Michigan Poll |
On the heels of the news of Michigan’s moving up their primary date, we have a new poll out of the state:
Romney: 25%
Giuliani: 23%
Thompson: 16%
McCain: 15%
This is with only modest campaigning within the state (look for that to change).
~~~Thomas
Presidential Fundraising: Clinton Style —- Classic 1996 |
Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials
“A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.”
— H.L. Mencken
Thank goodness Mitt Romney is not a career politician and that he does not need to rely on politics for his profession.
Run Hillary, Run!
~ Vic
New Iowa Poll: Romney tripling his nearest rivals |
Another new poll out of Iowa today. At the rate they’re putting these things out, every caucus goer in the state is going to be asked who they’ll vote for by three different companies.
Romney: 35%
Giuliani: 12%
Thompson: 11%
Huckabee: 11%
That’s two polls with Huckabee in double digits. That might be troublesome to Romney, if it weren’t for the fact that Romney’s numbers are rising almost as fast! Maybe Huckabee’s picked up all of Brownback’s support or something. Giuliani also seems to be falling back.
Wonder if he’s feeling smart about skipping Ames now?
~~~Thomas
Michigan One Step Closer to 1/15 Date |
With the best news I’ve heard all week, Michigan’s lower chamber approved the 1/15 primary. Their upper chamber already did so over a week ago. Gov. Granholm is enthusistically endorsing the move. The table could hardly be set up better for Gov. Romney. Strong leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Now the most obtainable big state will come in the immediate aftermath of the early states.
Ladies and gentlemen. Gov. Romney is now officially the frontrunner.
~~~Thomas
Edit: Townhall has an article on how this shifts the GOP nomination process.
“What Women Want — How the GOP can Woo the Ladies” |
Mitt Romney is well known for seeking out and hiring only the brightest people with whom to work. That was true at Bain, the 2002 Winter Olympics, and as governor of Massachusetts. These include some of the brightest women of America (ex: Meg Whitman). I would be very interested to hear from (in Comments) women who have worked for Romney, who work for him now, or who know him well enough to speak on this topic. In the book Turnaround, Romney speaks highly of several talented women who were instrumental in guiding the Olympics out of scandal to outstanding success.
Kimberly Strassel’s article is intriguing as she outlines well how the Republican presidential candidates (interestingly enough, she only mentions Romney & Giuliani) are missing opportunities to capitalize on the Democrats’ worn out marketing messages to women.
These are but three, short excerpts taken from Ms. Strassel’s Op/Ed piece:
A smart Republican candidate would be doing Twister moves to deny Democrats those votes. Yet what’s extraordinary is that no GOP contender has yet recognized the huge opportunity to redefine “women’s” politics for the 21st century. That’s a double failing given that the GOP could win modern women by doing little more than tailoring their beliefs in freer markets to the problems women struggle most with today.
——-
The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren’t their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns, not surprisingly, hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq, health care, the economy. But following close behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers. Therein rests the GOP opportunity.Here’s an example of how a smart Republican could morph an old-fashioned Democratic talking point into a modern-day vote winner. Ms. Clinton likes to bang on about “inequality” in pay. The smart conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality, and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn’t the male boss; it’s the progressive tax code.
Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband’s, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the single woman who does the exact same job.
——-
This isn’t to suggest Republicans treat women as a “special interest” or a monolithic bloc. But there are votes to be had for the candidate who owns the quotidian concerns of this population. And there are future generations of women voters to be won by the party that progresses beyond the stale rhetoric of women’s “rights” and crafts a new language of women’s “choice” and “opportunity” and “ownership.”Come on guys; the women are waiting.
The entire article is worth reading.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.”
— Stephen Hawking
~ Vic
WSJ: Mitt Romney on TV this Weekend — Encore! |
Click here for times:
Has Mitt Romney’s early state strategy made him the real GOP Presidential front-runner?
——————–
“The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1779
~ Vic
Run Romney Run! |
I can’t believe that nobody has posted this here yet, so here you go. Mitt’s new ad. I think it’s a good one…very unconventional, but effective.
What do you think?
Mitt Romney on Laura Ingraham |
This is from Tuesday’s show. Laura interviews Gov. Romney about the Craig scandal and Washington’s corrupt culture, sanctuary cities, campaign prognostication, the rise of China and more. No fireworks, but the Gov comes across like a polished, informed statesman. And he takes a mild shot or two at Rudy Giuliani.
Click here for the audio. It’s great.
Wastland Man says: “Romney mania surges… Ouch whatta Obama Shot!”
I have to agree.
Fred Thompson: AWOL at New Hampshire Debate on Sept. 5th? |
In a couple of earlier posts over the last six weeks, I predicted that if Fred Thompson decided to actually enter the presidential race, he would either 1) time the announcement after the September debate or, if he announced before the 5th, he would b) state he will not participate in the debate.
About two weeks ago, I did some research and found that FT is listed in the debate. But is he going to be there on stage with the rest of the GOP candidates? Or is he skipping this debate too? As you can tell, I am throwing this out to all of you who may know the answer. I do not.
Well, everybody out there in America has been yelling over to Fred to either fish or cut bait. He has made a decision. You gotta give it to him for that.
But since he is now going to join the fray, shouldn’t he jump into the actual fray and join the debate? No surprises here. Is there a greater opportunity for Mr. Thompson to get his message out than to join the debate and to show how his “stage skills” are superior to the others’?
Here is the story of FT jumping in: THE HILL
~ Vic
New Iowa Poll |
It’s an American Research Group one, so it’s not completely reliable, but I’ll post it anyway. Gov. Romney is up by 10 points:
Romney 27%
Giuliani 17%
Huckabee 14%
Thompson 13%
I suppose the biggest news out of this is Huckabee breaking double digits. I don’t see him as a threat to steal the state (or believe he’s really at 14% for that matter), but if he managed to sneak into third, he could effectively end a Thompson candidacy.
~~~Thomas
Wyoming Now First Contest |
Once upon a time I gently mocked Wyoming for its importance in the primaries. Maybe one of the (few) people of that fine state heard me or something, because they’ve joined the race to be the first primary/caucus and it will take place on 1/5 (the presumed day of the Iowa contest).
You show ‘em guys!
~~~Thomas
Crowley on Romney |
Monica Crowley came out with an assessment of the Republican race:
A new Zogby poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows something a bit unexpected: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has barreled ahead of the rest of the pack. In a recent interview with John Zogby, he told me that the trend for Romney is striking: at just 5 percent six months ago, he’s now polling 33 percent today.
Well, that’s not really an unexpected poll for anyone who has been following Iowa polls for the past 3 months, but we’ll let that pass.
Overall, however, it’s shaping up as a two-man race between Giuliani and Romney. Romney does appear ascendant in Iowa, which may simply be a function of the enormous amount of time and money he’s spent there. He was the only one of the top-tier Republicans to take part in the Ames straw poll two weeks ago, so Iowans may be rewarding him for actually respecting them enough to show up.
But it also seems that Romney may be cobbling together a simple but ingenious strategy for winning the nomination. If Iowans thank him again by choosing him on January 14 and then he goes on to win in New Hampshire (as he is expected to do given his New England favorite-son status), Romney will then have something crucially important: momentum. In this media-driven age, perception in politics is reality. And the perception of Romney as a two-state winner heading into the next primary in South Carolina would be incredibly powerful. If this scenario unfolds, it wouldn’t be impossible for Giuliani (or another candidate) to then go on to win South Carolina and many, if not all, of the big states holding primaries on February 5. But if Romney wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign at that point might be a nearly unstoppable train.
Of course, she warns, this would just the beginning if the media thinks Romney might actually get the nomination. He’ll be subject to viscious attacks because, apparently, the media’s been going easy on him (yeah right).
~~~Thomas
Edit: I see Rose posted this earlier in the open thread.
Team Mitt: Create Your Own Ad! |
Team Mitt: Create Your Own Ad!
Governor Mitt Romney wants you to make his campaign’s new official TV advertisement. Yes, we’re serious.Your ad can feature Mitt’s biography, his family, his record as Governor, or his agenda for a stronger America. In fact, your ad can have practically any theme you choose as long you support the campaign creatively and responsibly. Your ad must be either 27 or 57 seconds in length to make room for those much-loved legal disclaimers, in case your entry wins.
How does it work? We’ve provided photos, videos and audio clips to get you started. You can add your own multimedia if you’d like, as long as your use does not infringe on someone else’s copyright or trademark. Then just cut, splice and edit to your heart’s content using Jumpcut’s easy (and free) online tools.
The deadline for ad submissions is September 17th. Get started now by joining the group, reading the contest rules, and then creating the campaign’s next official TV ad!
Open Blog Wednesday |
I’m very busy right now…
So, I figured why not open the blog up midweek for a change…
Comment away…
Hope you’re having a great day!
Dean Barnett: “POTUS isn’t an entry level CEO position”August 28th, 2007 | 13 Comments | Posted in Barack Obama, Democrats, Edwards, F. Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, New To Romney, Rudy Giuliani
|
Now, before any readers hammer me for saying this is a “beat-up-on-Fred” piece, it really is not (I have said at least twice in this blog that I really do want Fred Thompson to declare he will run for President — you will have to find them to know why).
The purpose of this post is to spotlight a new phrase coined by Dean Barnett over at Townhall.com. Oh how I wish I had thought of this. You will have to read what Dean wrote at The Wheels of the Bus Fly Off and Off. The newly minted, coined phrase is:
“POTUS isn’t an entry level CEO position.”
— Dean Barnett
Is that classic or what? How many presidential candidates are still in the race? 17? 18? 19? Out of the roughly 20 candidates, how many of them have been executives of any kind? As GMR would say, “Which of them has run a corner store?” But seriously, how many of the ~20 hopefuls have been an executive of any kind? Barnett is generous in my opinion in his comment about Mrs. Clinton, though he is obviously “speaking” tongue-in-cheek.
But think about this for a moment. In the history of this nation, only three times has America elected a member of Congress or a former member of Congress to be President. All of the other 40 Presidents were elected from the ranks of general (Washington), Vice Presidents, or governors. Why is it that Americans generally do not elect Senators and Congressmen or Joe-Lunchbuckets (like me) as Presidents? How many of the 20 hopefuls have never been a VP or governor before? At least Giuliani has run a city larger than some countries and Huckabee has been a governor, as has Richardson. I ran out of time tonight to look up the other 15 or 16 to see what they have been.
But we know that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have not been executives of anything. The three of them really have not been leaders in the true sense of that word as it relates to heading up and running a large organization. Well okay, they each have run a campaign (well, “whooop-dee-doo”, to quote others recently); but so has John McCain (sorta) and Fred Thompson (sorta).
How important is the executive position of The United States of America? Think about this for another 20 seconds. This nation, with all of its cabinet level departments, myriad sub-departments (larger than many large companies), agencies, states, Judicial branch, Congressional branch, etc. Not only the largest entity the world has ever known, but the most complex, and at a time of potentially great peril. This is the time to actually consider turning over the reigns to a bureaucrat (Senator) or some person just because she was married to a former President? Ask yourself these two questions when considering any candidate:
1) What are the top five most amazing accomplishments of his or her life?, and
2) How many of them involved being an executive of a large organization?
Considering that you can actually think of “five amazing accomplishments” of any of the candidates, you will end up with very few individuals, really. For me, I ended up with two. And one is far superior to the other. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. On the most amazing accomplishments, GMR is far superior than RG in my opinion and when considering the type of leader each is, the nod goes to GMR. RG is well known to be an autocratic, very authoritarian leader. GMR is known as a consensus builder but very decisive and one who has never been caught in “analysis paralysis.”
But for me and the month of August, Dean Barnett gets the prize! “POTUS isn’t an entry level CEO position” — Does it get any better than that quote? Classic!
Enough of the serious. About a month ago I mentioned how my friend Kevin told me that he thought GMR would receive votes from “some Americans” because of his physical appearance. I am serious when I say this, but at the time I was rather offended by that statement as I choose to think of the American voter as informed. Anecdotal experience only tells me he is right though. Before you compare these photographs, you have to remember, a) everybody, including GMR, has really bad photos shot of them, b) FT has no tie on, and c) FT is not smiling and GMR is. Got it. I was trying to find a current-event photo of John McCain (they were all older shots), but John McCain who I think is like five years older than FT, looks younger than FT. Even though JM has some injuries that cause him to sometimes appear stiff, he still appears to me to be much younger than FT. Is it just me? Okay, I know it is all superficial, but unimportant? I don’t think so. You judge:
Mr. Thompson with The Flag backdrop (born 1942)
Mr. Romney with The Flag backdrop (born 1947)
“Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.’ And ever since he told me that I stopped worrying.”
— Ronald Reagan, 40th US President. On running for president at age 73, address at Dixon IL 6 Feb 84
~ Vic
