comMITTed to Romney!

Before you pull the lever for John McCain on Super Tuesday, please consider the following information first. As a Mitt Romney supporter, I would prefer to convince people why they should vote for my candidate, rather than against John McCain. However, I’ve tried this approach for the past 18 months, but people haven’t been able to get past his religion or the false impression that he’s a flip-flopper. As governor, Romney never contradicted a position he campaigned for in 2002 and while he did change his stance on abortion, he upheld his campaign promises throughout the end of his term. You can trust that the stances he is taking for America (which are decidedly different than the needs of Massachusetts in 2002), will be consistently adhered to while he is in office.

McCain on the other hand consistently changes positions, or blatantly lies about his record and the records of others. As accounts continue to surface about his private dealings with fellow legislators, staffers, and other private individuals, it is abundantly clear that John McCain is concerned about the one thing he’s always been concerned about—himself.

Perhaps you’ve resigned yourself to the “electability” argument, and believe that John McCain is the only Republican who could win in November. McCain will be the first one to tell you not to trust polls that come out 6 months before an election (just look at last July’s polling data for McCain). Additionally, you give the Democrats too much credit. As the economy and budget woes worsen, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama has any credibility to solve this impending crisis. On this issue alone, John McCain would be much easier to beat than Romney since he can’t run effectively on the economy. If we nominate John McCain, it will be like nominating Bob Dole all over again (and he was supposed to be the most electable at the time).

For all you know, everything I have just said could simply be made up charges for political reasons. So I ask you to take a look at the whole picture of John McCain’s life and his accelerated advancement through the naval ranks—in spite of his poor record and actions unbecoming of a Naval officer. As you read the following story of McCain’s Naval record, compare this with Mitt Romney and answer the following questions:

· Both had influential fathers, what did this give them in life?
· Both were accepted to prestigious universities, what did they do with that opportunity?
· Both had careers that ended in high-profile positions. How did they get there?
· How do their personal and family lives compare?
· What kind of people do they associate themselves with?
· What have these two candidate shown that they are good at?

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

From South Carolinians for Romney

Question: What do you call someone who denies something to your face, but who knows that at that very moment, he is actually doing the opposite?

Answer: Entrenched Politician

Time has an article entitled “The Dirt Starts Flying” about South Carolina’s Republican primary coming up this week and had an interesting–though not surprising tidbit about the McCain campaign.

But as the McCain campaign rode down the sea coast towards Charleston before the weekend, the candidate spoke as if he was defying history. When asked if he thought he could get through South Carolina without going negative on his opponents, he said, “I think I can.” …
Indeed, even as McCain spoke on the bus, his campaign had already postmarked a nasty negative mailer in South Carolina with several misleading claims about Mitt Romney, including the allegation that the former Massachusetts governor had “provided taxpayer funded abortions.”

Rather than talking about McCain’s hypocrisy, let’s talk about the false claims of the piece.

1) Romney’s health plan allowed for $50 abortions on demand

The truth of the matter is that any health insurance plan in Massachusetts was required by law to include abortions at the same co-pay as other similar surgical procedures–not that there is any such thing as a “similar surgical procedure”, but that’s how the 85% Democrat legislature defined it in their deluded mental state when the law originally passed before Romney was ever elected.

2) Romney increased fees and taxes by $700 million in Massachusetts

This one is more than just two opposing views of the same figures and statistics–it’s outright deception. First of all, the previous governor of Massachusetts had signed into law an increase in state fees that didn’t take effect until after Romney took office. This accounted for $240 million of increased revenue. Then, Romney added $260 million in fees to which he takes full credit. Then another $150 million was raised by closing loopholes in corporate tax law (that allowed businesses to circumvent the intent of the law through claiming specific categories and statuses). I’ll explain this a little better in just a second, but for now, the total comes to $650 million, which McCain then conveniently rounds up to $700 million (what’s $50 million to a 4th-term US senator anyway?).

As for the corporate loopholes, let me give you an analogy to explain what happened.

Let’s say John Appleseed owns an apple stand and sells more apples than anyone else in town. Meanwhile, Joe Florida down the street sells oranges, but he’s struggling due to a deep freeze destroying most of his crop. Joe Florida’s friend, D. Libocrat–the politician who occasionally gets free juice from Joe–writes a bill giving tax breaks to orange sellers. Upon seeing this preferential treatment, John Appleseed runs down to the grocery store, buys a few pounds of oranges and starts to sell them. Then when John files taxes that year, he lists his business as “orange seller” rather than “apple seller”. The result–a significant reduction in Mr. Appleseed’s corporate tax burden.

Governor F. Potus Romney, who sees the “devil in the details”, analyzes the data and finds out that the orange business is doing fine now so he repeals the “orange tax loophole” and now both John and Joe are back to paying normal tax rates.

The tax law in these instances were written to help specific portions of the state’s economy (we hope), so businesses tried to maneuver themselves into those “special-treatment categories” for tax breaks. It’s not surprising that so many of these “special-treatment categories” existed in a state of liberals who preach concern for the common man–but write obscure details into laws that benefit special interests (though I’m sure republicans aren’t blameless).

Fees vs. Taxes:

Some argue that a fee is a tax, but there is a huge difference. Jeff, at Iowans for Mitt put it best when he said,

Service fees are not taxes, service fees REDUCE taxes. Make the user pay so the taxpayer doesn’t have to. Or, put another way:

Fees: Pay for what you get.

Taxes: Pay for what others get.

I would add that exorbitant fees are bad–especially if they exceed the cost incurred providing the service. But no one is claiming that any of Romney’s increased fees were exorbitant. They were a common sense approach that is innately fair. Make the user pay, and not the taxpayer.

Again, it’s not surprising that McCain would try to distort Romney’s record. I’m just surprised he kept a straight face while doing it.

Share on Facebook

Share This

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness….”

Sounds like these words were written during a presidential campaign! As we watch polling numbers shift with the wind, fickle voters are struggling to identify a candidate to support in the approaching primaries. In the current age of wisdom and foolishness, voters have two criteria they can use as a basis for their decision–words and actions.

Some voters like to judge based upon what the candidates are saying–or have said at some point in their political lives. Wise people prefer to make decisions based upon what the candidates have actually done. Actions don’t lie, they can be misinterpreted, but the actions themselves are much more reliable than rhetoric. With this in mind, let’s compare Governor Romney’s actions with Governor Huckabee’s actions–starting well before either of them were candidates for anything.

Similarities:

Both attended private religious universities for undergraduate studies and both were very successful students. Romney attended Brigham Young University where he was the valedictorian of his graduating class. Huckabee on the other hand graduated magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University.

Both went on to pursue advanced degrees, Romney in Business and Law from Harvard, Huckabee in Theology from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Both served in religious leadership positions for approximately 12 years. Romney as a Bishop and Stake President (similar to a pastor and catholic bishop respectively), while Huckabee served as pastor of several churches after working for a televangelist.

Both ran for senate in the early 90’s and lost to the incumbent. Huckabee ran in ‘92 and Romney in ‘94.

During the 90’s, both ran as moderate Republicans to appeal to the demographic of their respective states. Romney ran with a pro-choice (status quo) approach to abortion while Huckabee’s campaign advisor, Dick Morris (of Clinton fame), had this to say about Huckabee.

“Morris said the mistake Republicans always make is that they are too much of a country club set. What we wanted to do was run a progressive campaign that would appeal to all Arkansans.’” Morris elaborated, “So we opened the campaign with ads that characterized Mike as more of a moderate whose values were the same as those of other Arkansans.”

Both candidates share many conservative positions and have acted on behalf of those positions including their collective defense of marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

While their paths share many similar milestones, their journeys were far from identical.

Differences:

During their respective tenures as religious leaders, Huckabee was paid a salary for his service while Romney’s service went unpaid. Same thing with their respective tenures in political office. Romney refused a paycheck, while Huckabee combined his government salary with many of the other “benefits” that are often available to politicians in powerful offices. Some of these benefits include $40,000 from a political action committee paid for “speaking fees” to Huckabee. As governor, Huckabee dipped into the $60,000 maintenance budget for the governor’s mansion to supliment his income for which he was fined $1,000 by the state ethics commission. Then there were the “gifts” Huckabee recieved as Governor worth more than $130,000. And when it was all said and done, they even tried to take the furniture with them.

You’d have to say that one of these two candidates truly served the people of his state and congregations, while the other was served by the people of his state and congregations.

Continuing the comparison, Governor Romney faced a huge 3 billion dollar deficit when he entered office. To solve the problem, Romney cut taxes and goverment spending and left the state with almost 2 billion in surplus. Huckabee on the other hand faced shortfalls as well but his response was dramatically different.

He is seen here virtually begging the legislature to raise any number of taxes to overcome the shortfall. Three of his tax increases include raising taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, and nursing home beds. By the time his tenure was complete, Arkansas debt obligations had increased by 1 billion dollars and while he cut $378 million in taxes, he also increased taxes by $873 million for a net increase of over $500 million in new taxes. You’d think with those kind of tax increases, the state would have been in better shape in the end, but unfortunately, Huckabee also approved increases in state spending each year by almost 12% per year (140% over 12 years). By the way, under Romney, spending increased approximately 2%.

Character Matters:

We could write a book detailing the differences between the actions of Governor Romney and Governor Huckabee, but we’ll stop here for now. Speaking of books, Mike Huckabee’s recently released a book with the following title:

Character Makes a Difference: Where I’m From, Where I’ve Been, and What I Believe.

It’s ironic that he left out the phrase: “What I’ve Done”. Because when it comes to character, there’s really no better indicator. That’s OK though, because actions are what Mitt Romney talks about in his book, “Turnaround”, which tells the story of the 2002 Olympics.

As someone smarter than all of us once said, “By their fruits ye shall know them”. It’s easy to talk the talk, but only one candidate has walked the walk, and that’s Mitt Romney.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Anyone who has spent 5 minutes paying attention to the GOP presidential race knows that Giuliani owes his political strength and name recognition to the events of 9-11 and his ability to say the right things at the right time when every television camera in the world was pointing in his direction. Spend another 5 minutes and you will realize that Rudy references 9-11 as often as possible to try and create an emotional tie in the minds of voters back to the days when his approval rating was through the roof.

Now it seems that he is trying to associate another emotional tie in the minds of Republican voters–this time to Ronald Reagan and the day of his assassination attempt. You have to hand it to Rudy, he’s a gifted communicator, but it is surprising that he would twist a discussion about VP selections into annother “proximity to tragedy” event in his career.

Here’s what he had to say in an interview for ETV’s “The Big Picture on the Radio Show” here in South Carolina.

“I would want a vice president who was a partner. Someone who was in on everything that was going on, so that that person could take over if, God forbid, something happened. You know, I was working for President Reagan, in fact I had breakfast with him, with a lot of other people, the day he was shot. So, I have been very, very close to a possible presidential assassination and seen how that all worked out that day…

… Giuliani added that at the time Reagan was shot, he was acting associate attorney general and “had some responsibilities to get Hinkley into federal custody,” and handle the arraignment.

Does is strike anyone else as odd that someone like Giuliani would try so hard to associate himself with tragic events? Yet, with the vagueness of the descriptions, it’s obvious he wasn’t as close as he wants to portray. He says, “I had breakfast with him, with a lot of other people, the day he was shot.” Which essentially means he happened to be invited to an event that was on the schedule of the busiest man in the world–several hours, and likely miles away from a near tragedy. In fact, Regan was shot around 2:30 PM, and in a busy day of a president, that equates to a lifetime of separation from the breakfast meeting Giuliani attended.
More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Every once in a while you come accross some information and you find yourself doing a double-take and wondering if what you just read is true. That’s what happened to me just a few minutes ago when I read the updated polling numbers for South Carolina. A bump for Romney was to be expected, as he recently began purchasing advertising in South Carolina, but nothing prepared me for the numbers I saw today.

With just a few weeks of modest TV advertising, Romney has been able to elevate his numbers in the Palmetto State from 9% to 26% over last month’s numbers–and this is the first month of what many call the “regular season” of political campaigning. In other words, this is when it really counts.

Click here for the link.

Romney 26% (+17!!!!!)
Giuliani 23% (-3)
McCain 15% (+3)
Thompson 10% (-11)
Gingrich 7% (+1)
Paul 2% (+0)
Huckabee 1% (-8)

To top it off, it was also the first official month of the Fred Thompson campaign. Thompson is heavily favored in the South which makes his drop from 21% down to 10% that much more intriguing.

We all know that campaigns are a roller-coaster ride and I don’t expect Romney to win running away, but I do expect two major dynamics to come from this polling news. First, the attack dogs will come out from both the Republican rivals and from the Democratic National Committee. Expect to see Brownback in South Carolina making religious statements designed to hurt Romney. Secondly, a bump like this from moderate advertising in the state would translate into an explosion if Romney were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. The positive press those wins would generate would have a huge impact on South Carolina and Romney may have the nomination locked up on Feb 5, if that is the case. Even if Romney drops back down into the teens in South Carolina over the next several months, this shows that a drastic change can occur in a short period of time here in the Palmetto State.

So for those of you who didn’t think that Romney stood a chance in South Carolina, perhaps now you would consider dropping a few dollars into the Romney campaign coffers to help continue getting the message out.

Click Here to donate!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Here are the videos John was talking about:

Part 1:




Part 2:




Click here for the transcript.

Share on Facebook

Share This

That’s according to the Wall Street Journal. The article mentions that while a firm date will be announced soon, it is expected to be more than 10 days prior to the Florida primaries. Since New Hampshire and Iowa both have laws requiring their respective contests be separated from others by a specific number of days, this could force the Iowa caucuses into December. This means the opening votes for the 2008 election would actually be tallied in 2007.

South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson will announce that he is moving its primary date ahead of Florida’s Jan. 29 vote, to reclaim his state party’s “first in the South” presidential-nominating banner. But he will do so in New Hampshire, home of the first-in-the-nation primary. And he will be joined by New Hampshire’s longtime Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who alone has the power to set that state’s date for both parties, now tentatively Jan. 22.

If both were to move their dates up, that likely would force Iowa — always protective of its party caucuses as the first nominating contests of any kind — to consider moving its date from next Jan. 14 into pre-Christmas December.

The article continues to explain to domino effect of the scheduling:

Dawson told his fellow state Republican this week that South Carolina’s Republican primary would be at least 10 days before Florida’s Jan. 29 primaries, but not on the same day as Nevada’s caucuses, which are Jan. 19, and 12 days after New Hampshire’s primary.

That suggests New Hampshire ultimately could be moving as early as the first week of January. Iowa would then be certain to move up from Jan. 14. To avoid getting caught in the holiday period, Iowans have said the caucuses would have to be in mid-December.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Romney Campaign has been so innovative and head-and-shoulders above the rest of the field that I expect they are already coming up with something similar to what I am suggesting here, but if not, perhaps this suggestion I posted over at SCforRomney will get some traction within the campaign.

Since McCain and Giuliani are hoping that Romney will waste a lot of money in Iowa’s straw poll, I say we turn the tables.

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Romney campaign is reporting that they have reached their goal to sign up 24,000 new supporters in 24 hours. As of 11PM Eastern Time they had exceeded this number and there will likely be many more as west coast supporters login and sign up after getting home for the evening.

Here in South Carolina, the response has been extremely positive to Mitt’s appearance in the debate. The local conservative talk radio station had a poll asking who won the debate and Romney scored 1st place with 28% of the vote. Second place went to Tancredo with 17%. While not a scientific poll, this radio station tends to reflect the sentiment of the most conservative areas of South Carolina–The Upstate.

As with other parts of the country, South Carolina had its share of debate parties hosted by Romney fans. I asked several of them to share their experiences with us. Here’s an account from Liz in Mount Pleasant, SC.

Go Mitt! We had a fabulous party with 15 adult guests (and 7 children), most of whom left more enthusiastic Romney supporters. Our theme was: �We Scream for Mitt - Ice Cream and Pre-Debate Party�. We planned our gathering to occur before the debate to accomodate guests with children.

At our home everyone watched the �Mitt Romney Story� DVD while enjoying ice cream topped with fresh Boone Hall strawberries. A lively discussion ensued afterwards, and everyone shared their personal experiences leading to their support of Gov. Romney.

Our guests left with bio-sheets on Romney, bumper stickers and pledge sheets. We directed them to the internet adress (mittromney.com) and the toll-free phone number (1-866-WIN-MITT) and encouraged them to sign-up with in 24 hours to help meet the campaign�s goal of 24,000 new supporters with in 24 hours.

Great work Liz–and everyone else who hosted parties and made calls today! Did you host a party? Share you experiences with us in the comments section.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Several blogs and online articles are trying to spin a story at Salon.com into an attack on the true level of support for Mitt Romney. As usual, the attempts to paint Romney in a negative light don’t tell the whole story. As a first hand observer to the events surrounding the Greenville County GOP Convention, it’s time to clear the air.

I was recruited by Chris Slick–Romney’s local field operative–to attend the GOP convention, and contrary to the story’s implications, I paid for my own registration. My wife and I had always wanted to get more involved in the political process, but up until now, we didn’t understand how. Chris helped show us the way to do it, and I passed his instructions on to fellow Romney supporters on the SC for Romney Blog.

As a result of attending the Convention, my wife and I have volunteered to assist our local precinct with future elections and primaries. We’ve also discussed getting more involved in the future–regardless of what happens with the Romney candidacy.

Getting back to the convention, I don’t believe the authors of this negative article (and its reprints) actually considered the process of qualifying to be a delegate at the GOP Convention in Greenville County?

First, you must be a registered voter in Greenville County. Then, you must have voted in the republican primary in 2006, attend your precinct reorganization meeting, or attend the make-up reorganization meeting back in March(which we did)�in addition to paying a mere $15 to help support the local GOP. In all, it cost me 7 hours of our time to be a delegate (regardless of the $15 dollars). Did I mention we spent an additional $60 on babysitters to attend these events?

Sure, the words “vote-buying” make a sexy headline and draw a strong negative response, but there was no such thing as vote buying in this case. Unless you can find an active enough citizen who is registered to vote and who is willing to accept $2 an hour to get up at 6:30 AM on a Saturday to participate in several hours of political wrangling.

That kind of person doesn’t exist. If they did, I’m sure the other campaigns would have done better in the poll.

There were no busses, there were no out-of-towners, and there was absolutely no one there for the money–except for the press! If you were there and voted, then trust me, you qualify for the definition of “activist”.

As I mentioned before, Romney gave the best speech (Giuliani a close second), converting many delegates to his cause. Those who meet the Governor, like what they see and hear. But that’s not the story that straw polls tell. The significance of straw polls is found in their ability to convey the strength of grassroots support and organization.

You would have to be an idiot to think that Romney�s win was purchased or even influenced by anything other than a dedicated grassroots support!

~ Andru Blonquist - Greenville, South Carolina

Share on Facebook

Share This

My wife and I just got back from the Greenville County(South Carolina)GOP convention.

Governor Romney gave a great speech to the county’s delegates today and ended up taking the straw poll with 31% of the votes. Greenville County is the biggest Republican county in South Carolina–accounting for more GOP primary votes in 2006 than any other county.

In addition to watching the speech, I also watched the delegates’ reaction to his message. Prior to the convention, there was a modest gathering of people surrounding Governor Romney–getting pictures and autographs, but it was hard to gauge how this would translate into straw poll results. There was a sense in the room that people were a little guarded about who they supported. After the poll results were announced (at the end of the convention) however, it seemed like every other person was walking out with a Mitt Romney yard sign.

One woman sitting next to us came as a Rudy Giuliani supporter but was so impressed with Governor Romney’s speech that she ended up voting for Mitt. He really is a gifted communicator!

Second place in the straw poll was Governor Mike Huckabee from Arkansas (26%). His speech was also well received as he drew upon his Southern Baptist roots–invoking several stories from his past as a preacher.

Duncan Hunter came in third with 21% and his speech focused primarily on the military and immigration–two huge issues in South Carolina and the upstate–thus accounting for his high results.

Rounding out the top four was mayor Rudy Giuliani with 8% of the vote. While he gave a good speech, the activists attending the convention were well aware of the social stances that Rudy has taken and responded accordingly in the poll.

McCain, who has expected to struggle in South Carolina straw polls has opted not to attend any county conventions–probably to create an excuse for an expected poor showing. Had he shown up, he may have doubled his vote count and ended closer to Giuliani, but instead ended in 6th place with 4% of the vote.

Summary of the straw poll (421 votes cast):
Names in Italics attended and spoke at the convention

Mitt Romney - 132 (31%)
Mike Huckabee - 111 (26%)
Duncan Hunter - 87 (21%)
Rudy Giuliani - 35 (8%)
Sam Brownback - 19 (4.5%)
John McCain - 17 (4%)
John Cox - 10 (2%)
Tom Tancredo - 5 (1%)
Tommy Thompson - 3 (<1%)
Ron Paul - 1 (<1%)
Jim Gilmore - 1 (<1%)

There are two more big conventions going on today in Spartanburg and Richland counties. Check back later at www.SCforRomney.com for updates.

~ Andru

Share on Facebook

Share This

If you have been watching Mitt Romney’s progress in South Carolina for any length of time, you will recognize the significance of what we are starting to see across the state as county GOP conventions convene and conduct straw polls.

Over the past week we have cheered as Romney has finished first or second in each county’s straw poll, but nobody expected the support Romney received over the past weekend. It all started with a shocker in Charleston–as Ann Marie posted on Saturday.

As with any single straw poll victory, observers might question if the results reflected extra campaigning and resources focused on that single event. To the skeptics, I offer exhibit B (from The Chaser):

This weekend we saw the first in a series of big straw polls across the state. Our numbers show that 527 GOP activists voted.

We can argue all day about the importance of straw polls and whether or not they truly mean anything, but for now we will just report the numbers.

We can deduce many different things from these numbers, but four stats jump out at us:

1) Romney is climbing within the GOP base and he is picking up support in past McCain strongholds including Charleston & Horry.
2) McCain is dropping within the GOP base.
3) The GOP base isn�t as wild about Giuliani as public polls show the ordinary voters are.
4) Although the news wants everyone to believe that the GOP base is unsatisfied with its slate of candidates, these straw polls show otherwise. Only 11% voted for Gingrich or Fred Thompson.
TOTAL � 527 voters

Romney � 190 - 36.05%
McCain � 106 - 20.11%
Giuliani � 63 - 11.95%
Huckabee � 37 - 7.02%
F Thompson � 32 - 6.07%
Brownback � 30 - 5.69%
Hunter � 28 - 5.31%
Gingrich � 23 - 4.36%
Paul � 4 - 0.76%
Tancredo � 4 - 0.76%
T Thompson � 2 - 0.38%

Combine the weekend numbers with last weeks’ results and here’s the leader board with over 730 votes cast in 9 different counties:

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

The ABC News blog, “Political Radar” is trying to paint the “flip-flop” picture against Mitt Romney, but like most of the attacks against the Governor, this one doesn’t hold water.

In 1992, Mitt Romney was a registered Independent which allowed him to choose which primary to vote in. With President Bush guaranteed the GOP nomination, Romney decided to vote in the democratic primary in hopes that the weakest Democratic opponent would win the nomination and run against the incumbent Republican.

Romney explains his vote as I described it above, but ABC quotes the Boston Globe and claims that he had a different reason for the Tsongas vote in the Massachusetts primary in ‘92.

Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state’s 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton,” the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on Feb. 3, 1994. “He added he had been sure the G.O.P. would re-nominate George Bush, for whom he voted in the fall election.”

The only difference I see here is that Romney once said that he liked Tsongas over Clinton, and now he says that Tsongas was the weaker candidate. I know a lot of people who like a candidate who they consider to be weaker than another. There is no conflict here. In 1994 he never said that Tsongas was the stronger or more threatening candidate to the GOP.

Let’s take a logical step back and find out what questions are asked, and why. First of all, it would be natural to ask why a Republican presidential candidate would have ever voted for a Democrat. So we look at the facts and see that Romney voted in the Democratic primary, and for the Republican in the general election. No one can question his conservative credentials with this story since he voted Republican when it really mattered.

So ABC tries to make a story out of the minor details that no one cares about–by building on a completely irrelevant storyline about Romney flip-flopping on issues. As we have discussed in detail, Romney has only changed on one major issue–abortion (one of the most common issues for a politician to switch on–whether Democrat or Republican). So what if Romney didn’t exactly quote himself when explaining his past vote. Show me an issue upon which he has changed when it relates to his voting record of 15 years ago. He hasn’t changed his position, he has simply given additional insight into his decision which is consistent with the detail he gave back in 1994.

ABC tries to strengthen their weak logic by quoting a political science professor about the topic of “Raiding” another party’s primary.

Romney’s contention that his vote for Tsongas was a vote for the weakest opponent for Bush - a phenomenon that political scientists refer to as “raiding” - surprised Professor William Mayer of Northeastern University in Boston.

“That would have been a strange election to have done that in, in the sense that Paul Tsongas was obviously going to carry his home state” of Massachusetts, said Mayer. Tsongas won the Massachusetts primary with 66 percent of the vote.

What Mayer fails to admit here, but Romney was well-aware of, is the fact that the primaries aren’t about who wins, but about how strong a showing you receive. The nomination isn’t won in a day and a strong showing in one state will typically translate into more votes in other states. Momentum is often more valuable than the current score and every campaign is looking for numbers that show unexpected strength.

One thing is obvious from stories like the one being peddled by ABC, the left-leaning mainstream media are terrified of a Mitt Romney nomination, and that is why he is the main target of attacks leading up to the 2008 primary.

Andru Blonquist
SC for Romney

Addendum by Thomas:

You’re all right Andru. However, let’s not get mixed up in the minutia. Bottom-line:

ROMNEY VOTED FOR BUSH

That’s all that matters.

Addendum by Jeff:

An even better way to look at it . . .

ROMNEY GOT TO VOTE AGAINST BILL CLINTON TWICE IN THE SAME ELECTION!!

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

The 2008 South Carolina Republican primary took another step towards a two-man race this past week when Senator Jim DeMint officially joined on with the Mitt Romney campaign as a Senior Advisor. With the state�s other senator, Lindsay Graham solidly in the McCain camp, DeMint�s endorsement sets the stage for a showdown between the two major factions of South Carolina�s conservative base.

Click here to listen to DeMint�s interview on the Ralph Bristol radio show explaining his endorsement (scroll approximately 1/6 into the interview to hear about Romney).

South Carolina�s conservative landscape is epitomized by the differences shown between the two Republican senators who represent the Palmetto state. On the one hand, you have Lindsay Graham, a fairly moderate conservative who hitched his wagon early on to John McCain, and has worked closely with Senator McCain on everything from the �Gang of 14�, to his disagreements with President Bush on how to handle prisoners in the War on Terror.

On the other hand you have Senator DeMint who represents a much more conservative approach to these same issues, and whose stances are generally more ideologically driven.

To win the South Carolina primary, a candidate has to align with one of these two political camps. Governor Sanford, the Republican governor with a distinct libertarian flare, resides well on the DeMint side of the political spectrum�though he has yet to announce any endorsement or support for a presidential candidate. An endorsement from Sanford for either McCain or Romney, would be difficult, if not impossible to overcome for the opposing candidate.

Aside from a potential Sanford endorsement, Romney�s pick-up of DeMint is the most important endorsement he could receive in South Carolina�and has significant importance on a national level. Not only does this establish Romney as aligning himself to the right of McCain and Graham, but it also places him more in line with the religious and ideological conservative of South Carolina. An endorsement by Lindsay Graham would not have accomplished this.

The only question remaining is how South Carolina�s ideological vote turns out come 2008. Will they overcome religious bias and forgive Romney�s past stance on abortion, and actually show up to vote? Will they show up and hold their noses while voting for McCain�who happens to be very unpopular among ideological conservatives?

The key comes down to South Carolina�s upstate region, and more specifically the areas of Greenville and Spartanburg counties. These overwhelming conservative strongholds host the current president of the Southern Baptist convention, Bob Jones University, and Senator DeMint�s home district. A strong showing for Romney in the Upstate and he wins, a week showing, and he’s got a lot of ground to make up as John McCain likely wins the state and is well-positioned for a strong run at the nomination.

~~ Andru (www.SCforRomney.com)
———————————————–
For those of you who haven’t been to SCforRomney.com, I’ve been posting over there since early August and Ann Marie recently invited me to contribute over here as well. I live in Greenville, SC with my wife and two-and-a-half kids (3rd due in a few months). Our goal is to help Romney win South Carolina and push him to the front of the pack so the rest of you can carry him to the nomination!

Share on Facebook

Share This