A Few Items of Interest

The online poll voting for Romney in the last couple of days showed some results. Romney won both monthly polls at StrawPoll'08. Also, Romney won the monthly poll for the first time at "The Next Prez" blogsite. Remember the part on the right sidebar "Poll-Roll" as a place to come daily to vote for Mitt.

Over at Human Events Online, John Hawkins (who runs the "Right Wing News" blogsite), has laid out some "The Conservative Case Against _________ (fill in your 2008 GOP hopeful" articles lately. He wrote one about McCain a few months ago and one about Rudy Giuliani just a couple of days ago. Romney hasn't always gotten the best press from Human Events Online, we'll wait to see if or how they deal with Romney.

Romney Holding strong @ #2 in National Journal WH'08 Race Rankings

Another month goes by and Romney is still holding strong at #2 in the National Journal White House 2008 Race Rankings. National Journal and Hotline-On Call are one in the same and I have always noticed a pro-McCain slant from those sources(Granted, one of their main competitors, National Review (& especially Nat. Rev. Online has a decided pro-Romney slant). As Romney has been getting stronger and stronger the "blurbs" about him in the rankings have become increasingly negative. Just and observation.

Interestingly, George Allen has dropped from #3 to #5 post-"Macaca".

There's also a poll in the sidebar where you can rank your favorite five for each party.

FRC Action Values Voter Summit

Mitt Romney will be speaking at the 2006 Values Voter Summit. The summit will be in Washington D.C. on September 22-23.

Looks like a wonderful conference! The speaking list reads like a "Who's Who" of conservative causes: Hannity, Dobson, Bennett, Gonzalez, Falwell, Coulter, Bauer (not Jack), and Bozell (and many, many more).

The list of GOP 2008 Presidential hopefuls who will be speaking is very interesting: Allen, Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, and Brownback are all slated to speak. McCain, Giuliani, and Pataki will not be at the conference. I see this as a great sign for Romney! He's really lining up as the conservative alternative to McCain and Giuliani! They will be having a Presidential Straw Poll at the event. Those results should be interesting. We'll watch this one closely.

Online Polls: Update

OK, I'm not convinced that these online polls mean much . . . but I do think that the more votes Gov. Romney gets, the more people who encounter such polls will be interested in finding out about Romney if they are currently uninformed. It's also nice to show that Romney has strong support from the online community.

Also, since we can vote in many of the online polls daily, I've added
a new feature to my Iowans for Romney blogsite. On the right sidebar, under the
small picture of Mitt's Turnaround book, is a new heading titled:

"VOTE FOR MITT: Online Polls!"

I'll try to keep it updated. Consider going there to vote for Mitt as part of your daily routine . . . that way we'll stay ahead in some of these polls and not need to play catch-up. Please inform me if you know of other online polls so I can get them on the "Poll-roll."

One that we're just a few votes away from winning (and should be closing tomorrow evening is the one at Strawpoll'08 (the first column)

Alabama for Romney Up & "Tar Baby" Still Stickin (in people's minds)

Romney state blogs can now start the alphabetical list off right! Karl Basham, who has recently helped re-vitalize Mississippi for Mitt, has started "Alabama for Romney" and has several excellent new posts in the last few days. Karl is a Captain (soon to make Major) in the Air Force and is going in less than two weeks for a 6 month deployment in Iraq.

Speaking of Alabama, I ran into an article titled "ALABAMA VOICES: Word thieves threaten richness of language" from the Montgomery Advertiser by Tom Fitzpatrick. It only mentions Romney periperally, but the writer laments that a literary rich term like "tar baby" has been hijacked by race-baiters and will become taboo in our vocabluary as a racial slur. This topic is near and dear to me, because, as many readers here may know, I asked the question to Romney at the Ames event last month that elicited his "tar baby" comment.

Fitzpatrick delves into an interesting history of the orgin of the term and laments about its apparent sailing into the sunset. Of Romney, the story mentions:

Gov. Romney referred to the Boston "Big Dig" tunnel fiasco as a tar baby he didn't want to touch. Sounds apt, but critics across the nation, led by black activists, savaged him. Romney apparently didn't know that "tar baby" in recent years has become a racist's epithet for a black person.

Personally, I think it will be a disgrace and loss to both blacks and whites if "tar baby" is allowed to be pirated by word thieves, goes the way of "gay" and "intercourse," and lives on bereft of its original meaning.

Well said Mr. Fitzpatrick!

Look at all the debate my simple question led to . . . who would've thunk it . . .

Jeff

RudyBlogger calls Romney "Formidable Challenger" for Giuliani

I just cam accrosed a most unusual source of praise and cause for encouragment for Romney fans--a Rudy Giuliani Blogsite Entry:

And if I'm the campaign pollster for Mitt Romney, I'm thinking that those voters are much more easily peeled off from John McCain.

I e-mailed David Johnson of Strategic Vision to ask if I was heading in the right direction. Here was his response:

Every piece of polling evidence that we have from our statewide polls show that Rudy Giuliani and not John McCain is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008 regardless of who else is in the race. In only one state does McCain outpoll Giuliani -- Michigan -- and that can be attributed to the residual effect of McCain's victory in the state in 2000. However, in that state, Romney is on the rise and he is taking voters away from McCain not Giuliani. At this time, it appears that Romney is emerging as the candidate to break out of the pack and take on Giuliani and McCain. (emphasis added)

So, in scenarios where both Rice and Romney grab a higher share of the vote, they take more from McCain. As Romney rises, McCain falls and Rudy stays steady, setting up a Giuliani vs. Romney battle for Iowa and New Hampshire.

So, in scenarios where both Rice and Romney grab a higher share of the vote, they take more from McCain. As Romney rises, McCain falls and Rudy stays steady, setting up a Giuliani vs. Romney battle for Iowa and New Hampshire.

After some more analysis RudyBlogger finishes:

All this said -- Don't get cocky. I don't think John McCain will be around to bother us in February '08, but that doesn't mean we won't face an even more formidable challenger. Post Macaca, that looks like it will be Mitt Romney.

It's pretty well documented that McCain people see Romney as the biggest threat . . . now the Rudy fans seem to be coming to a similar conclusion. Prepare yourselves for attacks on Romney from every side possible!

Romney's Judicial Appointments and Philosophy: No, it's not the "pro-gay rights", "pro-activist judges" picture painted by some

What I've created below is in response to a commonly recurring attack on Romney: that he can't be trusted to appoint good conservative/constructionist judges because of his record of judicial appointees as Massachusetts Governor, specifically regarding gay-activist judges.

The issue came up in a discussion thread to an article I posted on Free Republic (Over 135 comments so far, and some heated debate). One comment (#123), by JohnnyZ summed up the most common attack:

Romney's record on judges is perhaps the most atrocious part of his political record.

He has nominated not one but TWO homosexual liberal Democrat gay marriage activists as judges in Massachusetts. Most of his judicial nominations have been Democrats. There are no reported instances of Mitt fighting for more conservative judges in Massachusetts. By all accounts the liberal Democrats who must approve his picks have had no complaints with his selections. (That's a good indication he's not doing his job right!!!)

I wouldn't put anything past a flip-flopper like Romney, but going from nominating pro-gay marriage activist Democrats, who are openly homosexual themselves, to nominating conservative justices for the Supreme Court -- well, really, it does strain credulity.

Romney has also been attacked on Red State (Usually by Gary Glenn) several times on this issue and it will be a recurring mantra for those trying to discredit Romney on the issue of abortion (since SCOTUS nominees represent the greatest influence a POTUS can have on the abortion issue).

Governor Romney has been criticized by some conservatives for not appointing enough Republican judges. As you read this, I think you'll come to understand that Romney has done an excellent job on judicial appointees, has been pragmatic, and has navigated the liberal waters of Massachusetts politics better than one would have expected. Hopefully, this piece, in combination with Nathan Burd's excellent piece "A Pro-Life Perspective on a Mitt Romney Presidency" can act as resources for Romney supporters wanting to "clear the air" when Romney is incorrectly criticized on these points.

Much of what follows comes from a Boston Globe article from July 2005. I have "sterilized" out much of the anti-Romney slant that we've all come to expect out of that left-leaning rag (but you can go to the link and read it all).

As of one year ago Romney had nominated 9 Republicans and 14 Democrats as judicial appointees (and a host of "unenrolled" appointees) . . . this in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 4-1 and the legislature is 87% Democrats. Sounds like Romney is beating the statistics there! But what is impressive, is that for Romney, it's not just about playing politics with judicial appointees. The article states:

With increased attention on judicial nominees after President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the US Supreme Court, Romney said Friday that he has not paid a moment's notice to his nominees' political leanings or sexual orientation -- or to the impact his choices might have on a future presidential run. He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience.

The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include ''strict construction, judicial philosophy."

''With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.

The above is a key point. Ziuko on Red State commented: "If Federal courts are the major leagues, state [and district] courts aren't even the minor leagues, they're a pick up game of tee ball. Having the right connections seems to be about the only important attribute for any candidate. Judicial philosophy never seems to enter into it."

So, I would ask what the big hullabaloo is about Romney's appointments (the two that had a history of gay activism OUTSIDE of the courtroom)? Who gives a rip if a small-time criminal court judge is gay!?!--especially if they have a judicial record of being tough on crime and are working in criminal courts!

Romney won praise in the legal community when he replaced regional judicial nominating committees that were viewed as politically tainted with a centralized Judicial Nominating Commission. The commission considers applicants using a ''blind" first phase of the selection process that removes names from applications in an attempt to ensure the candidates will be judged on their merits. In addition, all of Romney's nominees have been submitted to a Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Nominations, which rates candidates as qualified, well-qualified, or unqualified -- and each has been found to be either qualified or well-qualified.

As a Harvard Law cum laude graduate, Romney obviously knows a thing or two about proper qualifications for a good judge . . . not one that he's recommended has been considered "unqualified."

The BG article continues:

there is evidence to suggest that Romney is making sure his fellow Republicans and conservatives get a piece of the action.

Romney has faced criticism from Governor's Councilors and some bar associations for failing to nominate more women, minorities, and defense attorneys to the bench. Seeking to counter such attacks, Romney's appointee to the chairmanship of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Boston lawyer Christopher D. Moore, has reached out to minority and women's bar associations to encourage members to apply. He's done the same with the state lesbian and gay bar association, which also has a seat on Romney's joint bar committee.

Later, some more about Moore:

Romney's choice to chair the Judicial Nomination Commission, Moore, is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group that fights ''judicial activism" and promotes the legal system as the preeminent venue for protecting ''traditional values."

Then comes one of the "kickers" . . . seeing who Romney has to get his nominees passed through:

After Romney nominates the candidate, the pick must be approved by the Governor's Council , where Democrats hold eight of nine seats [all of them elected officials . . . not Romney appointments see here]. . .

''He's tried to have a process devoid of politics, [but] he also has to get his nominees approved by the Governor's Council, and that is not a bipartisan body," said Jones, of Reading. ''The biggest problem in trying to reform the system to make it devoid of politics is that not everyone else buys into that model."

Romney, asked if he has engaged in any horse-trading with Democratic politicians, said: ''So far I have not ever given any weight whatsoever to whether I think someone can make it through the Governor's Council. I send them individuals who I feel are highly qualified and have the right judicial temperament related to crime and punishment

But what about higher level appointees?

Peter Vickery, one of the Democrats on the Governor's Council, says he believes Romney and Moore would seek far more conservative jurists if a vacancy were to pop up on the Supreme Judicial Court, which delivered the gay marriage decision that Romney has routinely blasted.

Some of Romney's nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney's pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan -- whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court's gay marriage ruling.

Taking another angle altogether . . . Romney recently refused to re-appoint David Gorton, the former Commissioner on the Appellate Tax Board (a panel of five judges), in part because of his questionable ethics and his outspoken gay activism negatively influencing his job performance. According to this article:

"I won't rule out homophobia," said Gorton, who has been a gay rights activist and community leader. From 1988 to 1994, Gorton served as chair of the Greater Boston Gay &Lesbian Political Alliance.

Currently, he is on the board of directors for The Gay & Lesbian Review, serving as its clerk.

The rub for Romney, Gordon believes, stems from the governor's presidential ambitions. "The religious right hates gay activists with a passion, and I am the kind of guy who would raise red flags," Gorton said. "Although I am a judge on the job and an activist on the side, I fit their stereotype of 'activist judge.'"

Although no gay-marriage tax cases have yet to come before the board, Gorton believes it is only a matter of time before they will. Gorton, who has served on the board for more than nine years, has expertise and experience with both kinds of appeals.

Looks like a position where a gay activist could negatively swing decisions/opinions. HUGE RED FLAG!! Fortunately, Romney had the sense to not re-appoint him.

Therefore, does Romney get credit for taking away one gay activist judge? Will this subtract out either of the two that the anti-Romney conservatives are complaining about? I'm guessing they'll choose to ignore that piece of history.

JohnnyZ said that Romney appointed "TWO homosexual liberal Democrat gay marriage activists"

Well, lets look at these appointees in more depth. First is Stephen S. Abany who was appointed to district court(as an "Associate Justice," the lowest rung at the district court level) . . . first off, it turns out that he IS NOT a registered Democrat (so JohnnyZ was wrong again . . . no surprise there I guess, I'm getting quite used to it) but his leanings and voting are generally liberal (AKA Democratic). Abany was 57 years old when he was appointed to a DISTRICT Court . . . not even a remote threat to rise up through the judicial system to become a Supreme Court caliber appointee.

The other appointee JohnnyZ refers to isn't even homosexual (as far as anyone has publicly claimed). Marianne C. Hinkle, a longtime state and federal prosecutor (and VERY TOUGH ON CRIME), was the another nominee in question. She's a Democrat and a member of a group that tries to promote gay rights in the Catholic church but has no record of judicial/courtroom activism. She was appointed at the same "lowest rung" at the District Court level as Abany and she was similarly in her late 50's when appointed.

This Romney guys knows what he's doing. He has been pragmatic and wise in his appointments given the environment he works in.

Also, Romney has been a long-time and outspoken opponent of activist judges. He has tight ties with the Federalist Society and his private charity group has donated to it (liberals have criticized this before). What follows now is some of Romney's extensive record of being against activist judges and on coming down on the conservative side of court decisions:

These Boston Globe piece excerpts help show that Romney is on the right side of the judicial activism issue:

WASHINGTON -- Governor Mitt Romney leveled an unusually personal attack yesterday at the Supreme Judicial Court for legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, telling a group of conservative lawyers and judges that the justices issued the ruling to promote their values and those of ''their like-minded friends in the communities they socialize in."

Though Romney has criticized the SJC's watershed 2003 decision many times before, the broadside he delivered at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C., was an atypically sharp and direct attack on the four justices who found that the Massachusetts Constitution afforded gays and lesbians the right to marry.

''If a judge substitutes his or her values for those values that were placed in the constitution, they do so at great peril to the culture of our entire land," he said.

The remarks won applause from the 500 lawyers, scholars, and others who packed a ballroom to hear Romney's speech.

. . .

Romney ended his speech by praising the new chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, and President Bush's current pick to replace outgoing Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Several Federalist Society members said afterward that they were impressed by what they heard from Romney. ''I think he said the right thing: Decisions should be left to the people," said Peter Urbanowicz, a Dallas lawyer.

And quotes back from 2004 from another piece:

Romney: ''Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws. . . . While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage." (Wall Street Journal op-ed, Feb. 5, 2004)

Romney: ''The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation. At this point, the only way to reestablish the status quo ante is to preserve the definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before courts redefine it out of existence." (Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, June 22, 2004)

Even earlier that year he wrote a powerful opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal called "One Man, One Woman: A citizen's guide to protecting marriage"

Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.

Yet another quote:

''He's trying to get candidates who are conservative and probusiness and who have a prosecutorial background, tough on crime, and to use the words that have been flying around for a few years, he doesn't want any of those activist judges on the bench," said Kathleen M. O'Donnell, past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

From the Christian Broadcasting Network:

"As governor, all of the issues that have come to my desk that have dealt with the matter of abortion, I have decided on the side of life," Romney said.

The pro-life Romney now seems to have the entire social conservative values package. He is also not pleased with activist judges and supports the push for a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

"The idea of not allowing ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance or taking ‘In God we trust’ off our coins – those are just nutty," Romney said.

While in Georgia recently Romney said of the Gitmo ruling:

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts said Thursday that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees was just another reason why the nation should elect a Republican president again in 2008 _ to get more conservative judges on the high court.

The Supreme Court ruled that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying in a strong rebuke that the trials were illegal under U.S. and international law.

The court declared 5-3 that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. law and the Geneva conventions.

"To apply the Geneva accords is very strange in my view,"

On Eminent Domain Ruling (part of this is from the Hugh Hewitt show):

HH: Last question, Governor. Today, the Supreme Court upheld a extraordinary exercise of eminent domain on private property for transfer to other private property. Are you surprised by this? Does it alarm you?

MR: You know, the Supreme Court made an error in judgment on this one. You know, I understand the purpose of eminent domain, to make sure that when roads need to be built, or public purposes are involved, that private property can be taken when there's fair compensation. But to basically say a mall developer could get eminent domain to take away peoples' homes, that is not a good idea. The liberals on the Court made a mistake on this, and we're going to have to get a Court that's willing to stand by the rights of property owners

Obviously, Romney's pragmatism will continue to turn off some ultra-conservatives and they will continue to label him as a RINO or some other derogatory label. But many of their attacks are either dishonest or flat out wrong and need to be combated.

Are there more conservative politicians out there? Sure.

Can any of them make a serious run at winning the presidency? Not looking like it now.

Can any of them lead as effectively as Romney could? I highly doubt it.

Romney's record of judicial appointees is not worrisome to this Reagan Republican.

I look forward to a potential President Romney nominating constructionist and qualified individuals to the SCOTUS, just like he has said he would. One thing you'd be hard pressed to attack Romney on is his record of keeping campaign promises. He has been a man, and politician, of his word--truly a rare gem in our country today.

A Breeze Around the Blogs

Mississippi for Mitt has added a new blogger, Karl Basham (disclaimer . . . Karl is my brother-in-law and is about to be deployed to Iraq from his military base in storm ravaged costal Mississippi . . . go to his recent blog entries and wish him well!) A sampling of one of he recent entries:

I met Gov Romney while he was in Iowa; end of July time frame. My brother in law invited me to hear him speak at two occasions. I have to admit the man is impressive. There where four things that stood out to me:

1. The War on Terrorism – Gov Romney called it a war against radical jihadists; not insurgents or criminals or some soft name. He clearly understands they are people bent on killing us and they are a real threat that needs to be dealt with. He even visited troops in Iraq, from his state, to see first hand what the situation in theater was like. Being a member of the armed forces I was impressed that he is not to afraid to truly identify the enemy.

Two other points he listed were:

3. His speech wasn’t one of, “the Democrats this…” and “the other party is bad at that…” He spoke of how great America is. He used stories from the Olympics, the Boy Scouts, people he has met around the U.S. It reminded me of Reagan, a leader who believed in the greatness of this country.

4. Now this may seem strange if you don’t have kids but the way people treat our children gives insight into them. My son Benjamin ran right up to Gov Romney and hugged him right at the knees. Gov Romney took it in total stride and hugged him right back and gave him the “Grand Pa” pat on the back. You know that pat on the back that only loving grand dads give there grand sons. Well, when I saw it and then found out he has 5 children; I couldn’t think of a better family man to hold up as an example to the nation. Think about it, in a time where marriage is being defined in different ways and some youth have doubts about it all together, here is a man married to the same woman, raised five children and has a successful life.

At Illinoisians for Mitt there is an interesting piece about Romney's background and it's effect on future and current economic policy from one of their new bloggers, Jonathan. There's also always interesting information that Jason is posting there.

Also, South Carolinians for Romney stays active with three people contributing (Andru, Jason, and Rob).

Similarly, Washingtonians for Mitt has a lot of great recent blog entries.

Oregonians for Mitt has started a companion blogsite

New Hampshire for Romney and Michiganders for Romney are doing a great job too.


Texans for Mitt is kept active by Kevin with quick links and one sentence commentaries.

Great support for Romney coming from all over the place! Not surprising . . . but impressive!

Schools should use English, Massachusetts Gov. Romney says

Here in Iowa Romney spoke with local Republicans yesterday about an important issue . . . the fact that English is the language of our country.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, campaigning for Iowa Republicans on Friday, said that while the United States should embrace its diversity, all students should be immersed in the English language.

"If you're going to be successful in America, you have to speak the language of the land," Romney told a group of about 60 Dallas County elected officials and Republicans on Friday in West Des Moines.

Romney spoke at a fundraiser breakfast for state Rep. Ralph Watts, who is seeking re-election in November. Watts, of Adel, faces Democrat Russ Wiesley of Waukee.

Romney is eyeing the 2008 presidential nomination. This is his seventh trip to Iowa since 2004. The 2008 Republican presidential nominating process is scheduled to begin with the Iowa caucuses.

Romney said he has been a proponent of "English immersion," in which a bilingual student is placed in a classroom where all materials, books and instruction are in English.

Voters in Massachusetts approved a ballot initiative for English immersion in 2002, the same year Romney was elected.

Romney vetoed legislation the next year to soften the law and allow bilingual education to continue, but his veto was overridden.

Romney said English immersion has worked in Massachusetts, where fourth- and fifth-graders this year rated first in the nation on standardized English tests.

Having grown up in California and living in Latin America (immersing myself in their language and culture), I agree that English Immersion is the only way to go. It's better for EVERYBODY in the long term and helps UNITE rather than divide our populace.

Bits and Pieces: Tons of 'em

I remember when the Sales Tax Holiday was signed by Romney a few weeks back . . . but I didn't realize that what he signed was the largest such law in the nation (among the many states that have one as reviewed in the USA Today)

On Wednesday, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, signed a law that creates the nation's biggest tax holiday. All retail sales under $2,500 will be exempt from the state's 5% sales tax Aug. 12-13.

Also from the USAToday, a review of 2008 hopefuls actions in the early primary/caucus states highlights how the political landscape may change in this next election cycle. Alabama will stand poised to be "a player" in the Presidential Primaries in '08:

Six prospects also showed up over the past year in Alabama, which recently moved its 2008 presidential primary from June 3 to Feb. 5.

Alabama looms large for Republicans as well. Arizona Sen. John McCain has given $107,750 to state and local candidates and committees there since January. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a leading campaigner for GOP Senate candidates, is squeezing in three fundraisers Tuesday for state legislative candidates. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke at a state party fundraising dinner, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is planning a trip.

One of the more palatable Democratic possibles, Evan Bayh is "employing" (literally) and interesting strategey:

Besides giving money, Bayh has found, trained and paid 50 campaign operatives in a program called Camp Bayh. Besides the three in Nevada, he's sent one to South Carolina, 15 to New Hampshire, 25 to Iowa and six to Indiana.

Bayh's Iowa contingent is "by far" the largest any Democrat has ever fielded, Bayh spokesman Dan Pfeiffer says. Most are working on legislative races. All, like their counterparts in the other states, are gaining knowledge and contacts that will be invaluable if Bayh runs and they stick with him.

Bayh isn't the only one getting creative . . . Romney's state PAC idea has given him an advantage over many other GOP hopefuls:

Romney has created political action committees in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina. They can raise lots of money fast because they aren't subject to federal contribution limits. He's spent most of his money on state and local races: $192,650 in Iowa, $95,000 in New Hampshire, $168,715 in Michigan and $131,500 in South Carolina, Romney's records show.

Romney and McCain are fighting a money battle in Michigan and South Carolina, which usually follow Iowa and New Hampshire in the GOP primary lineup. McCain, who won Michigan in 2000, has given at least $158,000 to state and local party committees there, according to federal records and McCain's staff. In South Carolina, which he lost in 2000, McCain has already spent nearly $150,000 on state and local campaigns.

Another interesting find was someone pointing out the irony of Romney's "Polygamy Problem" among the GOP frontrunner field.

Romney's "name recognition" must be improving some . . . because he's starting to do a little better in phone "cold call" polls about the 2008 GOP race. According to some recent Strategic Vision polls Romney placed in 3rd (behind McCain and Giuliani) in New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and 4th (behind those two and homeboy Newt). In about 8 weeks Romney has made some progress in Georgia (from 5th and 4% to 4th and 6%). Granted, not huge numbers, but Romney is definitely headed in the right direction (just a few months ago it was not uncommon for him to get 0-2% in these polls)!

This New York Times piece reveiws the landscape for the 2008 presidential race and had a few Romney tidbits:

Mr. Romney has four full-time workers in Iowa and three in South Carolina, his aides said. And the candidates themselves do seem to be everywhere, in what officials in both parties take as a sign of how times have shifted . . . Mr. Romney announced that he had created a 75-member Michigan Steering Committee, widely viewed as the cornerstone of a Romney-for-President operation in the state.

There may be a dwindling opportunity to nail down big names — Mr. McCain’s aides said this week that Robert B. Zoellick, the former deputy secretary of state, was the latest big name to join the McCain camp. But it is also important to be perceived by contributors and political journalists as viable and gaining support.

Mr. Romney’s supporters were understandably cheered when David Yepsen, the influential columnist for The Des Moines Register, wrote a column showering Mr. Romney’s efforts with praise, calling him the best organized of any Republican candidate in the state and declaring that he was “well on his way toward winning the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses.”

Mr. Romney, clearly enjoying his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, went to Cedar Rapids to campaign with Representative Jim Nussle, the Republican candidate for governor. There, Mr. Romney announced, to the audible gasps from an audience of devoted Republicans, that his committee was giving $500,000 to the Nussle campaign.

One of the top members of Mr. Bush’s campaigns, Matthew Dowd, who was his chief strategist, is the object of at least interest of both the McCain and Romney campaigns, Republicans say. “Matt is the biggest fish out there who hasn’t signed,” said one of Mr. McCain’s associates, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal campaign deliberations.

But Mr. Dowd, along with two of the other top lieutenants in the Bush presidential campaign — Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, and Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee — have told friends they are unlikely to do another campaign.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Dowd follow the rest of Bush's team to McCain . . . further flaming the fire of a "quid pro quo" between McCain and Bush

In other news:

Amid a gaggle of events and gatherings one stood out: a Romney event on Aug. 18 at a coast resort. Nearly 1,000 people showed up and Romney's CommonwealthPac garnered more than $1 million. The locals were stunned: Where did that come from?

Romney's performance at the state's semi-annual GOP Convention in Century City on Aug. 20—he received a rousing standing ovation following his keynote address and kudos as well from the arch-conservative California Republican Federation—kept the political buzz mounting. One local congressman remarked that Romney "is the most gifted politician I've ever met."
. . .

But the impression is growing of significant Romney momentum among Republican elites and grassroots alike, and some pros compare Team Romney's prowess to George Bush's organizational edge in 1999. Now that the internet has changed profoundly the nature of grassroots, no campaign can play a waiting game.

Romney recently touted his record of fiscal conservatism in Iowa:

Romney touted his own record for cutting unnecessary spending in his home state. He said he has eliminated redundant agencies such as combining the state’s three highway departments to save money.

Romney said he doesn’t support cutting costs in areas such as homelessness prevention but has advocated for better use of the money. In Massachusetts, the state spent $20 million on hotel rooms for 599 rooms a night for homeless people to stay after shelters were too full.

Romney said he reorganized the system so that those people who had stayed at the shelter the longest would qualify for the hotel room instead of the newcomers. Now, the state has eliminated the need for hotel rooms, Romney said, and the money has gone to improving housing options for the homeless and low-income people.

“We’ve gotten people out of homelessness,” he said.

OK . . . that's enough for now.

Romney's Latest Visit to Iowa: Talks Social Security Reform

Romney's recent stint in Western Iowa supporting local candidates Thursday and Friday provided an opportunity for him to address the largest fiscal problem facing our nation--excessive "entitlement programs" . . . including the two burdensome behemoths, Medicare and Social Security.

From Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson (emphasis mine):

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2008, says it's time to reform the two major "entitlement" programs in America: Social Security and Medicare, government-paid health care insurance for the elderly. "It's really not possible for us to remain an economic and military super power without rethinking and restructuring our entitlements programs," Romney says.

After getting re-elected in 2004, President Bush proposed revamping the Social Security system but has abandoned his plan in the face of stiff opposition. Romney, as the governor of Massachusetts, signed legislation this spring that ensures nearly every citizen in his state is covered with health insurance. Premiums are based on income, low income residents are given subsidies to purchase insurance and companies that do not provide health care insurance for their workers pay a premium, too. Romney says the move will eventually reduce the amount of charity health care in Massachusetts because the very poor won't wait 'til they're very sick and need very expensive health services.

Romney suggests it's time to tackle the nation's health care system for the elderly, too. "Medicare is the largest challenge. Social Security is up there," Romney says. "Today entitlements represent, plus interest, about 60 percent of federal spending. It grows to 70 percent over the next decade as the result of the Baby Boomers flowing into the system."

Romney says leaders from both political parties will have to quit "filibustering" in public and come up with a solution in private. "Sitting down, quietly, behind closed doors and having a full and complete discussion of various ways to bring the costs down and to keep it from getting out of control," Romney says. "In my state the way we were able to do that was on Medicaid, for instance, we sat down and completely re-did our Medicaid program and put in place a new health care system that got everybody in the system and everybody paying their fair share. Those kinds of changes can occur at the federal level and there's going to be a wide array of options that will be considered."

Romney says "statesmen" from both political parties should sit down and "say honestly: 'What can we do?'" to fix Social Security. Romney says the solution should "make sure that we honor the expections" of those who are already getting Social Security and those who are about to get regular Social Security checks from the government, while at the same time ensuring the system will be solvent when the 30- and 40-year-olds of today reach retirement age.

Romney says the political reality is that changes won't happen until both political parties agree there's a problem. "We need to finally take action in this country on entitlements, on spending too much money generally, on using too much oil, on winning against the jihadists," Romney says. "There are a number of challenges that we face and we've got to take some pretty bold action."

Bold words from a bold man.

Romney's Michigan Team has Depth and Breadth (and Power and Money too)

In a similar move to his "Commonwealth PAC Iowa Advisory Board" announced just prior to the Iowa State GOP convention, this Michigan team is announced just before the Michigan State GOP convention.

THIS IS HUGE NEWS! A big "show of strength" by Romney.

Hotline
On Call says of this announcement . . .

Gov. Mitt Romney's Michigan leadership team, announced tonight, includes a half dozen Bush mega-donors, two Romneys, a member of the U.S. House, dozens of state representatives, major county chairs and a few of the state's more influential grassroots activists.

On that list are SEVEN of the Bush Rangers and/or Pioneers (looks like Cillizza will have to update his list . . . Romney was already leading on that list, but now it just looks like he's pulling away from everybody else.)

There are 13 CEO types on that list . . . a clear sign of Romney's appeal to fellow CEO/management types.

Hotline On Call says of this announcement:

The release of these names is a shot across the frontrunner's bow of Sen. John McCain, who has the support of Michigan's two national committee members, among others. It's also a signal to the media, in Michigan and nationally. And to Republican donors. And to uncommitted activists in other states. And to those pesky National Journal insiders who keep ranking McCain ahead of their guy. And even to the White House.

Romney Announces Michigan Team

Read about it here

Why McCain camp frets about Romney in Iowa

This Houston Chronicle article by Craig Hines (their D.C. political columnist) features Romney's efforts in Iowa. He also stresses the importance of the Ames Straw Poll and further confirmed my supspicion that the year-ahead-of-time Romney PAC event in Ames last month was a symbolic foreshawdowing of the event.

About this time next year, if recent history is a guide, we'll be poring over the entrails of the first blood-and-guts contest of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Not a primary, not even a caucus, merely a pay-to-play straw poll that leads to nary a national convention delegate. But what a straw poll, if you're a Republican with designs on the White House.

Dedicated Iowa Republicans pour into a coliseum on the Iowa State University campus at Ames and using tickets/ballots, most often purchased in vast lots by well-heeled presidential campaigns, set the tone of the contest to come.

Yeah, it's kind of phoney (however great a state party fund-raising tool) and has a spotty record in predicting who will eventually be the national nominee. But just like Iowa's real first-in-the-nation caucuses (early the following year), the straw poll is a winnowing event that tests each candidate's organizational ability and, ultimately, traction with voters.

The straw poll is important enough that the political action committee of one prospective Republican candidate, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, recently held a meeting with Iowa activists at Ames. "Wink-wink," said a Romney strategist.

Hines further comments about Romney's good work in Iowa . . .

Romney has been plowing enough ground in Iowa, that Republicans of vastly varying stripe have begun mentioning him just as soon as they posit that Sen. John McCain of Arizona is the league leader among prospective contenders, if only on name recognition. (That's not the case in a new Iowa poll, which I'll get to in a minute.)

Romney has even drawn the discerning eye of David Yepsen, who as political columnist of the Des Moines Register is Iowa's most important campaign commentator.

"Of all the 2008 Republican presidential candidates making the rounds in Iowa, none is doing better than Mitt Romney," Yepsen reported to readers last month. With that sort of review, Romney has also, according to Iowa politicos, roused the attention of the McCain camp.

Then, he gets into the low-down on the McCain's camp current strategy for questioning Romney:

The most interesting tidbit I picked up in calling around Iowa is that the McCain operation, which loves for its guy to be seen as a maverick, appears to be playing a traditional, old-fashioned game in the politically important state: questioning Romney's position on abortion.

Fortunately . . .

Ted Miller, a spokesman for NARAL Pro Choice America, said his organization considers ... Romney as "anti-choice."

I never thought anything good would come out of NARAL . . . but that quote is pretty good!

For those interested in Romney's history on the issue of abortion read this link

Jason Bonham at Illinoisians for Mitt has some interesting commentary on this story as well . . . hat tip to him for picking it up!

Romney on Solid Financial Footing

This link reviews the PAC holdings of the many likely presidential candidates for 2008. Despite his later start . . . Romney is quickly becoming the GOPs powerhouse in fundraising ability. He has the most "cash on hand" of any Republican candidate (Warner, the Democrat has more total . . . seems like the former CEOs know how to manage their money!)

Add that to the cool million that Romney raised at a California fundraiser last weekend added to his amazingly warm reception by the California GOP and he's quickly distancing himself from the rest of the field (especially with George Allen falling off a bit lately due, in part, to some ungaurded words to an opponents staffer . . . Charlie Cook goes so far as to say he's "no longer a real contender for the nomination" . . . I don't think he's fallen off that far and it still is amazingly early to be making such statements). It's all shaping up to be a McCain vs. Romney showdown as of now. I think Mitt is more than up to that challenge.