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

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

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?

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"

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

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

Click above!

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/