comMITTed to Romney!

Mitt liked to use the term “three legged stool” a lot during the campaign. Which of these three legs are the most importance to you? Do you look at them equally? Does one stick out more than the other two? For me it’s the economic side that matters the most to me. I’m less of a conservative on the “social” aspect of the stool, and while I might seem complacent here I believe that the national security part is under control right now. We as a nation and government though need to get the business side straight because otherwise we’re not going to ever get ahold of the economy. I’d like to hear what you have to say on this though.

P.S. We’ve had a few live chats since Mitt dropped from the race, would this be something that you would be interested in participating in in the future? It’s a lot of fun, and we still get to connect with one another.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I love this piece from David Corn. I’m sorry some may want to “close ranks” and support McCain, but I will not. It just does not matter to me that much. I will likely sit this one out completely. The more I thought about it, I just could not support Obama or Hillary. So, I’ll just stay home this election cycle and vote my conscience by abstaining this go round, and hope for an opportunity for Governor Romney in 2012.

From Why Romney Might Not Be Rooting for McCain

I’m Ronald Reagan, and John McCain’s not.

That was Mitt Romney’s not-so-implicit message, as he announced the suspension of his presidential campaign on Thursday before the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference. In a fiery speech, Romney hammered the point that he’s a rock-hard conservative when it comes to all three legs of the great stool of the GOP: social issues, economic issues, and national security issues. At least now he is. He decried “government welfare” as a “threat to our culture.” He essentially called Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama surrender-monkeys in the fight against radical jiihadism. He denounced regulations that choke businesses and called for lower taxes. The crowd lapped it up.

Romney knew that in a few hours McCain would appear before the same audience and try to appease those conservative activists who consider McCain an ideological turncoat. (How dare he care about global warming!) Though Romney was departing the race, he seized the moment to present himself as the real thing. Perhaps McCain will eventually be able to reach a detente with some of the conservatives who despise him (even if Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and James Dobson don’t sign any peace treaty). Regardless of that, Romney was attempting to position himself as the true leader of the movement.

Which caused me to wonder: maybe Romney doesn’t want McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, to win in November.

Look at Reagan In 1976, he challenged President Gerald Ford in the Republican contest and argued that Ford was not sufficiently conservative (mainly on foreign policy matters). It was a close race. By the time of the Republican convention, it was not clear who would be the nominee. Ford edged out Reagan–due to some last-minute strategic missteps committed by the Reagan campaign–and went on to lose the election to Jimmy Carter. Reagan emerged as the conservative champion in the party. Four years later, he roared back, won the nomination, and gained the presidency.

Whether or not McCain loses in November, Romney will remain the heartthrob of many conservative activists. But should McCain fail, Romney could become the de facto opposition leader–that is, if he’s not chosen to be McCain’s running-mate. And Romney would be able to use those millions of dollars he didn’t spend on this campaign to bolster the conservative movement’s infrastructure and further endear himself to the rightwing establishment. (Mike Huckabee might develop a Christian right following that sticks with him after the campaign, but his stool will be lopsided.) Romney would be well-positioned for the next campaign.

Republican losers often come back and succeed. Not only did Reagan do it, so did the first George Bush (who lost to Reagan in the 1980 Republican race) and Richard Nixon.

If McCain does end up as president, it will make life messy for conservatives. They will support him on some fronts and (if Democrats are lucky) detest him on others. There likely won’t be ideological clarity. And Romney, like others, will have to navigate those shoals. But given McCain’s age, that period might last no longer than one term. If Clinton or Obama triumph, Romney will be able to lead the rightwing charge against the culture-destroyer and surrender-chicken in the White House. Won’t that be a lot of fun for him?

So Romney may not have to wait so long to have another shot. In 2012, he’ll be 65 years old. Reagan was 69 when he reached the White House.

Share on Facebook

Share This

In Case You Missed It: Governor Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday

Contact: Mitt Romney

 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 /Standard Newswire/ — the following is the coverage of Governor Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday:

 

Governor Romney on The Importance Of These Times (Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” 2/5/08):

 

Governor Romney: “These are really critical times for our country. We face extraordinary challenges from the jihadists, from new competition from Asia. We see our economy getting weaker. People wonder how they are going to pay their bills, gas bills, heating bills. If America keeps on the same track we’re on, we’re not going to remain the most powerful nation on Earth. Washington is fundamentally broken, and it’s not going to get changed by people who spent their whole life in Washington. You’re going to have to have somebody come from the outside, the way Ronald Reagan came from the outside, and shake Washington up. And that’s exactly what I intend to do. I don’t think it’s also possible to have somebody lead our party who is very much outside the house that Reagan built. Senator McCain’s a fine fellow, national hero. But his positions on the keystone issues of his 25 years are positions that are more like Democrats than like those of Republicans.”

 

 

Governor Romney On Conservative Support (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 2/5/08):

 

Governor Romney: “[T]his is just the beginning. We’ve got a lot of states to go. And what we’re seeing is, by virtue of voices like yours and others across the conservative world, conservatives are waking up, and they’re saying, ‘Look, we just can’t take a left turn in our party. We’ve got to stand by the principles that Ronald Reagan laid out.’ And I’m the conservative candidate in this race. It’s become a two-person race, and in California over the weekend, as you point out, the polls show that I’m tied there or doing a little better than tied. You never know whether to believe polls or not. But then you look at Maine, we just had a caucus in Maine over the weekend. Both U.S. Senators were fighting for Senator McCain, but you know what, I won there by 50 to 20. The signs are good that conservatives are listening and saying, ‘You know what, we don’t want to take the liberal path.’”

 

 

Governor Romney On Conservative Support (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 2/5/08):

 

Governor Romney: “[T]his is just the beginning. We’ve got a lot of states to go. And what we’re seeing is, by virtue of voices like yours and others across the conservative world, conservatives are waking up, and they’re saying, ‘Look, we just can’t take a left turn in our party. We’ve got to stand by the principles that Ronald Reagan laid out.’ And I’m the conservative candidate in this race. It’s become a two-person race, and in California over the weekend, as you point out, the polls show that I’m tied there or doing a little better than tied. You never know whether to believe polls or not. But then you look at Maine, we just had a caucus in Maine over the weekend. Both U.S. Senators were fighting for Senator McCain, but you know what, I won there by 50 to 20. The signs are good that conservatives are listening and saying, ‘You know what, we don’t want to take the liberal path.’”

Share on Facebook

Share This

I had a thought today to go back and compare the Presidential Announcement speeches of both Mitt and McCain.  I thought it would be interesting to see how well defined their focus was almost a year ago (Mitt announced in February, McCain in April), and how their campaigns have evolved since then.  It would be interesting to hear what differences you notice between the two speeches, and any discrepancies you see between what each candidate was saying then versus now.

For me, the obvious difference was how much broader Mitt’s vision was (and is), compared to McCain’s.  Notice as you read through them, that McCain mentions absolutely nothing about families, while Mitt’s speech is abundant in references to his family and the need to strenghthen America’s families.  Next, as you scroll down Mitt’s speech, especially towards the end, there are a lot of “we’s” and us’s” throughout.  Scrolling through McMe’s speech, there are a lot of “I’s” and “me’s.”  The very last sentence is actually very indicative of McCain’s whole approach to the Presidency:

I’m running for President of the United States, a blessed country, a proud country, a hopeful country, the most powerful and prosperous country and the greatest force for good on earth. And when I’m President, I intend to keep it so.”

Contrast this with Mitt’s last statement:

With freedom, nothing can hold us back.
 
“Freedom has made the American dream possible.  Freedom will make the new American dream possible.  And with the work, sacrifice, and greatness of spirit of the American people, freedom has made America - and will keep America - the greatest nation on earth. God bless The United States of America.”

I’ve been frustrated over the past 6 months or so with conservatives complaining that there is no true Reagan conservative in the race - no one upholding the 3-legged stool that Reagan advocated.   Mitt has been putting forth this conservative message all along, beginning with his speech:

At this critical time, we must first transform the role we play in the world [i.e. strong military], secondly strengthen our nation [strong economy], and third build a brighter future for the American family [strong families].

So my question to the conservative pundits is - where have you guys been?  Letting the MSM do your homework and thinking for you, without even bothering to check something as basic as the candidate’s announcement speeches to see what platform they are really running on.  Let’s hope the recent wave of endorsements, while positive and welcome, aren’t too little too late!

Mitt’s speech is excellent, McCain’s speech is very telling.  Check them both out and share what you think!

(One last note, I’m not sure about McCain, but I know that Mitt writes most or all of his own speeches, including this one and his Faith in America speech.)

Mitt’s speech

Click “Continue Reading” below for McCain’s speech

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

For fellow conservatives considering Mitt for the first time, it’s important to understand Mitt’s staunch support of the pro-life platform.  The media has tried to downplay and negate Mitt’s position on this.  They’ve managed to stick a big old post-it note on Mitt’s forehead labelled “Flip Flopper” in permanent ink.  They’ve asserted that he lacks conviction.  They’re wrong.  As Governor, Mitt consistently stuck to conservative principles.  On abortion, marriage, health care, economy and other important issues, Mitt consistenly made conservative decisions.  For a great summary on Mitt’s real record, see Ann Marie’s post back in November 2007.

On Monday, the 35th anniversay of Roe v. Wade, Mitt once again committed to overturning this decision:

After 35 years of Roe v. Wade, we are again reminded why this decision should be overturned,” Romney said in a statement provided to LifeNews.com.

“We recognize the worth and dignity of every person, a fact that is ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose,” Romney added. “Unelected judges should not be the final arbiters on these important decisions which define who we are as a people.”

Recently, Romney told Nevada voters that he wanted the high court to overturn the infamous decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

“I am pro-life, and I would welcome a time when the people of America concluded that abortion was wrong, but that’s not where America is, and that’s why I believe that the next right step for America is for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” he said then.

“That would return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to set their own laws related to abortion,” he said.

“Today, as Americans from across this country participate in the annual March for Life, my thoughts are with all those whose dedication and compassionate concern have done so much to educate and assist others in creating a genuine culture of life,” he said.

The last phrase is a very telling remark.  As he does with so many issues, Mitt is able to look at the broader implications and ramifications of following a certain path.  When he discusses his decision to become politically pro-life, Mitt often states that as Governor he realized that the effects of Roe v. Wade weren’t just limited to abortion.  They extended to issues like embryonic stem cell research and teenage pregnancy, and to the very basic fabric of our culture.  The question, “Are we a culture of life, or of death,” has strong ramifications for our children, their education, their government, their health, their society and their future.  Mitt understood (and has helped me understand) that the issue of abortion isn’t solely about choice or murder or rights - it’s about the kind of culture, society and country we are creating (or destroying) for the next generation.

If you are unsure about Mitt’s conviction on this or other social issues such as marriage, please DO NOT believe the picture the media has painted.  Please take a few minutes to visit Mitt’s site where he discusses his belief in “promoting a culture of life,” or visit the Encyclopedia Mittanica, where you can scroll down and find Mitt’s answers to just about any question, all neatly alphabetized according to issue. 

Warning:  if you take a few minutes to do this - to objectively look at Mitt’s platform and record, you WILL find he is a true Reagan conservative, and you WILL most likely want to join, sign up, contribute, campaign for, blog and in all other ways become a Mitt supporter!  Let us know when you do - we’d love to hear your story!

Share on Facebook

Share This

FredHeads will play a vital role in this race and WILL end up choosing the nominee, though, to their obvious chagrin, it will not be for their first choice candidate.

I’ve been watching and analyzing this race for two years now, reading and commenting nearly daily at forumns such as RedState, FreeRepublic, and Race42008. I’ve seen the slow dance of Fred’s entrance, his surge in popularity and polls, and his steady decline. I’ve debated with FredHeads about both Fred and Mitt, their strengths and weaknesses. Interestingly, there has been a significant “warming” to Mitt among FredHeads and vice-a-versa over the last several weeks. Most Mitt supporters I know have Fred #2 on their list (me included . . . though it’s a close call with Rudy because I like his executive experience).

Whether or not Fred officially drops out, it’s clear that he does not have a realistic shot at becoming the nominee. His supporters will probably join other camps shortly.

Two online polls taken in the wake of last Saturday’s results asked folks who they’d vote for in a “Fred-less” field.

Over at RedState (jokingly referred to as “FredState”) this poll was asked . . . and here are the results as of now:

Now that South Carolina is done, who will you vote for in your state?
Selection		Votes
John McCain	14%	307
Mike Huckabee	6%	135
Rudy Giuliani	11%	233
Mitt Romney	68%	1,458
2,133 votes total

Over at HotAir.com (another very pro-Fred blog), the question was even more direct:

For Fred Supporters: If Fred Thompson drops out of the race, which major candidate would you support?
Selection		Votes
Rudy Giuliani	15%	706
Mike Huckabee	4%	213
John McCain	7%	341
Mitt Romney	74%	3,535
4,795 votes total

There is much speculation that Fred will endorse McCain, so HotAir’s readership was asked if such an ensdorsement would effect their vote:

If Fred Thompson endorses John McCain, what impact would that have on your vote?
Selection		Votes
No impact	88%	2,862
Somewhat more likely to vote for McCain	6%	205
Much more likely to vote for McCain	5%	172
3,239 votes total

Looks like FredHeads are the independent-minded voters that we’d expect of those supporting such a plain-spoken candidate.

For further evidence of FredHeads breaking for Mitt check out the comment section at HotAir (sorry, I didn’t read all 1400 of them).

Some are even calling for a Romney/Fred ticket! I wouldn’t have a problem with that personally. As Mitt supporters, we welcome any and all FredHeads into the fold.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

I wanted to say a quick hello and introduce myself as a rookie blogger here at Elect Romney in 2008!  I’m pleased and excited to jump in here and do my part to help Mitt’s run for the White House! 

A bit about me:  I’m 37, mother of 4 and wife of 1, living in snowy, cold, rural, beautiful, northern Nevada.  I’m originally from Canada, have lived in the U.S. for several years, and just recently got my U.S. citizenship.  What a great and humbling experience!  I really feel at home in this incredible country!  There is a spirit and a strength and a power here - a patriotism that is unlike any other.

I became a Romniac, Mitthead, Mitten about a year ago after Mitt made his announcement.  I started coming to this blog shortly after and quickly became an addict, as I know many of you have (you might have seen me comment as Nevadagirl).  The founder, the bloggers and, based on their comments, the readers, are all very impressive and articulate - it’s great to be part of this!

During the Nevada caucus, I had the chance to stand up and speak for 2 minutes on why I support Mitt.  It felt great to vocalize to others the reasons why I feel Mitt is our best choice and hope.  My challenge to you guys is to be prepared to do the same.  With the upcoming importance of Feb. 5, many of you will have the opportunity to share with others why you support Mitt in your own state and in your own circle of influence.  Here’s a short version of what I said:

I support Mitt because I’m looking for 2 things in a President.  One - a conservative record and platform, someone that supports the 3 legs of the Reagan coalition - strong military, strong economy, and strong families.  Two - someone who has a resume that shows he actually has the executive skills and personality to lead and accomplish his Presidential To-Do list.  Mitt’s record in Massachusettes shows an ability to fight for conservative principles and policies in a highly liberal environment.  He is one of only 2 true conservatives running.  His experiences in the private sector and as CEO of the SLC Olympics unequivocally show that this is a man who understands what it takes to solve extremely difficult problems.  No one else running comes close to his track record of success in this area.

Obviously the important thing is to say what works for you.  Let us know about any great experiences you have had sharing your support of Mitt!

Here is a pic of Mitt at a rally in Orlando today.

Share on Facebook

Share This

John Mark Reynolds is awesome.

He recently wrote an article called “Give ‘Em Scorpions” Politics: Avoiding Rehoboam’s Folly. You need to read the whole thing. It talks about Solomon’s son Rehoboam who is largely to blame for the division between the tribe of Judah, and the rest of Israel.

Rehoboam broke the coalition between Israel and Judah, much the way the Huckabee’s campaign manager wants to break the house that Reagan built. It wasn’t enough for him to give us Bill Clinton, by running Ross Perot, but I digress.

Click here to read the whole thing.

…

If the old Reagan coalition is dissolved, then it will not be those who do the deed who suffer first, but millions more unborn children who might have been saved.

As I vote, and I will vote, let me vote for a person who can keep a coalition together and not break it up on its fault lines.

As I vote, pray God, let me be patient and accept slow change that the people can accept and not demand everything that will cost me everything.

As I vote, let me listen to older and wiser heads without becoming cynical and dropping out.

Let me avoid Rehoboam’s folly in the ballot box this year.

If you have no idea what he is talking about, read this article!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mike Huckabee has every right to think that we should use tax-payer-money to give tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigrants. However, if he thinks compassion should be the overriding principal of his political philosophy, he should join the Democratic Party. Compassion may be a hyphenated word that is attached to words that describe our political policy, but it is not the focus of our political beliefs and actions. We add another word after the hyphen.

Republicans think that we should FOCUS our compassion on the poor people overseas who OBAY THE LAW, and come hear the right way. Some republicans believe in compassion, but a lot of republicans think there should be limits to politicians trying to be compassionate with other people’s money.

Republicans balance their compassion with an effort to reward good behavior and sometimes to punish bad behavior. We believe in tough love, and a compassion that looks at problem in a way that comprehends the big picture. Republicans believe that giving compassion when only seeing the short term may create dependency and destroy the character that makes long term prosperity possible. Like the song says, you “have to be cruel to be kind in the right measure”.

Huckabee has every right to think he should be compassionate, and give tuition breaks to children of illegal aliens, but he does not have a right to call himself a republican while he does it. The name of the “party of misplaced compassion” starts with a “D”.

Huckabee has every right to say that it was good of him to increase state spending 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, but he can’t say that was good and call himself a republican. We have a big tent, but we have strong stakes that support that tent, that can’t be bent.

Huchabee might have been right to increase the number of state government workers by 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/2006). Democrats might be right. Maybe a big government is better than a small government, but why have two parties if both of them increase the size of government?

Romney on the other hand (along with others in the race) significantly decreased government workers in his state.

Huckabee  might have been right to have let the state’s debt to shoot up by almost $1 billion (according to Americans for tax Reform). Democrats might be right, perhaps you can spend more money than you have. We all know republicans haven’t done much better recently, but should we pick a guy that takes our hypocracy to a new level? Democrats might be right but why have two parties if one of them isn’t for balancing the budget? But he can’t make this argument as republican nominee. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Sure, there are some republicans who only care about abortion, and would vote for Huckabee over Hillary or Barak. But they are not a majority. For republicans to win we have to keep our coalition together. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are no more likely to keep spending down in Washington, or keep taxes down than Mike Huckabee. Infact we have never seen Hillary or Barak increase taxes directly, or increase spending, but we have 8 years of Huckabee to prove what he would do.

So people in the republican party who don’t really care about abortion, who are just in the republican party because they believe in small government will have no reason to vote for a republican in 2008.

To some small government libertarians, they think a true small government shouldn’t be powerful enough to stop abortions, or prostitution. They think government should be so small that it lets people do whatever they want. But they have to decide if their desire for less government intrusion in value issues is more important, or if their desire for a less government spending is more important. They have to choose between the republican and democratic party.

People who want America to be on the offensive in the War in Terror will have no reason to support Huckabee who thinks Bush is arrogant. Huckabe also wants to close Guantanamo, and didn’t even know what the NIE report was. At least Hillary and Obama knew what the NIE report was.

But I’m hurting your feelings. I am disagreeing with you, and you are mad at me, because I am criticizing you guy. All you care about is that your candidate goes to a Christian church like Huckabee. You would never support someone like Fred Thompson that doesn’t go to church that often. You could also never vote for someone who is from a “cult”. You are right. People like you are an important part of the republican coalition, but you are not the only part of the party. You may represent a majority of the republican party, but you do not represent the majority of the American people. And so if you want to win, you have to find a winning coalition.

If you send up a guy like Huckabee, against Barak Obama, you will get every vote from value voters. But those whose main issues are the war on terrorism and small government, will have no reason to vote for your guy over the first african american or first woman president. Besides, for those republicans who belong to the republican party because of our it’s “arrogant mentality” or small government viewpoint, will be able to vote for the democrats, because at least that side will have to stop throwing hand-grenades, and acting like adults. They will get a chance to run things, and will have to act like adults, and do much the same things that they hate Bush for doing.

Social conservatives make up an important part of the republican party, but they are not the only part. Just ask Jimmy Carter who actually had the guts to stay in the party of compassion.

Go join Jimmy Carter’s political party Mike. I don’t want you in mine. Its not that I don’t like you. Its just that I think the republican party should stand for something. Its not that I’m saying your wrong. You might be right, but you are not a republican.

Or we can agree with the Democratic party on every issue but abortion and gay marriage? Is that what we want? Will we win when republicans are the same as democrats? But there is a more important question: Is it right to agree with democrats about increasing taxes, increasing the size of government, and defining compasion in such a way that rewards bad behavior, gives tax breaks to children of illiganl immigrants and lets 1,033 convicted criminals out of jail in 8 years from a small state?

Look, I’m exagerating to make a point. I really don’t want people like Huckabee or you to leave the republican party. We need you, but you have to remember that you need people like me. Don’t nominate Huckabee and offend those who care deeply about crime, and being too “compassionate” to convicted criminals. I know he speaks your language, and seems a lot like a guy you work with, and he plays the bass guitar great, and you think it would be great to have a former preacher as president, but please don’t offend the members of the republican party who deeply care about keeping the government small, and taxes down. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush are all Baptist, and it would be great to have another evangelical but please don’t make me have to support a republican who calls the club for growth the club for greed.

We have two parties and those that call the club for growth the club for greed should not have an R by their name. Or else why even have two parties?

Share on Facebook

Share This