabee - did you lessen the mandatory sentences for meth dealers, or increase the sentences for meth dealers? Give me some specifics.

What happens when you do a simple fact check on Mike Huckabee's statements about his own record?

Caucus Primer

2007-12-30T22:47:00.000-06:00

Due to some technical difficulties, this is a re-post, but a very important one.

CAUCUS PRIMER
We have 4 days to bring along as many voters to caucus for Mitt. Remember this is an extremely tight race, and your vote counts.

Republican caucuses differ from democratic caucuses in Iowa in one important way. Voters show up to caucus, write the name of who they are supporting on a confidential ballot, the votes are counted and that's it. (In the democratic caucus, there is a viability test, and if your candidate does not get enough votes you've got to choose someone else to vote for, which tends to lead to a lot of arguing.)

Find out: WHICH PRECINCT ARE YOU IN?
Follow this link - http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/voterreg/PollingPlace/search.aspx

Once you find out your precinct: WHERE DO YOU CAUCUS? A lot of people think they just show up to caucus where they usually go to vote. Not true. Follow this link to find out where your caucus location is: http://www.iowagop.net/countycontacts.asp
You just click on your county, and find your precinct.

SHOW UP TO CAUCUS - Caucus starts at 7:00. You have to be on time. It's best to show up early.

Vote for your candidate. The process takes around 30 minutes. If you have small children, they are welcome at the event (they can't vote) so feel free to bring them along.

If you are not already registered to vote, try to show up by at least 6:30. YOU CAN REGISTER TO VOTE AT THE CAUCUS. I personally know a few students who have lived in Iowa for a few years, and have an out of state drivers license. Doesn't matter. Bring your out of state drivers license, AND A UTILITY BILL. Get registered, no problem.

If you are 17 years old, but will be 18 by the end of October 2008, you can caucus! Come to the caucus, and get registered. If your child is old enough to caucus, encourage them to participate in the process.

CAUCUS MANNERS
Remember that this is America and we all have a right to vote for anyone we want. If somebody supports a candidate you disagree with... remember that it is the candidate you disagree with. Don't show contempt for the supporters of any particular candidate. There are a lot of reasons someone may be supporting a different candidate. You don't know the reasons. The caucus is not the time to get in an argument with anyone. At this point of the game the philosophical arguments are basically over. It's time to tally the votes. Don't do anything mean spirited, or unprofessional in support of your candidate. Remember, on January 4th, somebody will have won, and somebody will have come in 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc... You don't have control of that. You have control of your vote, and your personal actions.

I was at a Mitt Romney rally tonight in Bettendorf. I had some Mormons with me. The consensus was that there weren't hardly any Mormons at the rally. Other than Ann and Mitt. That's good, Mitt has a solid base of support in Iowa.

In each precinct the Romney team has come up with a goal number of votes. In my precinct the goal is 42 votes. That is not very many votes. You can make a huge difference in your precinct if you make the decision to show up and support Mitt. You can also make a huge difference if you bring along somebody to the caucus.

If you own a magical weather machine - arrange for bad weather in Western Iowa.

Romney's Next Iowa Swing!!

2007-12-29T03:10:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney's Strong America Bus Tour

Please Join Governor Mitt Romney as he travels across Iowa to discuss his vision for America . He will be visiting the Hamburg Inn restaurant on Linn Street in Iowa City on Sunday 12/30/07 at 1:30 pm. Please come out and show your support for Governor Romney at the Hamburg Inn! It is a great opportunity to meet Governor Romney before the Iowa caucuses on January 3 ^rd. Bring a friend, too! (Full list of other campaign stops throughout the state are listed below as well).

Please RSVP by e-mailing IowaRSVP@MittRomney.com or calling 866-505-2008

Saturday, December 29^th

*With special guest Senator Jim Tallent

8:45AM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Altoona

Coffee House Hollander, 3770 Eighth St. SW , Suite J, Altoona

10:00AM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Newton

Midtown Café, 120 1^st St. N. , Newton

11:45AM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Pella

Smokey Row Coffee House, 639 Franklin St . , Pella

1:45PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Oskaloosa

Smokey Row Coffee House, 109 S Market St . , Oskaloosa

3:15PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Ottumwa

Bridgeview Center , Meeting Rooms, 102 Church St . , Ottumwa

6:15PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Burlington --Caucus Rally

Burlington Golf Club, 2124 Sunnyside Ave. , Burlington

Sunday, December 30^th

*With special guest Mrs. Ann Romney

12:00PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Columbus Junction

Columbus Civic Center, 232 2^nd St. , Columbus Junction

1:30PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Iowa City

Hamburg Inn, 214 N Linn St . , Iowa City

3:00PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Mt. Vernon

Fuel and Nest, 103 1^st St. E. , Mt. Vernon

4:30PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Moscow

The Cove, 1288 307^th St . , Moscow

6:45PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Bettendorf --Caucus Rally

The Lodge, Mozart Room, I-74 at Spruce Hills Dr . , Bettendorf

Monday, December 31^st

*With special guest Congressman Bob Beauprez

8:00AM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Clinton

Happy Joe's, 408 S 1^st St . , Clinton

10:00AM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Bellevue

Potter's Mill, 300 Potter Dr . , Bellevue

12:15PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Dubuque

Midway Hotel, Julien Room, 3100 Dodge St . , Dubuque

2:15PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Manchester

Cedar Lodge, 205 S 12^th St . , Manchester

3:30PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Independence

Bill's Pizza and Smoke House, 201 1^st St. W. , Independence

5:45PM Mitt Romney's "Strong America" Bus Stop in Waterloo --Caucus Rally

Galleria De Paco Lounge Space, 622 Commercial St . , Waterloo

Vote For Romney!!

2007-12-29T01:12:00.000-06:00

Go over to The Real Sporer and Vote for Mitt in the poll on the left sidebar.
(and Cyclone Conservatives has a poll to and Don over there always has some astute analysis)

On the Media and the GOP Primary

2007-12-27T00:15:00.000-06:00

This has been a very interesting race to watch. Within the last few weeks two GOP candidates (Mike Huckabee and John McCain) have come from relative obscurity and into contention for the nomination. They had both spent months on end out of the media limelight (cross-hairs) that usually accompanies the GOP front-runner(s) . It's like they've been drafting at the back of the pack of cyclists, without ever taking their turn up front where the pedaling is more difficult. Having evaded the negative headlines for months has proven beneficial for both.

Much has been said/argued about Huckabee's rise . . . and it's clear that the DNC/MSM axis has held much of their fire seeing him as an "easy kill" in a general election. But what of McCain?

McCain's rise was PRECEDED by newspaper endorsements from the Des Moines Register, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader. TV and print journalists were obviously impressed and joined on the "comeback-kid" praise McCain bandwagon. Thomas Alan at ElectRomneyIn2008.com/ComMITTed to Romney expanded on how the McCain surge has been completely media created and driven. The editorial boards in New Hampshire have praised McCain and bashed Romney with regularity over the last week. And don't even get me started on how cable news outlets have been fanning the flames of McCain's surge and shouting nothing but negativity about Romney.

Does the MSM have power? Of course they do, but how they choose to wield it is the more important point. They know they have power/influence. As proof, just today I saw Chuck Todd (NBC's political director) actually admit on Hardball with Chris Matthews: "If John McCain comes in third in Iowa, we in the media, will carry him to a win in New Hampshire." (his assumption was that Huckabee would beat Romney in Iowa). That arrogance just inflames me.

But isn't there an inherent danger in being a media-created contender? Do we want to choose a nominee that has the media constantly plugging and defending them during the GOP primary? If they're in need of it now to rise in the polls do you think they can count on that during the general election? Absolutely not! The same media that is pumping McCain in NH and elsewhere is not going to be behind him if he's the nominee. You can take that one to the bank.

Instead, how about having a candidate that's been routinely savaged by the media with personal character attacks, gross distortions of his record, and misleading propaganda? How about one that has been has been target #1 for the DNC (drawing more press-release attacks than McCain, Thompson and Huckabee COMBINED!)? Maybe the one who has been THE MAIN TARGET OF EVERY OTHER GOP CANDIDATE FOR MONTHS ON END? Or one that has yet to draw an endorsement from a liberal newspaper's editorial board? Which do you think will have a better chance in the general election . . . the one who's a front-runner DESPITE the MSM coverage or the one(s) that's a challenger BECAUSE of the MSM coverage? I think the answer to that is clear. I'd want the guy who's truly battle-tested.

I can only hope that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire can see thorough the MSM's distortions and look at the actual records and capabilities of the candidates. If they do that, it's clear to see that Romney will win in a landslide.

A Romney Christmas Surprise

2007-12-26T10:19:00.000-06:00

I have the coolest Christmas Stocking ever! My sister made this for me and surprised me with it on Christmas Morning filled with wonderful gifts! Best sister ever! You are all free to be jealous now......

Iowa City Press-Citizen half-endorses Huckabee? They are playing by the DNC rules again

2007-12-26T10:14:00.001-06:00

The Iowa City Press-Citizen half-endorsed Huckabee. (click here for full text of that so-called-half-endorsement) How does that work? Let me explain.
First start out with the fact that you are a well known liberal newspaper, and you are willing to follow the DNC's rules regarding all positive press for Huckabee.
Second, get your feelings hurt that no other candidates besides Ron Paul took the time for a phone interview with your editor's board (not a surprise considering the newspapers leftist reputation). Take a look at who did speak with them: Huckabee who is benefiting from the lefty media to boost his campaign, and Paul who is harvesting much of his support from disgruntled democrats anyways).
Third, come to an agreement that you as a newspaper will endorse Huckabee.
Fourth, realize that he's a terrible candidate anyways, and include a list of bad attributes in the endorsement to accompany the good aspects. What?? This is where I get lost. Anyone who is not 100% behind someone doesn't really count as an endorsement in my mind.
Fifth, have the lack of judgement to publish all of this for everyone to read.

The outcome:
A. Their loyal media zombies (those who believe anything in a paper or on the network news) who read the paper will feel good about themselves for being a democrat, knowing that the GOP doesn't have a single candidate worthy of a full endorsement.
B. The conservative media zombies who read and who don't know who to vote for yet will want to vote for the Huck, and will possibly take the time to skip the Orange Bowl and go out to vote (if they can find their precinct due to a lack of info on that aspect of caucusing).
C. The true conservatives saw this shenanigan coming from 3 weeks ago and sit back for a chuckle as they watch the media try to set up a sure-fire-win in 2008 by foolishly pushing Huckabee to the front of the presidential Lunch Line! Those same true conservatives have Mitt Romney set in their minds and have been active in this process since the straw poll, and know exactly when and where to go on 1/3/08 to cast their vote for Mitt Romney. Those same voters know what else to do that night after the voting to ensure a solid win for Romney in Iowa!

link: http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/OPINION03/712190311/1018

The True Fiscal Conservative in the Race . . . Mitt Romney

2007-12-24T23:37:00.000-06:00

A Press Release From the Campaign

Governor Mitt Romney: "I don't think that the Democrats are right when they say that they're planning on raising taxes, that'll somehow make us stronger. I think that'll hurt our economy. Raising taxes slows the economy down. I want to keep taxes down. That was the first lesson of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan 101: bring taxes down, that will grow the economy and allow us to have better jobs and a better future. And so I want to keep our taxes down." (Gov. Mitt Romney, Remarks, Conway, NH, 12/22/07)

Governor Romney Has A Record Of Fighting For Lower Taxes In Massachusetts:

The Club For Growth: Governor Romney's Record Includes "Solid Efforts To Promote Pro-Growth Tax Policy." "That said, Governor Romney's single term contained some solid efforts to promote pro-growth tax policy." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)

- Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation Executive Director Barbara Anderson: "There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. ... And we were right to back him. He's been a really good friend to the taxpayers." (Shawn Macomber, "Mighty Mitt Romney," The American Spectator, 3/06)

- Beacon Hill Institute Executive Director David Terck: Governor Romney Did "Hold The Line On Taxes In Every Significant Sense." (Fox News' "Journal Editorial Report," 3/31/07)

CAPITAL GAINS TAXES: Governor Romney Turned The Legislature's $250 Million Retroactive Capital Gains Tax Increase Into A $250 Million Tax Refund. (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, D.C., 3/2/07)

INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package Making The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Permanent. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03)

PROPERTY TAX RELIEF: Governor Romney Proposed And Signed Legislation Providing Property Tax Relief To Senior Citizens, Enabling Them To Keep Their Homes. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Bill To Give Seniors Tax Relief," Press Release, 11/20/05)

2004 SALES TAX HOLIDAY: Governor Romney Enacted The State's First-Ever Sales Tax Holiday In 2004. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Promotes Tax-Free Shopping Day On Saturday," Press Release, 8/14/04)

2005 SALES TAX HOLIDAY: Governor Romney Enacted A Second Sales Tax Holiday. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney, Dimasi, Hart Promote Tax-Free Shopping Weekend," Press Release, 8/14/0)

BIOTECH MANUFACTURING JOBS TAX REBATE: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Tax Rebate For Manufacturing Jobs Created In The Biotechnology, Life Sciences And Medical Device Fields. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03)

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted An Expansion Of The Research And Development Tax Credit. (Jay Fitzgerald, "Gov Nearly Halves Package; Rebellious Legislators Vow To Override Stimulus Vetoes," The Boston Herald, 11/27/03)

LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Extended The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. (Jessica Fargen, "Romney Pegs Courthouses For Repair Money," The Patriot Ledger, 8/11/04)

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TAX RELIEF: Governor Romney Ended The Prescription Drug Tax Which Fell Disproportionately On Seniors. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs No New Tax Budget In Time For New Fiscal Year," Press Release, 6/30/03)

COMMUTER TAX RELIEF: Governor Romney Signed Legislation Allowing Commuters To Deduct Transportation Costs From Their Income Taxes. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Signs $25.2 Billion FY 2007 State Budget," Press Release, 7/8/06)

VETERANS TAX RELIEF: Governor Romney Signed Legislation Providing Disabled Massachusetts Veterans With Extensive Tax Exemptions. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Expands Tax Benefits For Disabled Veterans," Press Release, 8/14/06)

HOME HEATING OIL DEDUCTION/ENERGY EFFICIENT CREDIT: Governor Romney Signed Legislation Giving Homeowners A Deduction Of Up To $800 For Home Heating Costs And Providing A One-Time Credit For Homeowners Who Purchase Energy Efficient Heating Products. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Legislation To Provide Energy Price Relief And Increase Conservation," Press Release, 11/22/05)

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Refundable Tax Credit To Promote Development At The Former Fort Devens U.S. Army Base. (Stephen Heuser, "$660M Drug Plant, 550 Jobs For Mass.," The Boston Globe, 6/2/06)

FIRE SAFETY TAX DEDUCTION: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Tax Deduction For Businesses Installing Automatic Sprinkler Systems To Enhance Fire Safety. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Into Law Landmark Fire Safety Legislation," Press Release, 8/17/04)

CONFORMITY TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE: Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts Was Brought Into Conformity With The Federal Code, Providing Massachusetts Taxpayers With A Range Of Credits, Exemptions and Deductions Previously Unavailable To Them. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Urges Taxpayers To File For New Tax Breaks," Press Release, 1/24/06)

MEDICAL DEVICE TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Enacted Legislation Providing A Tax Credit For User Fees Paid By Medical Device Manufacturers to The U.S. Food And Drug Administration. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Expands Tax Benefits For Disabled Veterans," Press Release, 8/14/06)

MOTION PICTURE TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Signed Legislation Providing Tax Incentives For Movie And Television Production In Massachusetts. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "'Lights, Camera, Action!' In Massachusetts," Press Release, 11/23/05)

BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT EXTENTION: Governor Romney Signed Legislation Extending The Tax Credit For Brownfield Site Redevelopment. ("Campaign Notes," The Berkshire Eagle, 7/8/06)

HISTORIC REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT: Under Governor Romney, The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Was Created Which Provides A Tax Credit For The Renovation Of Historic Buildings. (The General Court Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts, Chapter 141 Of The Acts Of 2003, "An Act Relative To Investments In Emerging Technologies To Promote Job Creation, Economic Stability And Competitiveness In The Massachusetts Economy")

Governor Romney Has Proposed A Pro-Growth Tax Agenda That Includes:

Making The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. Governor Romney believes making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent is the first step to ensuring that Americans are able to keep more of their hard-earned money. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: A Conservative Blueprint To Lower Taxes," Press Release, 10/4/07)

Rolling Back Tax Rates Across The Board For All Americans. As President, Governor Romney will cut marginal tax rates across the board, allowing all Americans to save more money. This approach is fair, simple and extends the pro-growth benefits of tax rate cuts to all Americans. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: A Conservative Blueprint To Lower Taxes," Press Release, 10/4/07)

Making Middle Class Savings Tax Free. Governor Romney's plan will allow middle class Americans to save tax free by changing the tax rate on interest, capital gains and dividends to absolutely 0%. By helping more Americans save and invest, we can meet the challenges of an aging population and ensure the financial security of America. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: A Conservative Blueprint To Lower Taxes," Press Release, 10/4/07)

Killing The Death Tax. It is unfair to tax the American people three times: once when they earn their money; second when they invest it and receive income from those investments; and third when they die. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: A Conservative Blueprint To Lower Taxes," Press Release, 10/4/07)

Making Our Corporate Tax Rate Must Be Competitive With The Rest Of The World. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. We simply cannot afford for future economic growth to have a tax rate that is out of alignment with the other major economies of the world. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: A Conservative Blueprint To Lower Taxes," Press Release, 10/4/07)

Opposing Any Increase In Social Security Taxes. We can strengthen Social Security without resorting to higher Social Security taxes that will impact all Americans. Governor Romney will oppose any proposed increase in Social Security taxes. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: A Conservative Blueprint To Lower Taxes," Press Release, 10/4/07)

Making Qualified Medical Expenses Tax Deductible. Governor Romney supports the full deductibility of qualified medical expenses, which will allow Americans to deduct the cost of their health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses, where accompanied by at least catastrophic insurance. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: A Conservative Blueprint To Lower Taxes," Press Release, 10/4/07)

Preventing The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) From Hurting More American Families. At the very least, Congress must pass a patch to the AMT that will prevent this tax from affecting more and more families in America. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: Real Conservative Solutions," Press Release, 12/13/07)

Governor Romney Has Always Supported The Bush Tax Cuts:

Governor Romney Called The President's Tax Relief A "Powerful" Economic Tool. "Like Rhode Island, Massachusetts is heavily Democratic; John Kerry of the Bay State will sweep both places in November. I asked Romney how it helps Massachusetts that Bush is president. 'It helps America to have George Bush as president, and Massachusetts is part of America – still,' he chuckled. He said Bush, using the 'powerful' tool of a tax cut, has worked hard to stimulate the economy." (Charles Bakst, "Mitt Romney To Have His Moment In The GOP Spotlight," The Providence Journal, 8/31/04)

At The Republican National Convention, Governor Romney Praised Fiscally Conservative Government That "Leaves More Money In The Hands Of The Taxpayers." "We step forward by insisting on Ronald Reagan's vision of a compassionate and fiscally conservative government that promotes the opportunity of ownership and leaves more money in the hands of the taxpayers." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Republican National Convention, New York City, NY, 9/1/04)

At A 2002 Fundraiser, President Bush Advocated Making The Tax Cuts Permanent Saying "I Know Romney Feels The Same Way." PRESIDENT BUSH: "They also need to make sure the tax cuts are permanent. Let me tell you my thoughts about tax relief. When your economy is kind of ooching along, it's important to let people have more of their own money. Here's the page out of the textbook that I believe is important. I know Romney feels the same way. If you let somebody keep more of their own money, they're likely to demand a good or a service. And when they demand a good or a service in this system, somebody is likely to produce that good or a service. And when somebody produces that good or a service, somebody is more likely to be able to find work." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At A Massachusetts Victory 2002 Reception, Boston, MA, 10/4/02)

- Mitt Romney: President Bush Knows How To Stop Those Who Want To Raise Taxes. MITT ROMNEY: "We have to make sure that we have that battle cry here today as well because there are some people who would get the bus going back to 'Taxachusetts' and this man [President Bush] knows how to stop that kind of stuff." (Mitt Romney, Remarks At A Massachusetts Victory 2002 Reception, Boston, MA, 10/4/02)

Campaign Update

2007-12-24T13:40:00.000-06:00

Please join Governor Mitt Romney along with Mrs. Ann Romney and former Congressman Bob Beauprez of Colorado as they bring the “Strong America” bus tour to Eastern Iowa. These stops will be Governor Romney’s last before the Iowa Caucus on January 3^rd! Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers and more than welcome to join!

Sunday, December 30^th

Mrs. Ann Romney joins Governor Romney

4:15 pm Mitt Romney’s “Strong America” Bus Stop in Cedar County

The Cove Restaurant

1288 307^th St

Moscow, IA

6:45 pm Mitt Romney’s “Strong America” Bus Stop in Bettendorf

The Lodge, Mozart Room

I-74 at Spruce Hills Dr

Bettendorf, IA

Monday, December 31^st

Congressman Bob Beauprez joins Governor Romney

8:00 am Mitt Romney’s “Strong America” Bus Stop in Clinton

Happy Joe’s

408 S. 1^st St

Clinton, IA

9:45 am Mitt Romney’s “Strong America” Bus Stop in Bellevue

Potter’s Mill

300 Potter Dr

Bellevue, IA

12:00 pm Mitt Romney’s “Strong America” Bus Stop in Dubuque

Midway Hotel, Julien Room

3100 Dodge St

Dubuque, IA

cbouziden at mittromney.com
All events are free of charge and open to the public. I hope you and your family have a safe and Merry Christmas! For all events RSVP to cbouziden @mittromney.com

**Remember to vote for Mitt Romney at your Caucus on January 3rd at 7 pm and bring a photo ID!**

"Straight Talk" McCain-Style

2007-12-24T11:23:00.001-06:00

Lest anyone accuse us of focusing all our fire on Huckabee . . . we present the following.

Ouch, Ouch, Ouch, Ouch, and Ouch!

George Romney/MLK March . . . My 2 cents

2007-12-23T19:12:00.000-06:00

A little independent research via Google can apparently get better "fact-checking" than the MSM reporters can.

You've probably heard before that two eyewitnesses have come forward and said that they saw George Romney and MLK march together. Well, now FOUR historical books have confirmed the same thing. Also, Mitt's brother, Scott states that he heard his father say that he had marched with MLK (in that same last link).

My scientific background also reminds me that positive evidence (like the two lady eyewitnesses' claims, or the 4 books cited) is always stronger than negative evidence ("I didn't see them together" or "newspaper columns of the time failed to confirm").

It is not out of the realm of possibility that, despite all this evidence to the contrary, they did not march in the same parade. But with historical books and records getting it wrong it's hard to claim that Romney "fabricated this out of whole cloth" like opponents are implying. I think most rational people are willing to not get caught up in the figurative use of the word "saw" when we can all "SEE" that George Romney was truly a champion of civil rights (the silver lining in this whole affair).

Regarding the 1978 quote that apparently Romney said that he marched with his dad and MLK through the streets of Detroit . . . well, given the apparent lack of journalistic accuracy in this whole affair I'm afraid that I wouldn't be surprised if it was a complete misquoting of Romney. However, if he did in fact say that, then at least he hasn't propagated or inflated that error in the intervening three decades (something that serial liars/exaggerators cannot help but do . . . the stories usually get better and better with time!!).

Update . . . A Harper's Magazine article from 1967 stated that George Romney and MLK marched together. You need a subscription to read the PDF. Here's the search results which gives some of the text and the relevant quote is:

"When the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King marched in Detroit three years ago, Romney marched with him. He is proud that he helped write a state constitution that has the most comprehensive civil-rights guarantees in the nation, including open occupancy in housing."

Good post over at Redstate

2007-12-23T15:56:00.000-06:00

I started posting on this blog because I was tired of all the going after Huckabee, and not explaining why Romney was the right man to be POTUS.

But it's just so EASY!

Here is a link to a thread over at REDSTATE discussing some questionable speaking engagements during the campaign. I'm just cutting and pasting the money quotes.

So, here's the thing. An email was sent to the International Speakers Bureau seeking to get a Huckabee speaking engagement. Here's the response back:

From: "Rosalie Jefferson"
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:50:01
Subject: Mike Huckabee

Thank you for your inquiry regarding booking Mr. Huckabee for your upcoming event.

Due to the ongoing Presidential campaign, Mr. Huckabee is not accepting speaking engagements.

If you would like to consider other political figures who are not currently running for office, please let me know your budget and I will be delighted to send you bios and fees accordingly.

Happy Holidays,

Rosalie Jefferson
Content Consultant
International Speakers Bureau

A second email was sent to the ISB *specifically* inquiring about Huckabee speaking at a church. Now it gets interesting:

Hi,
I would be happy to help you with Mike Huckabee. He charges a minimum of $25,000 per engagement plus expenses and he can not address anything to do with his running for President.¹ Do you have a date in mind for your event?

Kind regards,
Emily

Emily Boyd
International Speakers Bureau/Worldwide

So, Huckabee, even though campaigning for President, makes $25,000.00 per engagement plus expenses to speak at churches, but not to general audiences. And he gets the income from the events (not that I blame him because he'd otherwise be unemployed and needs to pay this off).

But how many other candidates are making personal money on the campaign trail? And why milk churches, but no one else? On Face the Nation this morning, Huckabee said, well, from Mark Kilmer's review of the shows:

Mike Huckabee said that he's going to change the Republican Party because it needs to be changed, to be more inclusive of those with less.

It seems to me that Mike Huckabee is not just trying to drive church voters into the polls for him, but he's trying to get their wallets while he's at it.

A Contrast in Scrutiny

2007-12-23T10:46:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney has come under fire repeatedly for 'flip flopping'. Here is a story from Powerline Blog contrasting Romney's record to Barack Obama. It's pretty obvious that the flip flop meme tagged to Romney is hyped up compared to other people in the race. Barack Obama has made significantly larger 'flip flops. We're not even going to talk about Hillary Clinton right now. Why does Romney get hammered for being a flip flopper when Barack Obama gets a pass? The mainstream media, and Romney's not so subtle primary opponents are trying to use the issue to bring him down.

Romney's record has already received ample scrutiny. If Mitt says the slightest thing that isn't spot on he gets hammered. - (Recall the recent brouhaha over Mitt's comments regarding George Romney marching with Martin Luther King as an example.) He came through the 'scandal' looking better than before.

Contrast how Mitt looks under scrutiny to how Governor Huckabee endures scrutiny. Here's another story over at Powerline Blog talking about how the closer you look at Mike Huckabee's clemencies and pardons the more obvious it is that he isn't the compassionate advocate for his constituency that he claims. Huckabee's defense of his pardons and clemencies becomes less persuasive day by day.

Sioux City Journal Endorses Romney (and Obama)

2007-12-22T22:59:00.000-06:00

Nice news out of western Iowa (this is Rep. Steve King's district) where Huckabee's stronghold is (and Fred is fighting for some of that base).

Endorsement done via video.

Text available as well.

"We sought to identify the two candidates we feel best combine a new voice with a strong vision of the future on key issues facing the country. Also, we chose candidates we feel possess integrity, who can lead, who can forge consensus and who will run positive, issue-oriented campaigns.

"We believe the two candidates we have endorsed have a unique ability to inspire and motivate our country to meet the significant challenges we face."

. . .

"From the Republican field, the Sioux City Journal endorses Mitt Romney. Romney combines an outsider's new face with a proven track record of success in both the private and public sectors.

"As a businessman, the president and chief executive officer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and governor of Massachusetts, he has demonstrated an ability to bring people together and bridge partisan divides, organize, mobilize and motivate in order to solve problems. In short, he combines an engaging personality with the leadership qualities necessary to inspire others to follow him.

"Let's be honest, a candidate for president can prepare volumes of detailed ideas, but if he or she is a polarizing figure within the halls of Congress or devoid of the personal traits necessary to get Americans to listen and act, those plans don't have a chance of success."

Granted, I don't put much stock in these kind of endorsements . . . but it's better that this goes to Mitt than another candidate. Also, the convincing argument they lay out for Mitt may sway some people Romney's way. Who knows?

I Don't Trust Huckabee To Be Persuasive

2007-12-22T16:46:00.000-06:00

There are several groups out there unaffiliated with, but supportive of the Huckabee campaign who are going negative in remarkably unbecoming ways. I'm intentionally leaving out the links in this paragraph, and not naming names. Mike Huckabee has gone on record saying that he wishes that they would stop.

They haven't stopped. Mike Huckabee can't even persuade his own people.

Mike Huckabee hasn't been persuasive enough to convince Rush Limbaugh that he (Huckabee) is a conservative.

Mike Huckabee isn't winning a lot of support even among potential allies on foreign policy.

Does Huckabee remind you of someone?

How exactly does Mike Huckabee plan on building a coalition to implement the fair tax?

How exactly does Mike Huckabee plan on getting support for that National Smoking Ban that he supports?

How exactly does Mike Huckabee plan on persuading fence sitting northeast independent voters to support traditional marriage?

How exactly is Mike Huckabee going to persuade Iran to become a good global citizen?

Remember last time we tangled with Iran when a policy lightweight was in the white house? Jimmy Carter was lacking the cojones to deal with the American hostages in Iran, so Ross Perot did it instead. On his own. Because two of the hostages were his employees.

I don't see how a candidate who can't convince his own supporters to lay off their counterproductive negative tactics can convince 50 unique states to unite and solve the problem of illegal immigration.

Rush Limbaugh's UNdorsement of Mike Huckabee (Sutbly Recommends Mitt, Fred, and Duncan Hunter)

2007-12-22T16:40:00.000-06:00

Rush Limbaugh Slams Huckabee for 3 hours:
(coverage here, here, here, here, and here) . . . THIS IS HUGE FOLKS!!! RUSH'S DENUNCIATION OF HUCK WILL SOLIDIFY THE HUCKABUST AND HE WON'T BE ABLE TO SLOW HIS DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY.

Check out these quotes from the Friday 12/21 show (first segment here):

I think Rollins and his candidate need to stick to the issues. They need to stick to the record. They need to stop with this Clintonesque spinning that they're doing out there. You know, McCain's starting to look better to me than this guy -- and that's saying something! More I see what Huckster's -- Huckabee's (laughs) record was in Arkansas, there's a lot of liberalism in there. There certainly isn't a lot of Reaganism in there, and I think that the Huckabee campaign is trying to dumb down conservatism to comport with his record, and now they focus on me, challenging me on a personal level here like the libs do.

. . .
So, I see some similarities here in the Huckabee campaign and Perot. You know, Perot, Whitman, Ed Rollins? I guess if you listen to the Huckabee people, Bill Buckley has been read out of the movement by Huckabee as well since he's lived in Connecticut and he's worked in New York. Who is this campaign to be defining who is or who is not a conservative? I never heard of Huckabee in an important ideological way before this campaign got going, and believe me, I know who the conservatives are out there. So this elitism they keep talking about... When they're talking about the New York-DC axis, the codeword there is for "elites." It's the elites who want open borders, not middle America. It's the elites who want higher taxes -- and this is Huckabee's campaign. It's elites who want to talk to the Iranian regime, not middle America. It's the elites soft on crime, want to release criminals from prison, not middle America. Look at what Schwarzenegger is doing out there, because of a budget shortfall. If we can choose a candidate... This is my only point, folks. If we can choose a candidate who is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage and good on national security, illegal immigration, taxes, and spending, why shouldn't we choose that candidate? Why do we have to choose somebody who's trying to get a redefinition of conservatism to comport to his views? By the way, this is not just about Huckabee. This has been my lament from the moment this campaign began, if you recall.

. . .
RUSH: We'll start with last night's Hardball with Chris Matthews on PMSNBC. He was talking to Romney senior advisor Ron Kaufman, and the new Huckabee national campaign chairman Ed Rollins, and Matthews said, "Ed, does faith bring you guys together or separate you?"

ROLLINS: Well, first of all, you and I are Catholics and our candidates are different, and, uh, Ron, are you still an atheist, or have you basically converted?

KAUFMAN: (nervous laugh) Okay.

ROLLINS: Now that you're rich. (laughs)

MATTHEWS: We've had a Mark Penn moment on this show already, Ed. We don't need another one.

ROLLINS: He's my -- He's my very dear friend.

MATTHEWS: I know, but you just accused him of being an atheist.

RUSH: That's the Huckabee national campaign chairman Ed Rollins asking if one of Mitt's guys, Ron Kaufman, is an atheist. So then Matthews says, "Relevant to this campaign, is there any religious difference between Romney and Huckabee. Relevant to this campaign, is there a religious difference? Ed Rollins, you know exactly what I'm asking."

ROLLINS: I know exactly what you're asking, and I think the bottom line is that the voters themselves will make that decision.

MATTHEWS: Whoa! Whoa! Ron Kaufman, he just dodged on the question of whether there's a religious difference between the two candidates and what they're offering in terms of policy!

RUSH: Yeah, he just did. So there's the latest in the campaigns. You know, the Huckabee campaign is apparently very thin-skinned. There are a lot of stories out there, one of the AP headlines: "Huckabee: Woe is Me," a couple of others that I have here in the stack. I just want all of you to know: I have nothing against Mike Huckabee personally other than he is for exercise, and I'm not. I don't know him. But the purpose of a primary is to try to take the measure of a candidate, to try to discern what kind of president he would be to try to cut through all the clutter, determine what kind of record a candidate has and so forth. This is how elections have worked since there have been elections. It's an important process. The president is very powerful. These are very critical times in our history. If the candidate wants your vote, he has to earn it and convince you why he's worthy of it.

As you know, as a general and practical rule I do not endorse primary candidates, but I do take a careful look at the candidates and comment on what I think their strengths and weaknesses are, and it appears that in doing so, the Huckabee campaign has taken offense. Maybe Huckabee himself, I don't know, . . .
. . .
This is where I'm coming from and where most of you are coming from in this audience, and we want a candidate for president -- and ultimately a president -- who shares these fundamental understandings. So when I raise questions about public reports regarding a candidate's record or position, I'm comparing the record and position with our founding and conservative principles and my own beliefs. It is not personal. When I talk about Huckabee's illegal alien position, tax increases, the release of hundreds of criminals, the rhetoric about our war effort, it isn't personal.
. . .
RUSH: Again, when I raise questions about public reports regarding any candidate's record or position, what I am doing is comparing the record and position with our founding conservative principles. I am a conservative first. I am not a Republican first. It matters. When I raise questions about, say, about Governor Huckabee's positions on illegal aliens, tax increases, the release of hundreds of criminals via pardon and his rhetoric about our war effort, sorry, I'm trying to develop an understanding of the guy so I can determine for myself whether he is in fact the kind of conservative you and me want as our president. I've not "attacked" him. I have studiously avoided it. But I've raised questions -- and, of course, in this climate, questions will be considered an attack, but I'm going to keep asking the questions if I believe it's warranted to do so. Yet the mere fact that I have commented on his record appears to have caused great anguish in his campaign. They accuse me (and apparently others, too), who are going through this process of being part of the DC-Manhattan axis. Last time I checked, I was born and raised in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Now, it may not be Arkansas, but it is Middle America.
. . .

I mean, individuals who have fought immigration for years are not happy with his open borders positions as governor. They're just not. Anti-tax groups are unhappy with his tax increases when he was governor. Conservatives who helped defeat the Soviet Union under Ronaldus Magnus are troubled by his statements about our war effort and his desire to negotiate with Iran, for instance -- and it raised eyebrows among longtime school-choice advocates when the New Hampshire NEA endorsed Huckabee. They endorsed Hillary on the Democrat side; Huckabee on the right. The NEA is not interested in conservatives getting any kind of power anywhere. So it seems to me that it is Huckabee's record that is well suited for the axis of liberalism that he decries. Huckabee's record is a better fit for the Wall Street-DC axis that he is criticizing. At a minimum, it deserves scrutiny, doesn't it? And let me be blunt about this: Since Huckabee has raised it, or his campaign has, how is questioning such a record an "attack" on Christians and evangelicals in particular?

I find that offensive, as if raising questions about such a record is said to be raising questions on somebody's faith or the faith of an entire community? That's a deplorable tactic. You people know I oppose abortion. I oppose same-sex marriage. I oppose the left's war on faith. I oppose the Supreme Court's effort to ban religion from the public square. I oppose the left's war on all those things, and I do not take a backseat to Huckabee or anybody else on these issues, and to suggest otherwise is to attack the character of anybody who dares to question your political and policy positions, and that's what the libs do, because the libs can't debate the issues. The libs don't want to debate the issues because they can't win. I'm getting the sense that Mike Huckabee doesn't want to debate the issues, and he's relying on other things as a firewall to keep the issues from coming up. Folks, we have to force a debate on the issues, our issues. That has to happen. Conservatism is what unites a lot of us together, you and me in this audience.

Any candidate who doesn't want that debate and is trying to dumb down conservatism and attack those who raise questions about that debate, that's a red flag to me. So I, again, wish that this had not come up. I wish that this didn't happen. I did not attack Huckabee. I don't know him. I don't dislike him. I have nothing personal whatsoever against him. I have not made one comment about his record as governor, other than to ask questions about some of these policies he engaged in as they relate to what kind of president he would be, and if you're not entitled to ask those questions without somebody in the campaign launching out with some personal BS, then that campaign seems to be a little thin-skinned. So it is what it is, ladies and gentlemen.

Another segment of the show

RUSH: Buster in Chattanooga, Tennessee, you're next. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.

CALLER: Thanks, sir. Mega Rocky Top dittos.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Hey, it's an honor to talk to you. I've been listening to you for, well, since I came back to the States. My parents were missionaries in Africa, and I came back in '92. My oldest brother was listening to you there on WORD in Greenville a long time ago, and I follow you quite a bit. Hey, my comment is about this, Rush. I'm a preacher. I travel all over the States -- and conservative, and up until Huckabee really came in the front, what I was hearing from 90% of the people were that we don't have any conservative that really is a true conservative. The issues obviously were abortion, gun rights, and the homosexual agenda, and then Hucklebee (sic) really jumped up, and the whole mood has changed, almost like it's been revitalized. They see a light at the end of the tunnel. The comment I have to make... I agree with you a hundred percent, 90% of the time, even more than that. Just the fact that something negative has come out against your show, which I like, I feel like you shouldn't be so condemning to Hucklebee when it is against something about you being an entertainer, which we know you're not. But, uh, I think -- I think -- you're merchandising on that to build your reputation, not that it needs to be built, but it has to be maintained, and I think it will be more suitable, I think, for the Republicans and conservatives if we could just kind of support our guy. I think it does more damage to the Republicans getting the nomination. I think the Democrats like you slamming Hucklebee because I think Hucklebee is the most winnable candidate that the Republicans have.

RUSH: Well, all right. I learned. I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. I'm not going to argue with you about it, because you're committed. It's your life, it's your decision-making process, and your vote, and it's yours. I'm not here to argue with you about it. All I'm doing is raising questions about what I think are not even anywhere near conservative aspects of Governor Huckabee's experience, and his governance in Arkansas. As to the fact that I am taking on Governor Huckabee here for my own marketing or ego? No. I guess what you mean is that I am doing this today to somehow show people that I have power. I want you to believe me; I've said this countless times. I may have power, but I'm harmless with it because I don't walk in here every day thinking about that. I really don't. I walk in here every day thinking to just be honest and tell people what I think, and that's what I did today. I'm glad you called.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, folks, let me tell you what's going on now. I sadly, and unfortunately, must make this point reacting to our last caller. What we have going on here is identity politics, I think, in a large swath of support for Governor Huckabee. Identity politics is what the left does. Do you know what I mean when I say "identity politics," Rachel? Okay. Identity politics is: You vote for the Christian. You vote for the black. You vote for the woman. This is traditionally how the left looks at people. We, as conservatives, don't. We don't see you, for example, in a political sense, and see a woman first. We might see a woman first because you're beautiful, but we're men and we can't help it. In a political sense, we wouldn't say, "You don't qualify. You're not smart because you're a woman," and we wouldn't say you deserve anything special because you're a woman. We wouldn't look at a black and say, "Oh! Poor, disadvantaged, slavery heritage, presidential material!" without knowing anything about the guy. We wouldn't if there was the first admittedly open gay running, we wouldn't say, "Oh, terribly discriminated against, really has had no chance! We're going to vote for the gay guy because it makes us feel better about ourselves."

That's identity politics, or a little strain of it, and that's what's happening in the Huckabee race. The identity of Huckabee is: "Christian, Southern Baptist minister," and that identity is covering and is being translated by supporters as meaning whatever they want it to mean, as opposed to actually looking at how he's governed. Like the pastor who just called and said Huckabee is a light at the end of the tunnel. Pastor, the light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train, and you can't get off the track! That's the light at the end of the tunnel, and I think identity politics was a fundamental feature of the Perot campaign as well. People really didn't even care what his policies were. He didn't even have to articulate policies. Remember that? (classic Ross Perot impression) "I'll tell you, Larry, here's what we're going to do! We're going to get rid of all these 737s, going to hire a bunch of Lear 55s. We're going to have smaller airplanes." He cares so much! "You own this country! You own it. This is your country. We're going to give this country back to you." That's identity politics, and this is traditionally not what conservatives and even Republicans, right-wingers, do.

We're a little bit more serious about it, and this is also one of the things that I detect. Of course, one of the things that makes me convinced I'm right about this is that Governor Huckabee is doing what he can to avoid discussing his record and his policy beliefs and is, in fact, relying on his identity to keep people on his side, in his camp, and perhaps even grow it. In one way, you'd have to say it's pretty smart because on the other side his opponents, you've got admitted conservative flaws -- admitted conservative flaws which do trouble the Christian right, which is a large part of the Republican base. Either support for abortion or gay marriage, things that would be disruptive to the culture, and many people are very, very concerned about the culture. So with Huckabee, the identity is, Christian. That means hundred percent thoroughbred on social issues, the cultural issues. Yet you dig deep, and you find the policy on immigration. If you look at Huckabee in an identity sense and yet at the same time you really think illegal immigration is destroying this country, then your identity association with Huckabee as a Christian likely will make you overlook the fact that he's opposite your belief on illegal immigration. Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist and he ran on that and he tried to capitalize on that. He ran on the religious identity, too.

Yet another segment from 12/21:

RUSH: Bozeman, Montana. This is Greg. You are up first in this hour. It's nice to have you, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hey. Merry Christmas. Dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Hey, I'm a Huckabee guy, but I'm thinking about switching.

RUSH: You're a Huckabee guy, but you're thinking about switching. Why?

CALLER: Well, I don't know. All my people -- Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan all those people -- are, I don't know, they don't like him, and I don't know. All the stuff is starting to come out against him. It's starting to make me nervous. (nervous laugh)

RUSH: Well, that's what campaigns are for: examining people's positions on things. But I would make up your own mind. I wouldn't listen to influential figures to shape and form your mind for you. It might send you in a direction your curiosity would take you, but I think maybe some people that you think and respect were not on board when you were caused to actually start looking, and that's why you know what some of these positions are that you now think, "Wow, I didn't know that." Right?

CALLER: Right. I think some of it is like the last campaign where everybody bailed out on Howard Dean because they thought he was kooky -- well, he was kooky. They thought he was unelectable, and I don't want to do that. I don't want to just jump at somebody that I think can win but doesn't necessarily line up with what I believe.

That quote about getting a candidate "who is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage and good on national security, illegal immigration, taxes, and spending, why shouldn't we choose that candidate?" is golden for Mitt. Only Mitt, Fred, and Duncan Hunter meet those criteria and, among them, only Mitt has a credible path to win the nomination.

George Romney and Martin Luther King

2007-12-22T02:20:00.000-06:00

Romney has been taking some heat in the last 24 hours for supposedly exaggerating that George Romney and Martin Luther King Jr marched together.

Two eyewitnesses

Some people were pretty quick to criticize Mitt Romney on this issue, and it confused me from the beginning. The Romneys were leaders in the civil rights movement. If the republican party had followed George Romney's lead on this issue, then election dynamics would probably be different today.

Update - It looks like they didn't march together. See this link.
Here's the point. Mitt Romney is solid on civil rights. That's incontestable.
Here's another link

George Romney was so solid on civil rights.