comMITTed to Romney!

If you’re like me and couldn’t make it in person, click over here to see both Laura Ingraham’s full introduction and Mitt’s complete speech.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Human Events just named Rush Limbaugh the “Man of the Year.” They proclaim that

“His voice defined the conservative movement in 2007.”

But on his radio program today, Rush offered all conservatives a simple test anyone can use to determine the best conservative candidate in the 2008 Presidential Race. The test is this: Look at who the Mainstream Media attacks repeatedly and then look at who they “prop up.” The conservatives are the ones who will reap the most attacks. The phony conservatives will be “propped up” by the Mainstream Media in an effort to “break up the conservative coalition.”

Huckabee and McCain are conservative cut-outs that have been propped up by the MSM. There is little or no conservative substance to their messages. Any wins for these two are not definitive of the conservative movement.

Instead, look at who the MSM is trying to bring down. Look at whose doom is consistently prophesied. If one were to believe all the predictions of Romney’s imminent downfall, it would be amazing that he is still enough of a threat that they must still tout his coming destruction.

Share on Facebook

Share This

From a December 6, 2007 article in U.S. News & World Report, an interesting article about some of the major candidates and their relationships with their fathers.

Read the whole thing if you’re interested, but I will highlight this quote without further comment:

As a boy, young John [McCain] was unhappy that his father was away so much in the Navy. The boy had trouble containing his temper and toeing the line of order and discipline so prized in his family. One of his parents’ techniques, administered mostly by his dad when he was home, was to dunk him, fully clothed, into a bathtub of cold water when he had a tantrum. It “cured” him, he reported later.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ve pointed out Romney’s comprehensive policy statement “Strategy for a Stronger America” in previous posts.

One of the nice things about this document is that it provides the text to a number of Romney’s major speeches. I spent some time reading the text of these speeches and was struck by how powerful and well thought out they are. They are worth reading.

Below is the text of the speech Romney delivered at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

“The mainstream media is surprised that we’re here. They wrote our obituary last fall. Course, they’ve written our obituary before: after Watergate, after the 82 midterm elections, after Iran-contra, and after Bill Clinton’s election. The truth is that their wishful thinking reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I predict that we’ll be around a lot longer than . . . say, newspapers.

“No, conservatism is alive and well. And it is needed more than ever. America faces a new generation of challenges, critical challenges. Today is similar in many respects to what we faced as a nation 30 years ago, looking at the menacing face of communism.

“In fact, 30 years ago, in this very conference, one man stood up and told America what was needed. It was conservatism, a new coalition of conservatives that would lead to a brighter future for the nation. Ronald Reagan said this: ‘What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.’ And here is where he said that this conservative alliance would lead: ‘I have seen the conservative future, and it works.’

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

…but John Bolton denies it.

I’ve lost count of the number of gaffe’s Huckabee has had in the last couple days, but add another one to the mix. Some choice bits:

In recent days, Mike Huckabee has tried to answer long-standing questions about who is on his foreign policy team. On Friday morning, he listed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has “spoken or will continue to speak.”

At a Thursday evening press conference, Huckabee said, “I’ve corresponded with John Bolton, who’s agreed to work with us on developing foreign policy.”

Bolton, however, has a different view. “I’d be happy to speak with Huckabee, but I haven’t spoken with him yet,” said Bolton, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Okay, if that weren’t bad enough, it gets worse:

Transcript from CNN:

WOLF BLITZER: “Let’s go back out to the campaign trail right now. Presidential candidate appears to be trying to change the subject after making what some are calling a notable gaffe. That would be republican Mike Huckabee. He’s a former governor with less foreign policy experience than some of his rivals. Now some are wondering if that is becoming obvious out on the campaign trail. Let’s go out to Iowa, Dana Bash is watching all of this unfold. You’ve learned about the concerns inside Huckabee’s own camp about his national security experience. Explain to our viewers what’s going on.”

DANA BASH: “Well, Wolf, in a very candid moment today, a senior Huckabee campaign official told me that with their candidate, quote, ‘There is no foreign policy credential.’ And that unlike many other presidential candidates, he can’t boast about knowing Benazir Bhutto. This official also said that until they can, quote, ‘get him briefed’ and up to speed on Pakistan, they’re going to try to bring it closer to home. Mike Huckabee is responding to crisis in Pakistan in an offbeat way, tying it to a red hot campaign issue: immigration.”

GOVERNOR MIKE HUCKABEE: “There were more Pakistanis who illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border. 660 last year. That’s a lot of illegals from Pakistan.” (Me: by the way, that’s wrong, far more illegal immigrants come from the Philippines, Korea, China and Vietnam according to the Dept. of Homeland Security)

BASH: “Sounding an alarm about illegal Pakistanis in America is a surprising tactic for a candidate who preaches tolerance. He dismissed any concern it looks like xenophobia.”

HUCKABEE: “No none. Not at all. I’m just saying that a lot of Americans sitting in Pella, Iowa maybe look halfway around the world and say how does that affect me?”

BASH: “When asked by CNN for the source of his statistic, 660 illegal Pakistanis, Huckabee seemed unsure.”

HUCKABEE: “Its come largely from CIA numbers, and ill get u the exact source, but those are numbers that i got today from a briefing, and I believe they’re CIA and/or immigration numbers.”

BASH: “A senior Huckabee campaign official admitted to CNN the former Arkansas governor has, quote, ‘no foreign policy credential.’ that’s why his campaign turned to immigration, a top concern for Iowa GOP voters especially men he’s been losing ground with. The pivot followed a gaffe, not appearing to know martial law was lifted in Pakistan two weeks ago.”

This is getting embarrassing. Huckabee evidently just makes stuff up and hopes that nobody calls him on it. This might have worked in Arkansas, but he isn’t in Little Rock anymore. (no disrespect intended to Arkansasans)

Share on Facebook

Share This

…most wanted corrupt politicians.

Here’s what they say:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

I don’t know this group, but you can’t argue with what they’ve outlined above.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The National Review has added its estimable voice in opposition to the attacks that have been hurled at Romney in NH by the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor.

Misled in New Hampshire

By the Editors

John McCain’s aides complain that Mitt Romney is running a negative campaign. Those same aides have been attacking Romney themselves, but for the most part they can outsource the negativism to their friends in the press — starting with the Union Leader, a prominent conservative newspaper in New Hampshire that has endorsed him. (We have endorsed Romney.)

The Union Leader’s advocacy of John McCain has become so fierce and lopsided that it has practically transformed itself into a pro-McCain 527 organization. It has not formalized the arrangement, which is lucky for it: If it had, McCain would, on his campaign-finance principles, have to try to shut it down.

There is a lot to like about Senator McCain, and we do not fault the Union Leader for endorsing him. We do fault its double standards. The newspaper counts it as a damnable “flip-flop” every time Romney has changed his position or even his emphasis. McCain can switch his views on the very same issues without a disparaging word from the Union Leader.

Take taxes. Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, stayed neutral in the battle over President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. We wish he had spoken up in their favor. Senator McCain, alas, was not silent: He voted against the tax cuts, as he had voted against the 2001 tax cuts. He flip-flopped on estate taxes, defending them after having voted to get rid of them. As he geared up to run for president this time around, however, McCain became a born-again supply-sider. Now he wants to keep the tax cuts he originally opposed.

The Union Leader has blasted Romney for changing his mind on immigration. It accused him of lying, too, for saying that McCain wanted to let illegal immigrants earn Social Security benefits while working here illegally. But Romney was right. McCain has voted to let illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions become citizens and then receive benefits for their prior illegal work. Few Senate Republicans joined him.

We won’t throw around the word “lie” quite as recklessly as the Union Leader, but its candidate first argued for an “amnesty” and then spent months claiming that his immigration bill did not amount to one. And if flip-flopping on immigration is a crime, McCain can be charged with it, too. He himself says that he has changed his position on the issue. One of the principal points at issue in the debate over his bill was whether we should try “enforcement first.” Since the bill’s collapse, McCain has said that he now understands that we should. If that is not a flip-flop, it is only because his claims of a change of heart are insincere. (The liberal newspapers that have endorsed him seem to think so.)

Some of Romney’s critics allow that all politicians change their positions over time, but say that Romney stands out for changing his very political identity. Supposedly he ran as a moderate technocrat in Massachusetts, but is running as a culture warrior in the Republican primaries. We think both halves of this characterization are overstated, but in any case it is not a critique that John McCain’s supporters can credibly make. McCain was a reliably conservative legislator for 15 years. Then he moved left for three years, so much so that liberals began urging him to change parties. Then he zigged back to the right.

For us, the most important question about a flip-flop is whether the movement is in the right direction. We are glad that Romney has changed his mind about abortion and McCain has changed his about taxes, although we prefer Romney’s open admission that he was wrong in the past to McCain’s evasiveness. We hope McCain comes around some more on immigration, and campaign-finance reform, and a lot of other issues — and we will not attack him as a flip-flopper if he does. Voters who hold flip-flops against politicians, however, should be warned: McCain is every bit as much of one as Romney is, and all the bile of New Hampshire’s editorialists cannot change the fact.

Here’s why I support Mitt Romney for President.

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Share This

I was disgusted when I saw the video below. How long will Huckabee get a pass on this kind of language? Who wants their President talking this way? Last time I checked, suicide is at best morally ambiguous and at worst a mortal sin. How can a “Christian leader” talk so lightly about such a tragic act that takes over 30,000 lives per year (and another 24,000-750,000 attempted suicides) in the United States and leaves a massive wake of devastation?

“…and the point is, with limited resources, if you look at where we are, even in the national polls, we’ve spent a nickel to the hundred dollar bill of some of these guys. It’s not that I’m depressed thinking where we are, heck, I’m pretty encouraged. If I were some of these guys who spent tens of millions of dollars and weren’t any further ahead, I’d have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with some razor blades in both hands at this point saying how much money does one have to spend uh, you know, to get on track?“

First, let’s set aside that he gets his math wrong by two orders of magnitude (he meant to say a nickel for every dollar unless he believes that Romney has spent $654M in Iowa). Those kinds of gaffes are par for the course for Huckabee.

What is he saying here? Is he saying that Romney should be depressed and commit suicide? Is he saying that if he were in Romney’s place he would be committing suicide? That seems more likely. In that case, what does it say about the moral fiber and character of Romney vs. Huckabee that Mitt is nowhere near considering suicide given that’s where Huckabee would have ended up were their situations reversed? Do we really want someone so unstable and suicidal as our next POTUS?

Huckabee fans, before you accuse me of being willfully literal in my interpretation of Huckabee’s comments, let me assure you that what I think Huck is really saying is that he feels really good about his position in Iowa and that Mitt should feel really bad.

I just object to the way he’s saying it. It is crass, mean spirited, and unbefitting a public office holder, much less a “Christian Leader.”

I sent emails to the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) letting them know about Mike Huckabee’s disgusting and trivializing remarks about suicide. These are leading suicide prevention and issue advocacy organizations.

If you feel similarly, you can email the AAS at info@suicidology.org and the AFSP’s Public Relations Manager, Wylie Tene at wtene@afsp.org.

UPDATE: Apparently, this story first broke back in October. And, it’s not the first time he’s done it, and he’s been called on it in the past. “Razor blades in a bathtub” is a regular part of Huckabee’s repertoire.

Implication? He must actually think that this line is funny and continues to use it despite being made aware that it can be taken the wrong way!

Share on Facebook

Share This

PLEASE forward this post far and wide.

As of late, we have seen some really outstanding posts in this blog. For those Iowan voters who are truly seeking truth among the shucksters, I commend the following link. Jeff Fuller literally took many hours to compile these commentaries, each linked to one or more sources. It is easy to see why Jeff is a doctor; a scientist disciplined in the rigors of solid research.

His analysis was cited and direct linked by Hugh Hewitt recently, and that was before Jeff updated the post! What is going to happen in Iowa in less than a week is too important to overlook the content of this post.

PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL by clicking on the title above and then placing the URL in an email and sending it to everybody you know who cares about the presidential election.

Click here to see why the top conservative voices have chosen to speak out about Huckabee ——–> HUCKABEE TRUTH REVEALED ACROSS AMERICA

Many of these are the top conservative minds of America!

~ Vic

Help Governor Romney get his message out — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

Share on Facebook

Share This

I posted earlier today on policy and track record related reasons for not supporting John McCain. Add financial viability to that list.

The Politico reports that McCain has been approved for $5.8M in taxpayer matching funds for his campaign. Now, leave aside for a moment whether you think it makes sense for taxpayer dollars to subsidize candidates who cannot raise enough their own funds on the open market. Accepting these funds would cap the total amount of money that McCain can spend at $50M until after the September Republican National Convention. Given that as of Q3, McCain had spent $29M, and assuming that his burn rate in Q4 held flat (big assumption), that means by this time, he’s probably spent about $40M to date.

This would leave only $10M for McCain to spend between now and September! To provide a sense of scale, John Kerry raised $233M and GWB raised $259M in primary dollars back in 2004. It’s no stretch to believe that HRC or Obama would raise at least this much, giving them over a 5 to 1 advantage over a hypothetical candidate McCain!

Marc Ambinder wrote about this scenario back in July. Key excerpts:

A minefield awaits Sen. John McCain if he asks his campaign to accept federal matching funds for the primary.

There are two significant limitations that come with the roughly $6M that the federal government would pay McCain. One is that McCain would not be able to raise money beyond the limits proscribed by the system. That’s about $50M. If the nomination contest is wrapped by Feb 6., Mr. McCain will be out of money. The Democratic nominee may find him or herself in a similar predicament, but they have the option of raising and spending as much as they want between February and their late August convention. McCain could raise nothing. And therefore could spend nothing. He would rely on the good graces of the national media to ensure that at the very least, he gets to respond to the Democratic presidential nominee. But he won’t be able to campaign. He wouldn’t be able to build a field organization for the general election, relying instead on the Republican National Committee to conceive, fund, and construct the entire GOTV apparatus. (Forget about RNC soft money ads. Um, McCain-Feingold prohibits them.) He probably couldn’t even campaign. Outside allies in the party? They don’t like McCain.

This is an argument that McCain’s opponents will make to reporters and to wavering Republicans: by accepting federal matching funds, McCain will put himself at a distinct disadvantage if he wins the nomination. The Democrat, in other words, would have an edge.

Now, as a guy who donated to Tom McClintock on principle in his run against Arnold SchwarzenKennedy in the California Republican gubenatorial primary (for those of you from California, you know exactly what I’m talking about…for you non-Golden Staters, think Don Quixote tilting at windmills), I am the last person to lecture McCain supporters over his financial viability. That being said, the thought of having a hamstrung candidate who cannot spend any money during the spring and summer while the Democrats pick him apart piece by piece has to give even the most die-hard McCain supporter pause.

By contrast, here’s why I’m supporting Mitt Romney for President.

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Or is this another detour of the Straight Talk Express?

Here’s how McCain described Governor Romney in 2002:

We’ve got a great team here, but it’s led by a man of honesty and integrity. It’s led by a man who is prepared to serve and a man who I have grown to know for his honesty, his decency, and his committment to America. I am proud to be in his company amongst you. (applause)

We have a man of unimpeachable integrity, and decency, and honor who could do a lot of other things my friends, we all know that. The Romneys, they could (garbled) Arizona! (laughter).

They could do, they could do a lot of things. Yet this man, has willingly stepped forward to serve the state of Massachusetts and our Party, and young Americans and again give them a public office holder that they can look up to, admire, and emulate, that’s why I’m committed to this race. In the state of Massachusetts as the state of Arizona, tough decisions are going to have to be made. There’s only one kind of person who can make those decisions and that’s a man of intellectual integrity, honesty, and experience.

But I also have great and tremendous regard for Mitt Romney ’cause I think he brings honest and integrity and can act as a role model to the young people of Massachusetts and all over this country.

I think we have an opportunity to (garbled) not only across Massachusetts but America. A negative campaign doesn’t work. People of integrity are still willing to serve this country. May I please ask you to give your warmest possible welcome to the next governor of the state of Massachusetts. (enter Mitt Romney, shakes hands with John McCain)

That was then, but these days you can’t go two days without John McCain or his campaign calling Mitt some variation of liar, dishonest, and fake.

Is this what would be called an “election-year conversion” by John McCain? Which characterization of Mitt Romney is true and which one is false? Stated another way, was he lying then or now?

By contrast, here’s why I’m supporting Mitt Romney for President.

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hugh Hewitt does an excellent job recapping why McCain’s campaign was on life support only a month or two ago only to have been resurrected by the MSM.

On McCain Feingold:

First, they have to forget that the fundraising advantage the GOP built to counter the Dems’ union juggernaut was overthrown by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform,” and done so in an unconstitutional fashion, proving not only McCain’s indifference to the party’s success but also to the idea of Free Speech. This bust of a bill also unleashed the 527s on the land, guaranteeing even more secretive and dirty pool politics. Senator McCain’s signal legislative achievement turns out to be deeply flawed constitutionally and counterproductive of its announced goals.

On the Bush Tax Cuts and Federal Marriage Amendment:

Economic conservatives will also have to have their memories erased of Senator McCain’s votes against the Bush tax cuts.

The neuralyzer will also have to get to the social conservatives and erase the memory of John McCain’s votes against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

On the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill:

The biggest issues for many Republican voters center on immigration and border security. These voters will have to be persuaded to forget John McCain’s ill-fated attempted jam down on immigration which McCain ally Lindsey Graham forced through the Judiciary Committee. Not remembering the bill is a bit of a big order since it was known as McCain-Kennedy and was widely understood by conservatives to be tantamount to amnesty.

On National Security:

National security conservatives will have to agree to set aside the fact that McCaiin’s grandstanding on the issue of the treatment of unlawful combatants in September 2006 derailed the entire GOP’s endgame agenda heading into the elections. The Senate leadership and the White House had agreed on a careful series of legislative propositions on the Gitmo detainees and on surveillance protocols for use when watching terrorists abroad communicating with their allies inside the U.S., an agenda which also included some crucial judicial nominations like the still stalled one of Peter Keisler to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals, an agenda which would have done much to recapture the sense of momentum the upper chamber and the GOP as a whole had lost and which would have focused the public on the war and the role of intelligence gathering in it. Senators McCain and Graham smashed up the entire plan and the Senate majority was erased a few weeks later.

On Conservative Judicial Nominations:

And all conservatives will have to set aside their deep, deep anger over John McCain’s Gang of 14 coup that ended the hopes of restoring decency, order and constitutional process to the judicial confirmation process.

Recall what had happened: Serial filibusters were staged by Dems against many Bush nominees throughout 2003 and 2004. The GOP and the president campaigned on the issue of the judges throughout the elections of 2004, and won a 55 seat Senate majority in part on the strength of the outrage on the issue. Majority Leader Frist set about organizing a strategy –the Constitutional Option or Nuclear Option– which anticipated that a ruling would be requested from the Senate Chair –the Vice President– on whether or not a filibuster could be used against a judicial nominee. At least 50 of the GOP’s 55 senators were pledged to support the chair. A crucial and long-lasting victory would have been won and a principle established.

Days before the vote and the end of the filibusters, John McCain engineered a deal with six other Republicans and seven Democrats which threw some fine nominees under the bus in exchange for a temporary abandonment by Democrats of filibusters against some Bush nominees. The shock and outrage at McCain among conservatives at this awful deal was of a intensity that has rarely been matched. John McCain in effect undid the vote of 2004, compromised away an issue he had not been asked to lead on and on which millions of Republican voters had voted and for which they had contributed. Millions of Republicans care deeply about judges. John McCain did not. He could not allow Majority Leader Frist his victory, but in sabotaging Frist, he sunk his own candidacy. The one issue on which all three core GOP constituencies agree is the importance of originalists on the bench. It was obvious amid the wreckage brought about by the Gang of 14 that John McCain didn’t care about the courts. He cared about John McCain.

By contrast, here’s why I’m supporting Mitt Romney for President.

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Much has been made of the feud between Huck and Rush. Pundits wondered if Rush was going to have an impact since he’s on vacation between now and the Iowa Caucuses on 1/3.

Read into it what you will, but the entire left column of his homepage today features the following stories:

- Rush responds to Gov. Huckabee
- Huckabee campaign chairman Ed Rollins trashes Rush instead of debating conservatism
- Governor Huckabee forces attack El Rushbo
- Callers reacto to Huckabee attacks on Rush
- Democrats want Mike Huckabee
- Identity politics and the Hucksters
- Gov. Huckabee sounds like Perot

Quoting the ancient general and warfare theorist, Sun Tzu, “Ouch…that’s going to leave a mark.” (just kidding…about the Sun Tzu part, I think it was Don Corleone)

Contrast this with what else Rush has featured on his website today:

- Mitt Romney’s Inspiring Speech (with links to the video and the text)

Recall that after the 1st debate, Rush called Romney “Reaganesque.” The high praise from El Rushbo keeps on coming. Rush has steadfastly clarified that he does not endorse in the primaries, but with “non-endorsements” like these, who needs endorsements?!

Complete transcript from Rush after the jump…

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Great article from Ronald Kessler over at Newsmax on why Mitt is the best candidate. The whole thing is worth a read.

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard writes an insightful piece drawing an analogy between the Huck-a-boom and Pat Buchannan’s 1986 run against Bob Dole. I recommend reading it all, but here are some key excerpts:

Mike Huckabee is this cycle’s Pat Buchanan. A lot of Republicans wanted to believe that he was the answer to the flawed deck of frontrunners that the political gods have dealt us. I can’t honestly say I was ever rooting for Huckabee, but a month ago I expected him to win the nomination. All he had to do was come across as a credible commander-in-chief for the five weeks leading up to Iowa and he would have pulled it off.

But Huckabee went the Buchanan route. Rather than assure the Republican electorate that he was more than a one trick pony who could speak beautifully on social issues and spiritual concerns, he doubled down on his pastor side. Perhaps with good cause. When he ventured opinions about serious policy matters outside his comfort zone, especially regarding global affairs, he showed an ignorance that was quite frankly stunning for someone who had the audacity to seek the presidency at a time of war.

And there’s also Huckabee’s past. Every politician has a past–issues he flip-flopped on or positions he took that his party dislikes. But Huckabee’s past has caused Republicans to remember the Arkansas mores that drove us nuts during the Clinton years. Seemingly every day, another piece of, er, stuff, hits the fan. Over the weekend, it came out that Huckabee received $35,000 in honoraria in 2006 from a company that does stem cell research, the very same company that social conservatives blasted Mitt Romney over because his blind trust had invested in it. Huckabee’s take of $35,000 from the stem cell researchers was but a small sliver of the roughly $378,000 in outside fees that Huckabee raked in during his final year as Arkansas’ governor. Too bad he didn’t have Hillary Clinton’s facility with commodities trading–such a skill probably would have made things easier for Huckabee.

Barnett goes on to predict that Romney will win Iowa and that he will be able to seal the nomination if he can sieze the moment and deliver a serious, substantive speech that sets him above the rest of the field.

Barnett cites Ronald Regan’s famous 1976 “A Time for Choosing” speech as an example of the type of speech Mitt must follow. As I watched it (embedded below), I was struck at how relevant his words remain to our current geo-political situation.

I was also struck by how much it reminded me of a certain other Conservative Republican candidate for the Presidency…

Mitt’s speech at CPAC remains one of his best. It helped cement my support for Mitt Romney in the early days of the campaign. It feels like an eternity since he first delivered it back in March. If you haven’t seen it, please watch it. If you’ve seen it before, it is well worth watching again.

This is, indeed, a time for choosing. Choose Mitt!

Sponsor and ad in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, or New Hampshire!

Share on Facebook

Share This