To your question, no I am not registered at FT’s site. I do understand well the importance of following every angle of all campaigns, especially the bigger, more important ones. To date, I have not found enough time to expand out into the other camapaigns, outside of reading most of the important articles about the key candidates. I do follow all of the major candidates very closely (via Google alerts and newspapers I get), but I have yet to register at their sites for that purpose. Frankly, it has been a challenge for me to balance a family of seven, a full-time job, and other non-political volunteer work that is important to our family and me.

Your point about registering at other candidates’ sites is a good one and I would encourage readers here to do that if time permits you to do so.

Thanks again Steven.

Take for example Patrick Ruffini, who has his blog and posts from time to time on Townhall.com. He had a post where he commented on Romney’s “Decision” video, featuring Ann Romney. Anyhow he said that it was good, but that it would be better if the video focused on the last two minutes, where Romney was soliticing comments from his family. I kid you not, a couple of days after I read that post, Romney’s website put out the shorter version of the decision video that Patrick Ruffini suggested would be more effective. What brought Ruffini to that conclusion? Hillary Clinton’s Sopranos video and its effectiveness. My point is that this blog can be influential and that the candidates do look to the new media for ideas to tailor their message. The only way any blog can have that type of influence (like Ruffini’s), is if its forward looking and if its looking at entire 2008 landscape and seeing the trends that are happening. Let me ask you Vic, just for the sake of asking, are your registered at Fred Thompson’s website?

THANK YOU for your thoughtful reply. I can honestly say that I am grateful for every comment you have made on this site since I have read them over the months, even when we might disagree. I have no desire to be “disagreeable” in the least.

Respectfully, I would like to reply to one comment you made about my not being happy with any comment about GMR that I may feel is not in support of him: That is not at all true. If you will read carefully what I stated above, if the comment is based in fact (is not purely subjective, but objective) and is relevant, we certainly should debate it here and we (you, every visitor to this site, bloggers, and I) should use this site to air it out. Certainly. So please, remember that none of us would stifle debate.

An example: Now this is just my personal opinion and I may be wrong about this — I admit right up front I may be wrong about this. I don’t think that what GMR did by transporting his family’s pet in a kennel on top of his car is the least bit relevant. And yet, that obscure piece of information is all over the news, even from the UK. Any person who knows anything about GMR (his life, integrity, reputation as a family man….) would know he would never be cruel to anything. His reputation from many published sources over the decades indicates the man is one of the most compassionate and empathetic people in the race today. So I ask the question of myself, how does a debate about transporting a dog in a kennel have anything to do with whether GMR would make a good President? Even if he made some kind of mistake or lapse of judgment at that time 20+ years ago? Even if that news were somehow complimentary of GMR from 20+ years ago. Those who are trying so desperately to dig out tiny tid-bits of information from 20, 30, 40 years ago to find any shred of negative character traits are exposed just by that “research.” I realize that your comments had no reference to this. My only point here is that we can easily dwell on the negative of any person and we can debate anything. We can make conclusions from anything we read. But is it relevant in the large picture?

We can speculate about GMR’s choice in a veep and have some fun with that and I hope we will from time to time, but is it really that relevant yet? In fact, it is presumptuous. That kind of speculation I think is great for this site because it can build excitement and even interest and support. But to speculate about every possible angle of things that are either remotely probable or unlikely without facts is pointless.

That said, I realize that what you have commented on above may be supported in fact. My only point is that it was not supported as such in the comments. So for those who may be coming to this site for the first time and who read unsupported or unsubstantiated conjecture may leave the site with doubt. However, when we debate both sides of the issue based on known facts, we enhance knowledge for those who may be visiting here for the first time or for those who are new to the presidential campaign season. It is my hope that we as bloggers here and those who take time to comment here will remember that we are really writing to a larger audience, some who are seasoned political pros (myself not included), some who are complete political novices. If I only wanted to address you, I would have just sent you an email.

Your comments in the past have always been well thought out and very intelligent in my opinion and have influenced my thought and my research. I wish to encourage that kind of dialogue in every way and hope you will continue the dialogue.

Again, THANK YOU. I mean that.

Steven: Your question about voicing opinion is not the issue at all. As a blogger here, I have never challenged your right to voice an opinion, nor will I. However, as you have a right to opine freely, I have a right to attempt to move the discussion from conjecture and speculation to fact-based meaning. Candidly, every blogger along with every visitor to this site could easily engage in prognostication and pontification on every angle imaginable on the topic of presidential campaigning. Heck, I am one that finds it enjoyable to at times presumptuously discuss GMR’s possible running mates. Is that relevant at this early stage? Of course not, but it is fun and this site should be a place where people can come and have fun and it should be a place where none of us takes ourselves too seriously.

However, this site has one mission and one mission only. The mission and objectives of this site are to promote Governor Mitt Romney in every way possible to gain deeper and wider support to be nominated as the Republican nominee for President and eventually to be elected President. Our mission is neither more than or less than that. This site is not a politically neutral site. It is completely biased in favor and support of GMR; period. There are many independent neutral political sites from which to choose; a great one is Politico.

No blogger at this site nor its owner, Ann Marie Curling has any intention to ever stifle speech here or to control debate. However, the purpose of this site is to promote GMR to become President. Those of us who are involved in researching all aspects of competitor candidates as well as GMR’s positions have unusual perspectives by comparison to the average person on the street; we are much more likely to see flaws much as a spouse sees all the flaws of their partner. As such however, it does nothing to enhance the mission of this site to point out speculative flaws or perceived weaknesses that are not fact-based, to the general public which has access to this site. That is the role other sites take on including the MSM in general.

Additionally, with some minor exceptions, no blogger has ongoing inside information to GMR’s campaign strategy therefore we try our best to limit our promotion of Mitt Romney to published facts. Or we do what we can to refute published reports that are not based in fact.

I take issue as well with your use of the word “hoopla” above. I disagree. With few exceptions, those who blog here do their best to report on published fact. On occasion, we may from time to time do a little celebrating as we did when RG and JM surrendered the Ames Straw Poll to Romney. That is not hoopla; not in the least.

I take issue with your comment about “gauging support.” Again, that is not the purpose of this site. Our purpose is to build support. The novice who just arrived at this site today for the first time whose political experience may be just beginning by their visit here has a completely different perspective from the political junkie who has been alive since FDR and who is visiting here. As bloggers, we want anybody and everybody to support GMR. I will be so bold to state that GMR wants anybody and everybody to support him; he has said as much in the past and in public debates. Our purpose has nothing to do with gauging the weakness of any supporters or their apathy. Our purpose is to provide as much evidence as we can to build greater and stronger support. How or why a person supports GMR does not matter as long as they vote for him. Not every voter can spend hours studying every issue. Some may even take a superficial approach to this important matter; we would prefer they not do that, but they may. But if they do, we sitll want them to vote for GMR.

I totally disagree with your “apathy” statement above. I realize you used the word “sense” and if by what you said you think there is a “take-for-granted” attitude that his supporters think it is a foregone conclusion that he will be the GOP nominee, then I do agree that would be a good point to consider. But I even disagree that is the case. In fact, I think it is the opposite. This week I was directly involved in fund raising for GMR that caused me to call dozens of people; people that are good friends who were completely candid with me. I can tell you that there are still many people who are unsure and who are skeptical, both of which are simply based in lack of knowledge. These are people who are insanely busy and simply have not been paying attention. In these examples, it has nothing whatsoever to do with apathy, but lack of knowledge.

Speaking only for myself, I can say I feel as intensely as I ever have that we must work very hard every day in support of GMR. The example he has set for all of us is that of an intense work ethic, second to none. I have made many friends in this business in the last few months and without exception, every blogger I have the privilege of knowing is as far away from being apathetic as I know. We all know that religious bigotry is huge in this country and there are many religious bigots who are doing everything they can to block GMR’s efforts. To be completely candid, I totally don’t understand your comments about apathy — I simply don’t see it at all.

I too am not taking a personal angle here, nor have I ever. You said, “When he was first building his support….” GMR has barely begun to build his support. His success by comparison to Bill Clinton’s in the month of June prior the general election is far superior. But GMR has just begun.

I disagree totally with your comment about GMR not picking up steam or support. That statement is based on what? You cite nothing. That is a totally off-the-wall, unsubstantiated comment. I will continue to challenge any such statement that is not supported by fact. You mention FT. All of us here have stated many times in this blog site that FT is a formidible competitor. None of us would disagree. But he is not even a candidate yet, therefore he is in a luxury position. Everybody in GMR’s camp and in these blog sites wants FT to get into the game today. The sooner he does, the sooner he has to prove himself. Right now he is nothing more than a peacock strutting his stuff with no challenge whatsoever. He basically admits that he will be a “laptop candidate” (term coined by a blogger on this site as I recall) and that he doesn’t really want to be President. But we will not know what he is made of until he decides to run. As long as he continues to just place his big toe in the water, he is not serious. Meanwhile, GMR is building momentum in all the classic ways and in ways that cause others to change their strategies (ex: the ASP surrenders) and react to GMR. That is strength, not weakness.

And Steven, I totally disagree with your “amiss” statement above. Based on what facts? Please do not continue to make unsubstantiated and unsupported comments on this site. There is not one thing “amiss” with Governor Romney, his team, his strategy, his campaign, or his supporters. Does that mean he will not have ups and downs on the road to the nomination? Of course it does not. He will be challenged and sometimes he will make mistakes. But there is nothing “amiss” and I challenge you to back up that comment and all other comments that so far are conjecture and speculation.

In conclusion Steven: Please understand that we want you to comment here and we want your honest opinion. Nothing I have written in reply to this post or in reply to you is the least bit personal or directed to your personally. However, I do strongly disagree with your points to the extent they are subjectively derived as yours have been many times. Now, to bring up points of disagreement and even to point out flaws or mistakes based on actual facts that are relevant are all welcome and useful to a free and open debate that allows us to better support GMR. But the support of GMR is the mission of this blog site.

Your last question above about “real insight” I infer to mean, “do I have any distinct or inside information?” — No, I do not. I am extremely enthusiastic for GMR’s chances and do think that if he and we continue to work as hard as we are, that he will be the GOP nominee. I am not alone in that assessment. Many, many outside the GMR campaign feel the exact same way. Those of us who are involved directly in this process are not “drinking the cool-ade” nor are we simply believing our own advertising. GMR is for real and he is doing what it takes to win and to win big. He takes nothing for granted and we should not either.

Steven, I will do my very best to keep my subjective feelings out of my blogs and comments if you will also do your very best to keep your subjective feelings out of the debate.

He’s a dead candidate and will not resurrect himself. The only question is how often he will hurl cheap shots at Gov. Romney before he calls it a career.

http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/06/majority-of-senators-and-congressman.asp

Peaking? Loss of momentum? What world are you in? There is not one shred of evidence of either. Actually, the contrary is true. In the history of the Ames Straw Poll, when have we ever seen the top two national poll leaders quit and turn tail? Never. That is hardly peaking. I call that major acceleration of momentum. Romney will likely far exceed record poll number for the ASP in August, further acceleration of his momentum. Your words are simple rhetoric, not supported by any news items or facts. Fortunately, those who read this blog are too educated, intelligent, and well-read to accept your comments at face value and they realize your agenda.

No other presidential candidate is as intelligent as GMR and none has the proven strategic execution as GMR. GMR is totally on course with a proven strategy. The “flip/flop” label, as you call it, is not at all accurate and most intelligent people know it. GMR’s evolution on the issue of life has been minor by comparison to Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s conversion from Democrat to Republican, along with all the major policy shifts attendant with that change, was a far greater “flip” than any change that GMR has made in his life. The vast majority of intelligent people know this and expect an intelligent person to make changes as they realize errors made.

Ray: I disagree with your “skipping” comment. He has not avoided the issue at all. I have no idea where you come up with that. He has spoken to that very issue about 17,000 times, to the point of it being tiring.

Just two weeks ago he gave this amazing speech:

http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/?p=2407

And is there a better spokeman than the pro-life expert of James Bopp. Be sure to click through to his amazing article:

http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/?p=1235

Steven and Ray, we appreciate your continued support at this site, but please be accurate and factual. It serves no purpose whatsoever to use conjecture in these important topics.