Over at the Caucus Cooler there are some fairly bold charges about ethics issues as governor.
You can read a summary here
You can see the documents here
Here's the thing. I'm sure this story is going to get bigger, or get smaller in the next couple of days. Before we at Iowans for Romney get into the discussion on this topic we're going to keep an eye on things and see where this goes. Until then, let me just say that I think Governor Huckabee is a good person, doing the best that he can. I'll weigh in on this at a future date. Or if it turns out to be nothing, then I'll go back to talking about why Governor Romney is the better candidate for President.
UPDATE: The source of this information is the Thompson campaign. Yesterday there was a Huckabee campaign event in Muscatine IA and some questions were asked about Huckabee's stance on stem cell research. In response to Huckabee's boilerplate answer about his longstanding opposition etc... the Thompson campaign sent out sent out the info.
UPDATE # 2: Novo Nordisk does actively support stem cell research, which makes it a little difficult for Huckabee to claim consistency on this issue. (This doesn't sway me one way or another, but I do recall Fred Thompson taking a good deal of heat a few months back for something similar.)
Jimmy Carter may have been a squish on foreign policy, and a disaster for our country, but I don't recall hearing of any conflicts of interest like this. Would a Huckabee administration be like some hybrid Clinton/Carter administration? All the incompetence of Jimmy Carter, with all the ethics of Bill Clinton.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Pounding Signs for Mitt in Davenport
I spent the day today, and a lot of yesterday pounding posts into the ground. I do have a day job, but I'm taking some vacation days so I thought I'd volunteer.
Here's a photo.
Do you have a sweet spot in your yard along a busy road like the one shown above? Contact the Romney campaign and tell them to send some people out and put up a sign in your yard. If you just want a smaller yard sign, you can probably convince someone to drop it off, or you could just go into a Romney HQ office and pick one up.
Only a few days left before the Caucus!
Here's a photo.
Do you have a sweet spot in your yard along a busy road like the one shown above? Contact the Romney campaign and tell them to send some people out and put up a sign in your yard. If you just want a smaller yard sign, you can probably convince someone to drop it off, or you could just go into a Romney HQ office and pick one up. Only a few days left before the Caucus!
HEALTHCARE - Part 2
I would have probably included this link in the previous post on health care. But I didn't see it until tonight.
California Health Care Reform Passes Major Hurdle
One thing I wanted to point out is that the California health care plan includes more than one tax increase.
Not to pile on against California or anything (I have nothing against California - I promise!) but here's another 2 headlines:
California Gov. Schwarzenegger May Free 20,000 Inmates to Save Money
Conservatives have a lot of reasons to be wary about forays into the health care issue. But here's the thing - Mitt Romney took on the impossible and made it work.
California Health Care Reform Passes Major Hurdle
One thing I wanted to point out is that the California health care plan includes more than one tax increase.
Not to pile on against California or anything (I have nothing against California - I promise!) but here's another 2 headlines:
Emergency measure planned for California budget
California Gov. Schwarzenegger May Free 20,000 Inmates to Save Money
Conservatives have a lot of reasons to be wary about forays into the health care issue. But here's the thing - Mitt Romney took on the impossible and made it work.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
HEALTHCARE
One thing that Mitt Romney achieved during his term as Governor was to get a law passed that made it so that everyone in Massachusetts could have health insurance.
MITT HAS SINGLE HANDEDLY SHIFTED THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON HEALTHCARE.
There are around 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. 10 years ago, the Democrats pretty much owned this issue. People who didn't have health coverage tended to be sympathetic to democrats on this issue.
Mitt Romney has opened the door for Republicans to own this issue. The problem is, that I don't think anyone else in the field could have pulled it off to begin with. And none of the current primary candidates except for Mitt Romney can really speak to the issue credibly.
Everyone else has talked about this issue. Hillary Clinton talked about it. Barack Obama talks about it. John Edwards, Al Gore, and the Governator in Cali-for-nia talk about improving access to health care for the uninsured.
Mitt Romney actually did something about it.
If somebody besides Mitt is the nominee, how are the republicans going to credibly draw in the 45 million voters who don't have health insurance?
My opinion - If somebody besides Mitt is nominated, we cede this issue to the Democrats.
MITT HAS SINGLE HANDEDLY SHIFTED THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON HEALTHCARE.
There are around 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. 10 years ago, the Democrats pretty much owned this issue. People who didn't have health coverage tended to be sympathetic to democrats on this issue.
Mitt Romney has opened the door for Republicans to own this issue. The problem is, that I don't think anyone else in the field could have pulled it off to begin with. And none of the current primary candidates except for Mitt Romney can really speak to the issue credibly.
Everyone else has talked about this issue. Hillary Clinton talked about it. Barack Obama talks about it. John Edwards, Al Gore, and the Governator in Cali-for-nia talk about improving access to health care for the uninsured.
Mitt Romney actually did something about it.
If somebody besides Mitt is the nominee, how are the republicans going to credibly draw in the 45 million voters who don't have health insurance?
My opinion - If somebody besides Mitt is nominated, we cede this issue to the Democrats.
Missionary Mitt
Here is the question. Would a Mitt Romney presidency encourage people to leave their current congregations, and fill up Mormon chapels?
Nope.
Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine Bill Clinton (or George W. Bush) changed religions during his term in office and became a Jehovah's Witness. Would you become a Jehovah's Witness? Would you regard that religion as more legitimate somehow?
In my mind, the Jehovah's Witness religion would not be any more or less legitimate because of the President converted to it. And I have to believe that you're basically the same as me. If the next president is a Methodist, the Methodist church will have the exact same legitimacy in my mind that it currently has. Same with the legitimacy level in your mind.
Does the religion of the US president even influence how many people join that religion? If it does, I'd like to see some data. Have people left their pentecostal congregations in droves to become Methodists since George W. Bush's election?
Did the Quaker congregations swell in number during the Nixon years?
Okay okay. A lot of people don't like George W. Bush. And Nixon went down in flames. But Reagan won big at the polls. Did people bail out of their Baptist congregations to become Presbyterian during the Reagan administration?
How about during the Clinton administration, or the Carter years? Did people leave their Presbyterian congregations and join Baptist congregations?
I don't even recall that it was an issue during the 2004 campaign. If John Kerry would have been elected would people have flocked to the Catholic church? Is that what happened when John F. Kennedy was elected? Were Evangelicals worried back then that Catholicism would somehow gain a fresh new appeal and Protestants would switch and become Catholic? I wasn't around back then but I thought the concern was that the Pope would decide on policy issues. Was that just the concern that was articulated, when the real concern was that people would go Catholic? I suspect that it was a concern during the JFK campaign.
But it was no longer a concern with John Kerry. I certainly don't remember any hand wringing about this subject in 2004.
Was it a concern?
All of the above denominations are mainstream, fairly well accepted American religious traditions. Catholics accept baptisms of most of the above denominations (Catholics don't recognize Mormon baptisms). But what about religions that fall firmly outside mainstream Christianity? If Al Gore had won the election in 2000 with Joe Lieberman as a running mate would Americans have left their religious traditions to become Jewish?
What about the idea that is circulating out there that a Mormon in the White House would add additional credibility to the Mormon religion. If that is true, then let's see some data. Does the Mormon church swell in numbers in states where there is a successful Mormon Governor? When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, did people leave their churches faster than before to join up with the Mormons? If so... let's see some data.
For that matter, did people leave their Episcopalian, or Lutheran congregations in droves when Mike Huckabee was Governor to become Southern Baptist? If so, I'd like to see some data supporting that. I think religion is way too personal to be influenced in any meaningful way by politicians. The influence goes in the opposite direction.
Nope.Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine Bill Clinton (or George W. Bush) changed religions during his term in office and became a Jehovah's Witness. Would you become a Jehovah's Witness? Would you regard that religion as more legitimate somehow?
In my mind, the Jehovah's Witness religion would not be any more or less legitimate because of the President converted to it. And I have to believe that you're basically the same as me. If the next president is a Methodist, the Methodist church will have the exact same legitimacy in my mind that it currently has. Same with the legitimacy level in your mind.
Does the religion of the US president even influence how many people join that religion? If it does, I'd like to see some data. Have people left their pentecostal congregations in droves to become Methodists since George W. Bush's election?
Did the Quaker congregations swell in number during the Nixon years?
Okay okay. A lot of people don't like George W. Bush. And Nixon went down in flames. But Reagan won big at the polls. Did people bail out of their Baptist congregations to become Presbyterian during the Reagan administration?
How about during the Clinton administration, or the Carter years? Did people leave their Presbyterian congregations and join Baptist congregations?
I don't even recall that it was an issue during the 2004 campaign. If John Kerry would have been elected would people have flocked to the Catholic church? Is that what happened when John F. Kennedy was elected? Were Evangelicals worried back then that Catholicism would somehow gain a fresh new appeal and Protestants would switch and become Catholic? I wasn't around back then but I thought the concern was that the Pope would decide on policy issues. Was that just the concern that was articulated, when the real concern was that people would go Catholic? I suspect that it was a concern during the JFK campaign.
But it was no longer a concern with John Kerry. I certainly don't remember any hand wringing about this subject in 2004.
Was it a concern?
All of the above denominations are mainstream, fairly well accepted American religious traditions. Catholics accept baptisms of most of the above denominations (Catholics don't recognize Mormon baptisms). But what about religions that fall firmly outside mainstream Christianity? If Al Gore had won the election in 2000 with Joe Lieberman as a running mate would Americans have left their religious traditions to become Jewish?
What about the idea that is circulating out there that a Mormon in the White House would add additional credibility to the Mormon religion. If that is true, then let's see some data. Does the Mormon church swell in numbers in states where there is a successful Mormon Governor? When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, did people leave their churches faster than before to join up with the Mormons? If so... let's see some data.
For that matter, did people leave their Episcopalian, or Lutheran congregations in droves when Mike Huckabee was Governor to become Southern Baptist? If so, I'd like to see some data supporting that. I think religion is way too personal to be influenced in any meaningful way by politicians. The influence goes in the opposite direction.
Tanc in the Tank: What Tom Tacredo's Endorsement of Mitt Romney Means to the Iowa Race
Tom Tancredo, deciding to end his pursuit for the GOP nomination, endorsed Mitt Romney today:
But How Does This Effect the Voting (especially in Iowa)?
The most trusted Iowa poll (The Des Moines Register) showed Tancredo with support of 6% of likely caucus goers as of just 3 weeks ago. In most other recent Iowa polls he's been registering 1-4% support. Obviously, former Tancredo supporters are not going to march en bloc into the Romney camp. But to those voters there is no question what the most important issue is . . . halting illegal immigration. They're not going to be voting for Huckabee, McCain, or Giuliani though some may go to Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Fred (in light of Rep. Steve King's confusing endorsement . . . where it seems that he really wanted to/meant to endorse Romney). However, I think many (if not most) Iowa Tancredo supporters could come over into the Romney camp and we welcome every single one of them.
But will these Tancredo supporters be motivated to caucus? Well, he did a pretty darn good job at turning them out to the Ames Straw Poll in August where he took 4th place with 14% and nearly 2000 supporters (just 600 less than 2nd place Huckabee . . . even with all the people the Fair Tax organization bused in for Huck). That 2000 figure likely represents 2-3% of total number of people caucus attendees. That's a nice potential "bump" and that doesn't even count all the Tanc supporters that didn't participate in the straw poll. It will be interesting to see if Tancredo will share the contact information of his supporters with the Romney camp. That could be a nice boon to team Romney.
But just looking at Tanc's polling numbers and supporters is potentially just a small piece of the pie that this endorsement could bring to Romney. Poll after poll after poll (and especially in Iowa, NH, and SC) show that illegal immigration is the #1 or #2 issue of importance to GOP voters. What this endorsement does is give Romney a huge stamp of approval on the #1 issue of the GOP race. This factor cannot be overstated. This will enable many voters to feel more comfortable pulling the lever for Romney and may swing many votes to Romney that are now in other camps. That's where this endorsement could really matter the most.
Actually, this is why Tancredo himself said he dropped out . . . so his immigration supporters won't be "wasted votes," and so that a weak immigration candidate (a la Huckabee, McCain, or Giuliani) can be avoided as our nominee. This was done by Tanc to help advance his own agenda . . . and I'm convinced that Mitt can and will win and advance that agenda once he becomes POTUS.
No matter how this endorsement effects voting, there's one thing this effects for sure:
“At this point in time, (Romney) is the best hope for our cause,” Tancredo said during a news conference in downtown Des Moines.Another source had this to say:
The cause that vaulted the Colorado congressman into the race –– illegal immigration –– also motivated him to abandon his pursuit of the nomination, Tancredo said.
His continued presence in an election he could not win, he said, may have helped the campaigns of Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. John McCain –– candidates Tancredo says are soft on immigration.
Dianne Bystrom, an Iowa State University political science professor, said Tancredo’s exit and endorsement of Romney could shake up the volatile Republican field.
“Tancredo throwing his support behind Romney comes at a key time when Romney is trying to fight off the surge of Mike Huckabee,” she said. “For Romney, it probably couldn’t have come at a better time.”
. . .
Tancredo and Romney met for about an hour today prior to the announcements, Tancredo said. He opted to support Romney after he was reassured that he had clarified his position on immigration.
Tancredo has questioned Romney’s sincerity on the issue in the past, but said Thursday he’s convinced Romney would secure the border, prosecute employers of illegal immigrants, and make those who are here illegally return to their native countries.
. . . his endorsement of Romney could prove a powerful validator of the former governor's bona fides on the issue.Yet another take:Of the Tancredo endorsement, Romney said: " While we don't agree on every issue, we agree on the need to keep America strong. I look forward to working with him and other Republicans to achieve that end."
Tancredo said he did not agree with Romney on all issues, but believes that the governor has a "solid record" on immigration issues and can "go the distance."The reactions around the bloggosphere have been vaired. Case in point: this Race 4 2008 post and comments section where supporters of other candidates reacted with either dissing Tancredo himself, alleging some quid pro quo was involved, or saying that it is an insignificant endorsement (I love the ones who allege some quid pro quo because they seem to be admitting that Romney will not just win the nomination but will become President!)
But How Does This Effect the Voting (especially in Iowa)?
The most trusted Iowa poll (The Des Moines Register) showed Tancredo with support of 6% of likely caucus goers as of just 3 weeks ago. In most other recent Iowa polls he's been registering 1-4% support. Obviously, former Tancredo supporters are not going to march en bloc into the Romney camp. But to those voters there is no question what the most important issue is . . . halting illegal immigration. They're not going to be voting for Huckabee, McCain, or Giuliani though some may go to Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Fred (in light of Rep. Steve King's confusing endorsement . . . where it seems that he really wanted to/meant to endorse Romney). However, I think many (if not most) Iowa Tancredo supporters could come over into the Romney camp and we welcome every single one of them.
But will these Tancredo supporters be motivated to caucus? Well, he did a pretty darn good job at turning them out to the Ames Straw Poll in August where he took 4th place with 14% and nearly 2000 supporters (just 600 less than 2nd place Huckabee . . . even with all the people the Fair Tax organization bused in for Huck). That 2000 figure likely represents 2-3% of total number of people caucus attendees. That's a nice potential "bump" and that doesn't even count all the Tanc supporters that didn't participate in the straw poll. It will be interesting to see if Tancredo will share the contact information of his supporters with the Romney camp. That could be a nice boon to team Romney.
But just looking at Tanc's polling numbers and supporters is potentially just a small piece of the pie that this endorsement could bring to Romney. Poll after poll after poll (and especially in Iowa, NH, and SC) show that illegal immigration is the #1 or #2 issue of importance to GOP voters. What this endorsement does is give Romney a huge stamp of approval on the #1 issue of the GOP race. This factor cannot be overstated. This will enable many voters to feel more comfortable pulling the lever for Romney and may swing many votes to Romney that are now in other camps. That's where this endorsement could really matter the most.
Actually, this is why Tancredo himself said he dropped out . . . so his immigration supporters won't be "wasted votes," and so that a weak immigration candidate (a la Huckabee, McCain, or Giuliani) can be avoided as our nominee. This was done by Tanc to help advance his own agenda . . . and I'm convinced that Mitt can and will win and advance that agenda once he becomes POTUS.
No matter how this endorsement effects voting, there's one thing this effects for sure:
[Romney now has a nice comeback to] the "Sanctuary Mansion" line: "How much of an immigration squish can I be, I was endorsed by Tancredo!"
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Why I'm for Mitt - No Skeletons
Remember the days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal? I know I took comfort in the fact that the political party I identified with had no such embarrassing scandal associated with it.
Those days are over.
In the last 10 years, there have been several scandals that have embarrassed the GOP, tarnished the republican 'brand', and gave fodder to insufferably smug talking heads like Bill Maher.
Remember these guys? -
You'll be sorely missed Mark Foley
Ted Haggard. What can I say.
Larry Craig. Mitt Romney threw you under the bus, and like the rest of America I wish that were literal instead of metaphorical.I think that we can all agree that guys like this make us
I'm tired of it.
One reason I support Mitt Romney is that I know he absolutely won't put up with this kind of nonsense.
Mitt Romney doesn't have any skeletons in his closet. He's been intensely vetted by the Kennedy's, and the liberal press in Massachusetts and he's clean. In fact Mitt Romney is the guy people call in when things are extremely out of control and need to get turned around.
That's what happened in preparation for the Olympics.
Things were mired in scandal. Mitt came in and turned it around. The Salt Lake City Olympics was something that the entire country was proud of. Mitt Romney's personal actions throughout his career have been exemplary and above reproach. Contrast Mitt Romney's record with Mike Huckabee, who is currently leading the polls here in Iowa.
I'm not perfect. Mitt Romney is not perfect. And I do not expect Mike Huckabee to be perfect. That said, here are some links to follow regarding ethics questions that have dogged Huckabee for some time, and have recently been given a little more scrutiny. The most charitable and fair word I can come up with in regards to these ethics questions is TACKY.TACKY
The American Spectator - TACKY
Politico - Ethics Complaints
Salon.com - The Dark Side of Huckabee
The thing is, I didn't have to look very hard for those links. There's a lot more where that came from.
Don't we all want somebody who has a track record of good behavior? You scratch the surface with Mitt Romney, and you just find more good stuff. Nominate Mitt Romney and the GOP's image problem goes away in one fell swoop. The branding problem where the GOP name has been dragged through the mud for the last 8 years... gone.
That's what I want.
New to Iowans For Romney
Hello Everyone,
My name is Jay Bryner, and I'm new to the Iowans for Romney blog. With only a few short days to go before the Iowa Caucuses I contacted Jeff Fuller and asked if I could participate in the conversation. Jeff invited me to participate and here I am.
Here is a picture of me and my daughter with Mitt at a recent event in Bettendorf IA.
I must admit that I'm a supporter of Mitt Romney primarily for fiscal reasons. I want a candidate who will go through the federal budget line by line to look for waste, inefficiency, and duplication. I trust Mitt Romney more than anyone else in the country to show leadership and change the runaway spending we currently see in government.
But I support him for other reasons as well. In my opinion the National Review said it best - (I'll paraphrase but you've got the link) Mitt Romney is a full spectrum conservative with the best chance of uniting the Republican coalition.
I look forward to future posts.
Best
Jay Bryner
My name is Jay Bryner, and I'm new to the Iowans for Romney blog. With only a few short days to go before the Iowa Caucuses I contacted Jeff Fuller and asked if I could participate in the conversation. Jeff invited me to participate and here I am.
Here is a picture of me and my daughter with Mitt at a recent event in Bettendorf IA.
I must admit that I'm a supporter of Mitt Romney primarily for fiscal reasons. I want a candidate who will go through the federal budget line by line to look for waste, inefficiency, and duplication. I trust Mitt Romney more than anyone else in the country to show leadership and change the runaway spending we currently see in government.
But I support him for other reasons as well. In my opinion the National Review said it best - (I'll paraphrase but you've got the link) Mitt Romney is a full spectrum conservative with the best chance of uniting the Republican coalition.
I look forward to future posts.
Best
Jay Bryner
More Confirmation . . . Romney back in "the game" in Iowa.
It's "Game On" again in Iowa folks!
From Rasmussen
I wish that they said somewhere how many people they polled.
Huckabee’s favorable rating has dropped from 81% to 67% in one week, and his support from evangelicals dropped from 62% to 49%. However, he maintains the highest "certain to vote for him" level:
McCain in 3rd is obviously an interesting development. He's way up in a clear 3rd place at 14%. I'm not buying that one. I know he got the Des Moines Register endorsement, but I think that the actual number of caucus attendees who would care about who that editorial board recommends has got to be less than 5% (we all know how liberal they are.) McCain just doesn't have the organization (anymore at least . . . he used to have the biggest Iowa staff) to turn in a 3rd place showing . . . I'm expecting Fred to get the third place spot.
Fred needs to start attacking Huck in Iowa frontally. Huck’s fall in Iowa would make Fred viable again in South Carolina and Florida. I think Fred realistically wants a 1) Romney, 2) Huck, 3) Fred fisnish in Iowa to know Huck out of contention and make Fred relevant again. If Huck wins Iowa then he stays relevant through into SC/FL despite expected poor showings in NH and MI.
Hopefully Fred and Steve King will hit Huck on the campaign trail and in ads too. That’s his only way back to southern strength and a shot at SC/FL.
From Rasmussen
I wish that they said somewhere how many people they polled.
Huckabee’s favorable rating has dropped from 81% to 67% in one week, and his support from evangelicals dropped from 62% to 49%. However, he maintains the highest "certain to vote for him" level:
Among those who have participated in the caucuses before, it’s all even--Huckabee 26% and Romney 26%.Therefore, this reads "Advantage Huckabee" . . . but soon we could be at "Deuce" (sorry for the bad tennis analogy.)
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Likely Caucus participants say they are certain they will not change their mind before January 3. That includes 65% of Huckabee supporters, 58% of those who prefer Romney, and 55% of McCain voters.
McCain in 3rd is obviously an interesting development. He's way up in a clear 3rd place at 14%. I'm not buying that one. I know he got the Des Moines Register endorsement, but I think that the actual number of caucus attendees who would care about who that editorial board recommends has got to be less than 5% (we all know how liberal they are.) McCain just doesn't have the organization (anymore at least . . . he used to have the biggest Iowa staff) to turn in a 3rd place showing . . . I'm expecting Fred to get the third place spot.
Fred needs to start attacking Huck in Iowa frontally. Huck’s fall in Iowa would make Fred viable again in South Carolina and Florida. I think Fred realistically wants a 1) Romney, 2) Huck, 3) Fred fisnish in Iowa to know Huck out of contention and make Fred relevant again. If Huck wins Iowa then he stays relevant through into SC/FL despite expected poor showings in NH and MI.
Hopefully Fred and Steve King will hit Huck on the campaign trail and in ads too. That’s his only way back to southern strength and a shot at SC/FL.
Signs of Life in Iowa? New Poll show Romney back in Lead/"Statistical tie" with Huckabee
Signs of Life in Iowa? I'd like to see more confirmation with a couple more polls before I get too excited.
Insider Advantage Republican Iowa Caucus
- Romney - 28.0%
- Huckabee - 25.1%
- Thompson - 10.8%
- McCain - 6.9%
- Paul - 5.5%
- Giuliani - 5.1%
- Tancredo - 3.7%
- Hunter - 0.5%
- Undecided - 14.4%
Survey of 418 highly likely caucus voters was conducted Dec 16-17, and has an MoE of 5%. Among just “likely voters”, a sample of 835 people, Huckabee is up by just 2.6% (27.7% to 25.1%). The rest of the percentages are virtually the same, including Giuliani in sixth place.
Their last poll was so long ago that it might be unmeaningful for comparison. But their last poll (10/02) in parentheses are here–with the RCP Averages on 10/02 following after the dashes.
* Romney - 28.0% (24-----26)
* Huckabee - 25.1% (13-----8)
* Thompson - 10.8% (13-----15)
* McCain - 6.9% (10-----8)
* Paul - 5.5% (4-----3)
* Giuliani - 5.1% (16-----17)
* Tancredo - 3.7% (not included . . .)
* Hunter - 0.5% (2-----n/a)
* Undecided - 14.4% (13-----n/a)
* Brownback was in that 10/02 poll and got 5%
Observations from this:
1) The last Insider Advantage Iowa poll was very in line with the RCP averages at that time.
2) The only notable exception to this was that the last one OVERESTIMATED Huckabee at 5 points higher than his RCP average.
3) With Brownback dropping out and most of his support going over to Huckabee that 18% combined Huck/Brownback vote then was something I remember taking note of and worrying about if one of them dropped out. If anything last time, this poll over sampled religious conservatives.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Guest Blog: It's the SUBSTANCE that matters
Shane Hopkins chimes in with what he likes about Romney:
Having left Iowa for post-graduate training in New York, I can only watch the fun of the Iowa contest from a distance. I've long since learned that Romney is the best person to lead our country, based on the entire complement of his personal characteristics, abilities, and views.
But it's been painful to watch the news coverage!
Over and over again Mitt has been painted as a charlatan with cynical strokes of the journalist pen. Some seem to forget the golden rule of treating someone as you'd like to be treated--give him the benefit of the doubt until you get the whole story! I've been watching the news feeds for many weeks now, and it's just gone on and on in a head-shaking show of he-said-she-said perpetuated cynicism.
Well, the Mitt I've seen is as genuine as they come. He's so genuine, in fact, that many think he's too good to be true. He's not.
He really is that brilliant, that family-oriented, that capable.
And yet, as the media reports press on, I find the subtle phrasing to always cast everything into doubt, assume that everything is contrived and duplicitous and calculated for nothing more than political ambition. What a sad state of our collective minds.
I could provide example after example (and initially thought I would quote them), but I'll leave this on a positive note instead. I was happy to see this refreshingly upbeat assessment of Romney....But then Romney has been masterful in everything he has attempted. It is not insignificant that this cum laude JD/MBA graduate of Harvard guided Bain Capital to become a hugely successful private equity investment firm and rescued Bain & Company from financial collapse. Romney was brought in to save the 2002 Winter Olympics when the games were mired in scandal and $379 million in debt. Romney was able to turn the situation around completely so that the games actually turned a $100 million profit instead. (He also gave back his salary.) That's not slick, that's substance.
Let's take a minute to forget about keeping score in the very political part of the political process. Step back from the sound bites and the ad hominem and the pundit analysis to see where there's objective evidence of greatness. That evidence can be found in many of the candidates, I believe, but nowhere more abundantly than in Gov. Romney's character, optimism, and plan for positive change in America.
Monday, December 17, 2007
What a Confusing Endorsement . . . Steve King for Thompson (and against everyone else but Romney)--Updates #1 and #2 Added
Wow . . . sounds like he wrote his endorsement to be for Romney, but made his choice for Thompson. I'm a bit baffled.
It's really weird. First, he goes through and strikes candidates off his list:
On McCain:
But what is interesting is that King never even mentioned Romney in his whole statement (he even talked of Tancredo, Hunter and Paul, in addition to the ones I mentioned above).
It gets even stranger . . . as Kay Henderson from the Radio Iowa blog reports:
Sounds like he was planning to endorse Romney . . . but just decided on the spot to go with Fred. Amazing and baffling.
(PS. I wonder how many Huckabee supporters in his district sent him emails/calls/letters threatening to withdraw their voting and financial support if he endorsed Romney . . . just wondering . . . maybe Fred was the safe choice for King?)
Update (3 hours later): I didn't get a chance to finish my thoughts before publishing the above entry.
First off, Kudos to Thompson for getting this endorsement. It will help Fred in Iowa . . . there is little doubt of that. He got the endorsement and I'm not whining about it.
However, it is INCREDIBLY doubtful that this will bring Thompson up to the level of challenging Mitt and Huck to win Iowa. The guy just doesn't "have it" on the stump and is too cash strapped to build any momentum off of positive news like this.
But what this does do is make it harder for Rudy, McCain, or Paul to come in third in Iowa (if the "three tickets out of Iowa" theory even applies this year). Those guys will be fighting for 4th-6th places (could this have been part of the strategy for King . . . wanting to cripple McCain and Rudy who he's never been a fan of?)
Also, I think that Huckabee stands to lose more from King going to Fred than Romney does. Huck's base of support is strongest in western Iowa . . . and specifically in King's district. It may give some of them "pause" that Huck didn't get this endorsement and that Fred might be an acceptable (non anti-Bush) alternative. I'm sure Romney could lose some to Thompson too . . . but geographically Huck is more vulnerable here.
Again, I wish Romney had gotten this endorsement (King could have played "Kingmaker"), but it is still telling that King had negative things to say about all the top teir candidates (even Thompson) except Romney during this endorsement. Hopefully King's statements here will reflect a similar unwillingness to trash Romney on the stump when he seems open to doing that for all the other candidates.
Crazy day (especially with NBC's "First Read" and the Radio Iowa Blog going forward with the "King endorsing Romney" story before retracting it back.)
Update #2: And it gets more baffling . . . from the NBC reporter who went "live" with the "King Endorses Romney" story we get this update:
P.S. Here's the audio of the press conference courtesy of Radio Iowa.
It's really weird. First, he goes through and strikes candidates off his list:
On McCain:
McCain remains an active proponent of comprehensive amnesty which puts our national sovereignty at stake.On Rudy:
His positions on life and marriage do not square with a promise to appoint “strict constructionist” judges. The former mayor of a sanctuary city would be unlikely to put an end to sanctuary cities, let alone bring operational control to the border and shut off the jobs magnet.On Huckabee:
But Huckabee has been forceful and even judgmental in voicing his conviction to give scholarships to illegal immigrants. Just one amnesty policy, and there are others, destroys the chance to reestablish the Rule of Law. How can Huckabee answer to the sons and daughters of veterans or veterans themselves who come back from the war to find that illegals have desks in classrooms at a discount prohibited to them? Compassionate conservatism run amok is hard to harness, as we have seen. The Rule of Law cannot be reestablished without “tough love”. Our destiny pivots on amnesty.Next he lists Thompson with quite a few praises, but with these critiques:
Thompson, like Bush, would need help with appointments. He needs to really want to be president.I'm sure all the reporters and Romney people in the room thought it was in the bag for Romney at this point. Especially when he started to bring up religion:
The cultural calamity toward which we are headed is the focus of my life. I believe America was founded by Christians and that the broad core of our culture is Christian, founded in Judaeo-Christian values. I do not believe America, or the American Presidency, is closed to other faiths, let alone other Christian faiths. I believe our destiny as a nation is in the hands of God, but as individuals we have free will. Some are so passionate in their beliefs that they believe they have the market cornered on salvation. In fact, if we didn’t believe our faith was the true faith, there would be no reason for competing denominations. God only knows if any of us are right, but each of us justly believe we are.Then he goes on:
That candidate also has to have the fire in his belly to go the distance and the brains and resources to get there.Well, it sounds like Romney is King's man then. Fred is against the Constitutional Ammendment of Marriage Protection. He is not a religious man by most reports (and a "record of faith" is not something that Fred or his supporters tout). On the issue of family . . . he hardly has the model history. He long played "The Bachelor" lady's man inside the beltway for over a decade. Also, I'm still searching for any huge "successes" Fred can lay claim to. I mean those few lines I quoted above are right out of the Romney campaign "talking points" about what's so good about him.
That candidate also meets the test of life and marriage, judges and borders. That candidate has taken solid, persistent, and principled positions consistent with the Republican platform-which we wrote to inform the candidates of the positions of Iowa Republicans.
That candidate has a record of faith, family, freedom, service, and success.
But what is interesting is that King never even mentioned Romney in his whole statement (he even talked of Tancredo, Hunter and Paul, in addition to the ones I mentioned above).
It gets even stranger . . . as Kay Henderson from the Radio Iowa blog reports:
After the event, I asked King if he had made up his mind on the spot as he was
speaking this morning.
"You have great intuition," King replied.
Sounds like he was planning to endorse Romney . . . but just decided on the spot to go with Fred. Amazing and baffling.
(PS. I wonder how many Huckabee supporters in his district sent him emails/calls/letters threatening to withdraw their voting and financial support if he endorsed Romney . . . just wondering . . . maybe Fred was the safe choice for King?)
Update (3 hours later): I didn't get a chance to finish my thoughts before publishing the above entry.
First off, Kudos to Thompson for getting this endorsement. It will help Fred in Iowa . . . there is little doubt of that. He got the endorsement and I'm not whining about it.
However, it is INCREDIBLY doubtful that this will bring Thompson up to the level of challenging Mitt and Huck to win Iowa. The guy just doesn't "have it" on the stump and is too cash strapped to build any momentum off of positive news like this.
But what this does do is make it harder for Rudy, McCain, or Paul to come in third in Iowa (if the "three tickets out of Iowa" theory even applies this year). Those guys will be fighting for 4th-6th places (could this have been part of the strategy for King . . . wanting to cripple McCain and Rudy who he's never been a fan of?)
Also, I think that Huckabee stands to lose more from King going to Fred than Romney does. Huck's base of support is strongest in western Iowa . . . and specifically in King's district. It may give some of them "pause" that Huck didn't get this endorsement and that Fred might be an acceptable (non anti-Bush) alternative. I'm sure Romney could lose some to Thompson too . . . but geographically Huck is more vulnerable here.
Again, I wish Romney had gotten this endorsement (King could have played "Kingmaker"), but it is still telling that King had negative things to say about all the top teir candidates (even Thompson) except Romney during this endorsement. Hopefully King's statements here will reflect a similar unwillingness to trash Romney on the stump when he seems open to doing that for all the other candidates.
Crazy day (especially with NBC's "First Read" and the Radio Iowa Blog going forward with the "King endorsing Romney" story before retracting it back.)
Update #2: And it gets more baffling . . . from the NBC reporter who went "live" with the "King Endorses Romney" story we get this update:
No one will ever accused Rep. Steve King (R) of not being theatrical.Weird, weird, weird. What could have caused King to "call and audible" on this one at the last minute? Thoughts?The Iowa congressman kept his endorsement choice under wraps so closely that no one knew who he would choose between Thompson or Romney for his nod. The vociferous critic of illegal immigration was said to have narrowed his choice to the two candidates, but he joked that "not even his wife" knew who he'd choose.
But at the start of a sparsely attended press conference in Des Moines today, the superstars of Romney's Iowa shop gathered in the back, leading journalists to conclude that King's nod was destined for the Massachusetts governor. But then curious members of Team Thompson swooped in at the last minute.
Apparently, no one knew what lurked in the congressman's mind.
As he named each GOP candidate, King called the choice of endorsement "one of the hardest decisions I've ever made in my life, and one of the latest coming."
He mentioned the pros and cons of each candidate, notably ruling out both Giuliani and Huckabee, after casting doubt upon their records on immigration.
As he detoured into a treatise on religious tolerance -- a clear reference to Romney's Mormonism -- a Romney endorsement seemed imminent. "I think it's inappropriate to draw conclusions about what we think someone else's faith might be," he said.
"There's only one candidate who epitomizes the full spectrum of our conservative values," he continued. "There is one who is a comfortable conservative, in whom I have full confidence in his decisions."
"He also has the fire in his belly to go the distance, and the brains and resources to get there," said King.
Nail in the coffin for Thompson, everyone thought in the room. (Thompson is frequently caricatured as sluggish and apathetic about his White House hopes, and his campaign coffers are paltry in comparison to Romney's millions.)
Then King added, "If it's not there, I intend to work hard to put it there." The typing and the scratching of pens in the room suddenly stopped as reporters' heads snapped up. "I will put all of my efforts -- and the fire into the belly -- of the person who I believe destiny has called to be the president of the United States."
"I will be working for and supporting Fred Thompson for president."
As King dramatically took off his glasses, folded them, and put them back in his coat pocket, the room was almost silent. A lone Thompson staffer clapped a few times.
And more than one reporter re-learned a hard lesson … it ain't over til it's over.
P.S. Here's the audio of the press conference courtesy of Radio Iowa.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Congressman Steve King to Endorse ____________ at 9AM Tomorrow in Des Moines
I was just alerted to this press release from a press contact (emphasis mine):
December 16, 2007
Iowa Congressman Steve King (Republican) to Announce Presidential Candidate Endorsement at Press Conference Monday
Where: Embassy Suites Hotel101 East LocustSalons F&GDes Moines, Iowa
When: Monday, December 178:00 am CDT – doors open9:00 am CDT – press conference begins
What:Steve King, Republican of Iowa's Fifth Congressional District, will explain his rationale and declare his support for a candidate for president in the Iowa caucus.
King said, "The caucus process in Iowa is long and uniquely personal. Iowans have more access to the presidential candidates than anyone, myself included. We have closed the door and had intense discussions with nearly every candidate. I have a duty and an obligation to make my decision public about my choice for president."
"This decision is my personal conviction. No candidate, committee, or even my wife knows the conclusion I will announce," said King.
King plans to offer his support and volunteer to join the Iowa campaign of the candidate he endorses.
Press Conference Agenda (all central time):
9:00 am King to name his choice for president
9:15 am Q and A
9:30 am FinishWireless internet and a mult-box will be available.
I'm still hopeful, if not a little optimistic. I doubt King would endorse Huck with the "Bush's arrogant bunker mentality" as fresh news. I think he would give Huck a few days to try to diffuse that bomb before endorsing him (unless he REALLY loved Huck and wants to help him change the subject and get him some positive news).
Conversely, the timing would be ideal for Romney (or Fred or Tanc FWIW), because the Huckabee-loving King district would see Huck's "disloyalty" to Bush and the GOP and understand why King couldn't go with him. I predict King wants to go with the guy who is with him on the issues and can win the state. He likely sees that the tide is turning back to Mitt and could claim some degree of "Kingmaker" status if his endorsement coincides with a shift in polling back to Mitt.
Chime in with your thoughts.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Big News: Iowa Congressman Steve King WILL Endorse Before Caucuses . . . But Who?
Politico reports the following potential bombshell for the Iowa GOP race:
It made me think of a previous post I wrote over a year ago after attending the Iowa Christian Alliance's Banquet in Clive, IA. Here's the relevant excerpt:
King's district is where Romney faces the toughest challenge from Huckabee (Western Iowa is a huge base for Evangelical conservatives.) King's endorsement could be big news and I'm cautiously optimistic that if he does indeed endorse, that it would be for Mitt.
P.S. King is a funny guy. He delivered this great line at the Iowa GOP convention in Aug 2006 (I was there and it's where I first met Romney in person):
Steve King WILL endorse before the caucusesInteresting, eh? Just for context, Rep. Steve King and Sen. Chuck Grassley are the two most influential Republicans in the state of Iowa. King is absolutely untouchable in his ultra-conservative district and so he won't be jeopardizing his re-election campaign next year.
Romney just finished up a visit at a restaurant in Early, Iowa, which is in Sac County, the home of Rep. Steve King.
King's son and campaign manager, Jeff, is here for the visit, keeping an eye things for the congressman.
Jeff King tells me that his dad will endorse before the caucuses, but hasn't made up his mind about who to get behind.
Steve King is a vocal anti-immigration advocate and has developed a close relationship with Tom Tancredo because of their shared views on the topic.
Some Iowans thought this friendship could preclude King from getting behind one of the top-tier candidates, but that''s not the case according to his son.
Jeff King wouldn't say who his dad favors, but did concede that he the congressman had concerns about the Arkansan's immigration views.
It made me think of a previous post I wrote over a year ago after attending the Iowa Christian Alliance's Banquet in Clive, IA. Here's the relevant excerpt:
King then took the stage (he and Schlafly were the only speakers to get a standing ovation before and after their addresses). King always gives a dynamic speech and he did not fail to impress. He said that the several hundred people in the room will be the ones choosing our next President . . . that the influence of the politically active Christian coservatives in that room would weigh heavily in who will be the 2008 GOP nominee and future President. King then said that we should take the opportunity to get to know each of the candidates personally and to find out where they really stand on issues important to conservatives , especially the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) and in being tough on immigration.I'm cautiously optimistic based on this statement of those last two key issues King mentioned. Huck is for the MPA but, as Politico reports, King ain't too keen on Huck's immigration past (and probably sees right through the sham of his "deathbed conversion" with his new immigration plan). Fred's pretty solid on immigration, but doesn't support the MPA. Romney's solid on both of those key issues to King (at least that's how it stood over a year ago).
King's district is where Romney faces the toughest challenge from Huckabee (Western Iowa is a huge base for Evangelical conservatives.) King's endorsement could be big news and I'm cautiously optimistic that if he does indeed endorse, that it would be for Mitt.
P.S. King is a funny guy. He delivered this great line at the Iowa GOP convention in Aug 2006 (I was there and it's where I first met Romney in person):
Steve King got a huge response when he was introduced. Can you say red meat?Is that funny or what?
Great King quote #45,367: "There are probably not 72 virgins in the hell Al-Zarqawi is in. If there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas."
Highlights from Romney Campaign Email
In the News
Mitt Romney for President, National Review Online
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.
Candidate profile: Romney 'relentlessly upbeat' (By Dan Gearino - Quad City Times)
DES MOINES — In the summer of 2006, the Republican governor of Massachusetts was in northwest Iowa, and he wanted to know if the local state senator had time to talk.
Mitt Romney and Sen. Dave Mulder met for an hour at a bank in Orange City.
Mulder, who represents the most socially conservative part of the state, later summed up what he liked about Romney in one word: sincerity.
"When I look at him, I think what you see is what you get," Mulder said.
Local Events
Friday, December 14, 2007
1:45 p.m.
Governor Mitt Romney Holds a Carroll County "Strategy for a Stronger America: Enforcing our Immigration Laws" Ask Mitt Anything
Carroll Country Club
20069 Olympic Avenue
Carroll, IA
3:45 p.m.
Governor Romney Holds a Sac County Meet and Greet
Crossroads Restaurant
112 Highway 71
Early, IA
4:45 p.m.
Governor Mitt Romney Holds a Buena Vista County "Strategy for a Stronger America: Enforcing our Immigration Laws" Ask Mitt Anything
Buena Vista University, Dows Conference Center
610 West 4th Street
Storm Lake, IA
Saturday, December 15, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Governor Romney Holds a Humboldt County "Strategy for a Stronger America: Enforcing our Immigration Laws" Ask Mitt Anything
Rustix Restaurant
716 Sumner Avenue
Humboldt, IA
Volunteer Info
Less than three weeks remain until the caucuses. Please consider voting for Mitt and helping our campaign today! Call us at (515) 309-1990 to find out how YOU can help our campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
