comMITTed to Romney!

From CNN:

The Situation Room
Former Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will be our guest Wednesday. He’s now a top supporter of Sen. John McCain and is often mentioned as a vice presidential candidate. Submit your video questions on the economy for Romney and we’ll have him answer some of them.

Share on Facebook

Share This

This news sadly comes only weeks after another prominent figure in American Politics Tim Russert died.

Tony Snow
June 1, 1955 - July 12, 2008

A Tribute From Brit Hume

Statement by The President

WASHINGTON, Jul 12, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend, Tony Snow. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Jill, and their children, Kendall, Robbie, and Kristi. The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character.
Tony was one of our Nation’s finest writers and commentators. He earned a loyal following with incisive radio and television broadcasts. He was a gifted speechwriter who served in my father’s Administration. And I was thrilled when he agreed to return to the White House to serve as my Press Secretary. It was a joy to watch Tony at the podium each day. He brought wit, grace, and a great love of country to his work. His colleagues will cherish memories of his energetic personality and relentless good humor.
All of us here at the White House will miss Tony, as will the millions of Americans he inspired with his brave struggle against cancer. One of the things that sustained Tony Snow was his faith - and Laura and I join people across our country in praying that this good man has now found comfort in the arms of his Creator.

SOURCE: White House Press Office

Share on Facebook

Share This

(CNN) — Mitt Romney’s message came through loud and clear to John McCain.

The Arizona senator joked Wednesday he got the impression Romney is interested in the No. 2 spot on the Republican presidential ticket after watching a recent interview with the former Massachusetts governor.

“I got that impression from him watching his interview last night, I got that impression,” McCain said laughing on his campaign plane in New Hampshire. (Watch McCain’s comments on Romney)

The comments follow Romney’s interview with Fox News Tuesday night, during which the former presidential candidate said he’d be honored to serve alongside McCain.

“I think any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included,” Romney said. “Of course this is a nation which needs strong leadership. And if the nominee of our party asked you to serve with him, anybody would be honored to receive that call … and to accept it, of course.”

McCain refused to hint at just how seriously his campaign is considering Romney for the ticket, though reports earlier this week said some aides to President Bush are pushing the idea of a McCain-Romney ticket, given the Massachusetts Republican’s credentials with respect to economic issues.

But McCain and Romney were bitter opponents earlier this year in the Republican presidential race, and the two men have butted heads for several years. Romney also categorically ruled out being McCain’s running mate in January, saying “I’m not going to be any vice president to John McCain either, that’s not going to happen.”

McCain acknowledged he and Romney were in a tough fight for the party’s nomination, but suggested the two have put their differences behind them.

“The lesson in politics is that you go forward, not back and so I defend the fact that it was a spirited and tough campaign but the fact is that once it’s over, we share…the same principles and values of conservative Republicans,” he said on his campaign bus later Wednesday.

McCain also said it’s not necessary for a presidential candidate to be personally close to his or her running mate.

“I don’t think you have a personal relationship, but you have to have a comfortable, professional relationship.”

– CNN’s Alex Mooney and Alexander Marquardt

Share on Facebook

Share This

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

H/T: Hotair and a tip from a friend of mine

First, here’s Grahamnesty playing dumb under an onslaught of facts from Sean Hannity and attacking Romney for allegedly supporting a timeline for surrender.

Putting that clip together with this link from Time Magazine from back in September, however, makes me think that perhaps Grahamnesty was just confused and projecting onto Romney his own desire and advocacy for a timeline to surrender.

Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2007
Lindsey Graham’s Iraq Deadline
By Michael Duffy/Washington

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a pivotal Republican vote in the U.S. Senate on Iraq policy, is willing to give the government of Iraq until Christmas to get its act together.

But not much more.

Graham told TIME Wednesday that the Iraqi leaders have 90 days to start resolving their political differences with real legislative agreements or face a change in strategy by the U.S. “If they can’t do it in 90 days,” he said, “it means the major players don’t want to.”
Graham, who has been to Iraq nearly a dozen times, including spending 11 days in August on duty as a reserve Air Force officer, pointed out that Washington has spent the last few weeks debating Iraq policy and emerged with a commitment to continuing the surge through the spring. That commitment, he said, is the green light for the Iraqis to finally take action on resolving their disagreements.

But Graham, who is up for re-election in 2008, said he will not wait forever. “If they can’t pull it together in the next 90 days,” he said, “I don’t think they are ever gonna do it.” He followed that prediction with a promise: “If they don’t deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote.”

Graham said he believed the “conditions are ripe” for political deals between factions on de-Baathification, which would ease the way for participation of Sunni tribes in local Iraqi politics, and on the holding of local elections, which would allow Sunnis to take a greater role in the Shia-dominated country.

Graham first hinted at a 90-day clock in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee September 19. In his comments before that panel, he merely predicted the world would see progress by Baghdad in the next 90 days.

In his conversation with TIME, he held out a stick in the event that progress does not materialize. Said Graham: “We’ve won the day here politically, to give them the infrastructure they need to do this. It’s been missing up until now. I am vocally saying it’s up to [the Iraqis] to deliver. We’ve done our part.”

Though he would not elaborate on what kind of plan he would push if the Iraqis fail to meet the deadline, Graham did say a change in strategy would be warranted. “If they can’t do it by the end of the year,” he said, “how do you justify a continued presence?”

In response to Graham’s comments, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday, “The President urged the Iraqi government to make progress on the political front in his meeting with Maliki yesterday. The President has also said that Petraeus and Crocker will report back in March, when they will be able to make a further assessment.”

Do McCandidate and his lap dog Grahamnesty really think that Republicans are this stupid?

By way of contrast, here’s the link to Mitt’s interview with Wolf Blitzer today. Note the good nature and humor with which he responds to McCain’s lies. Night and Day.

Share on Facebook

Share This

H/T: K-Lo at National Review’s “The Corner”

Joining Time Magazine and the NYTimes, even the MSM cannot cover up and carry water for McCandidate on this one.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/mccains_conversation_changer_a.html

POSTED BY: MICHAEL SCHERER

TIME/CNN

Kudos to Time/CNN on a fine article that calls out “Open Borders” McCain on his shabby and transparent attempt to change the national political conversation back to national security, his only area of strength, from the economy, where Mitt Romney has been kicking his a**!

That this despicable little man would use the men and women in our military, in harm’s way, as political pawns, to keep his limping campaign alive for another week or so, by trying to change the subject back to the war in Iraq, is an indication of moral bankruptcy. Anyone this desperate for political power is potentially dangerous, because it tells me that he will “push the envelope” ethically to achieve his ends.

Nice try, Mr. McCain, but it’s not going to work.

I must admit I am surprised that a member-in-good-standing of the MSM would nail McCain as TIME/CNN just did, but I guess we should be grateful that they didn’t carry McCain’s water on this one and very admirably stepped up to the plate and hit it out of the park.

Someone said just recently that politics is a “blood sport,” but McCain has crossed a bright line on this one. No wonder that Bill Clinton said that McCain and his wife “are very close.” Their tactics are remarkably similar. Just one more reason to hope the good citizens of Florida do their part to hasten this man’s political departure.

~~John Cronin~~

McCain wants the Florida primary to be an election about national security, his best issue. But until Saturday, the contest was humming along as an election more about the economy, Mitt Romney’s best issue. So McCain went on the attack Saturday, lashing out at Romney by accusing him of having once wanted to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Romney demanded an apology from McCain, which seemed to simply delight McCain, since he used it to escalate the war of words even higher. “I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform,” McCain said. Then his campaign started sending out a blizzard of emails, including comments from former CIA director James Woolsey knocking Romney’s support for the war.

To review: In the course of a few hours, McCain said that Romney once wanted to set a date to withdraw from Iraq, accused him of working on the same side as Hillary Clinton in the Iraq debate, and accused him of disrespecting American servicemen and women. Is any of this true? Not that much.

But even if Romney had explicitly supported withdrawal, what exactly does McCain mean by demanding that Romney apologize to American troops? Is McCain suggesting than any American who opposed the surge was somehow not supporting American troops? Is he saying that it is unpatriotic to debate American policy in Iraq? It sure sounds like it. And it is an unbecoming posture for McCain, who has been boasting in recent days about the “respectful debate” he would have with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama should he win the nomination.

[Editor's Note: Emphasis mine]

Share on Facebook

Share This

I just got dish, and am now exposed to more stupidity than I can handle.

I have heard many talking heads explain that the reason that Mitt Romney is going to win Nevada is because of the “large” LDS population in Nevada. One bimbo on CNN breathlessly explained that you just have to admit that it is a large explanation of why he is doing well out there that there is no denying it.

This from the National Review: http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Worried [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I am noticing that the media is gearing up to discount Romney’s win in Nevada due to the higher numbers of Mormons in that state. So I’m no expert in statistics, but Mormons make up around 7% of the population in Nevada and from what I can tell the evangelical number is between 30-35%. How can they even attempt such spin? I have really been resisting the conspiracy stuff when it comes to Romney and the media but I don’t know if I can hold out much longer.

Thank you for sticking up for Romney while so many around you try to tear him down. I appreciate it.

Signed,
a homeschooler in Iowa that didn’t caucus for Huckabee

01/19 08:59 AM

What does this say about the media that they are too stupid and or lazy to do a simple 2 second google search and look into the facts that might support or hinder the arguments they are trying to make? For instance if you Google Nevada, the first website you find will tell you this:

The religious affiliations of the people of Nevada are:

• Christian – 78%
  • Protestant – 34%
    • Baptist – 15%
    • Methodist – 6%
    • Lutheran – 3%
    • Other Protestant – 11%
  • Roman Catholic – 44%
  • Latter-day Saint – 12%
  • Other Christian – 1%
• Jewish – 1%
• Other Religions – 1%
• Non-Religious – 20%

It is obvious that we need to take up a collection. Perhaps we can buy the people over at CNN a computer, and pay the monthly service fee for the internet, so they can do some of this research themselves.

The numbers are different than the numbers from the person who sent the e-mail to National Review. But this fact remains no matter which numbers you use: There are half as many people who would vote for Romney than Huckabee if they voted by religion.

UPDATE: The wikipedia numbers said “needs citation” and so I would not trust them as facts. Do you have access to some good numbers about Nevada?

UPDATE #2: Just watching “Morning Joe on Saturday” and the bimbo said, “Romney will win Nevada because of the large number of Mormons there.”

COME ON! CAN WE GET ANY MORE STUPID?

It has NOTHING to do with the issues?

UPDATE #3: According to this there are 169,714 LDS people in Nevada. According to this there are 2.6 million people in Nevada. That means 6.5% of the population is LDS. So 35% of Nevada is Evangelical. That is 5.4 times the number of LDS people in Nevada. So keep THESE FACTS in mind every time you hear CNN tell you the only reason Romney one Nevada…

UPDATE #4

I’ve already seen headlines at MSN.com that say Romney gets the Mormon vote. I wonder if this is the MSM’s attempt to further rile up Evangelicals in hopes of getting MSM’s favoite RINO–Mike Huckabee–more votes in future elections.

But here are the facts.

Mitt got 94% of the vote in Nevada.

That means he did worse than Bush in 2004 in the general election were “W” got 95% of the Mormon vote in the entire country.

Bush isn’t Mormon. Mormons like conservatives. Romney’s a conservative.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1704390,00.html

By: Michael Duffy and Karen Tumulty

Whenever I am tempted to cool my anti-MSM rhetoric, along comes a screed like this one from our friends over at TIME/CNN. They describe Gov. Romney as a “strange, inauthentic collection of market research, body parts and DNA……assembled in a lab by the party’s mad scientists.”

I am sure they would spin this as a spoof of MR, or as political satire that they wouldn’t expect those of us who live in fly over country to fully appreciate, but I view it as some of the last gasps of the “Dinosaur Media” as it slinks into oblivion. What does this kind of writing say to the voters of Wyoming and Michigan who just propelled “the Frankenstein monster of the 2008 Republican sweepstakes” to sweeping victories in their primaries? No wonder the main use of their publications now is to wrap fish and to line the bottoms of birdcages.

Until he pulled into his home state of Michigan, Willard Mitt Romney was the Frankenstein monster of the 2008 Republican sweepstakes. The former Massachusetts governor at times seemed less like a real person than a strange, inauthentic collection of market research, body parts and DNA that had been borrowed from past GOP campaigns and assembled in a lab by the party’s mad scientists. Romney had the overpowering optimism of Ronald Reagan, the family values of Dan Quayle, the hair and handsome looks of Jack Kemp and the manners of George H.W. Bush. On paper, each piece of the Romney contraption was designed to appeal to a different part of the scattered GOP coalition. But the overall formula wasn’t working as expected. Romney placed second in Iowa and New Hampshire, despite pouring millions of his own fortune into the race. His rivals among the other candidates neither liked nor respected him, and that dynamic was beginning to show up in televised debates. Michigan would be where he regained his footing — or just got buried.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Click Here

Share on Facebook

Share This

Be sure to set those Tivo’s, DVR’s, and VCR’s to make sure that you don’t miss the interview.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Governor Romney has his hands full in Michigan for sure. It will be an uphill battle there. However, I am confident he can make it happen there. I also have the confidence that the people of Michigan are thinking people and most are not lemmings.

Rush Limbaugh is not a talk show host I ever hear because of work constraints, but I have been told he refers to Huckabee supporters as the typical Democrat “identity voter” (lemming) — voters who vote for someone because they are a woman or because they are African American, evangelical, etc. It is just amazing that there so many lemmings in this nation.

So pro-Huckabee organizers say they are focusing their entire effort on turning out evangelical church goers. They plan to call every evangelical pastor in the state over the next few days. Those ministers can’t endorse any candidate from the pulpit — but they can tell their parishioners that “it’s their Christian duty,” to turn out on primary day, said Glenn. “And we know who they’ll be voting for.”

To help drive that message home, thousands of volunteers will be dropping leaflets and waving signs in church parking lots across Michigan this Sunday. Glenn says there will also be several news conferences across the state through the January 15 vote featuring groups of pastors announcing their personal support for Huckabee, an organized wave of callers into Michigan’s Christian radio stations, and phone trees targeting the state’s largest churches from within.

Huckabee sows seeds to steal Michigan from Romney — By Rebecca Sinderbrand — CNN Washington Bureau

Keep in mind that in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Governor Romney still got a large number of evangelicals to vote for him. Obviously, having all the preachers and Democrats in Michigan engaged in a major whisper campaign is a formidable obstacle for Governor Romney.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

This story goes right to what I wrote last night as “Financial Viability of Repbulicans” — Okay, let’s say Giuliani has $7 million on hand for the primaries (see below). That will last him about 4 days in the major primary states, his main strategic focus. He is effectively done. I seriously doubt he has raised any big cash since December 31st as nobody has even been thinking about Giuliani. Here is the brief article from CNN:

TOP GIULIANI STAFFERS GO WITHOUT PAY — CNN

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) — CNN has learned that top staff members of Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign were asked to work without pay for the month of January, and perhaps longer, so that campaign resources could be focused on the Florida Republican presidential primary.

Two sources in the campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted the campaign was not in dire financial straits. A third campaign source, however, said “things are starting to get tight” and that “it was more telling than asking” the senior staff to forgo paychecks beginning the first of the year.

Another source disagreed, saying it was a “voluntary” move by senior staff members “so all of our resources could be targeted toward Florida…Our campaign is not living hand to mouth right now…”

The officials did not immediately provide a number of staffers who were subject to the new policy. Nor would campaign officials disclose the amount of money the campaign had in the bank.

UPDATE: The Giuliani campaign reports as of December 31 it has $12.7 million cash on hand, of which over $7 million can be used for the primary contests.

My favorite quote from above? This one ——-> “Our campaign is not living hand to mouth right now…” If that were true, wouldn’t you NOT mention it? Wouldn’t you say something like, “We have plenty of money in the bank for the long haul and to execute our 30-state strategy.”? You would say that if that were the case. It is not. The simple, stark truth is Giuliani has not been able to compete in any of the early states for lack of money. He has had to preserve ALL his money for Florida. Even if he does well in Florida, it will be at the expense of most, if not all, of his treasure. Then what? Giuliani has a choice. He either goes all out for Florida, thereby blowing the wad, or he conserves the cash through Florida, raise some money, and end up with say $5 million (best) for the 28+ big states of February 5th. $5 million would last him about one day in 28+ states. What does Giuliani have? Not a lot of options.

Say what you want about any of the other four Republicans, their messages, and Governor Romney’s message (which is by far the most substantive and conservative of all) — They are all effectively out of money. Okay, they each might win a state (probably not Fred), but then what? When and where are any of the four of them going to raise serious money fast? I am not a prognosticator and great predictor, by any stretch, but Governor Romney’s competitors are running on fumes. He is not.

Great tip from reader SGS ——-> Marc Ambinder on Giuliani running on fumes

See related story here ——–> POLITICO

However, we need to give him more juice to finish them off down the stretch. If you want to help, please contribute to his campaign.

~ Vic

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE HERE

Share on Facebook

Share This

Following are results of a CNN exit poll conducted in New Hampshire Tuesday among 1,520 voters. Though these results reflect the fact that the majority of voters chose McCain and Romney, there are some very interesting differences, especially where Romney ended ahead of the winner, McCain:

Republican Voters (”Vote by party ID” — excludes independents) chose:

MR — 35%
JM — 34%
MH — 13%
RG — 10%
.
.
All voters chose their candidate as the “Strongest Leader” — This measures the strength of the voters’ choice (in other words, which candidate got the most votes in this category by comparison to the others?):

MR — 86%
MH — 84%
JM — 81%
RG — 55%
.
.
Voters of New Hampshire that strongly oppose civil unions:

MR — 37%
JM — 32%
MH — 11%
RG — 6%
.
.
Very worried about Terrorism:

MR — 39%
JM — 33%
MH — 12%
RG — 10%
.
.
Voters that think the new President should be more conservative than President Bush:

MR — 35%
JM — 31%
MH — 13%
RP — 10%
.
.
The following result was stunning to me. John McCain, the military man came in third! Even McCain supporters are less sold on McCain by comparison to the other voters. And Giuliani 4th at 58%? What about his “9/11″ credentials?
All voters chose their candidate as the “Best Commander in Chief” — This measures the strength of the voters’ choice (in other words, which candidate got the most votes in this category by comparison to the others?):

MR — 94%
MH — 89%
JM — 78%
RG — 58%
.
.
Conservative Voters chose:

MR — 38%
JM — 30%
MH — 12%
RG — 8%
.
.

Check the gap here between Governors Romney and Huckabee:

Very Conservative Voters chose:

MR — 43%
MH — 19%
JM — 18%
RP — 7%
.
.
Voters that think this candidate shares their values:

MR — 38%
MH — 22%
JM — 16%
RP — 12%

See link in the opening paragraph for many more results. These are but few of many very interesting numbers. Governor Romney was the strongest candidate in many of the voters’ minds.

~ Vic

SMALL DOLLARS COUNT BIG — Please Contribute Here to Governor Romney’s Campaign

Share on Facebook

Share This

Here I am again to report on events later in the day January 2 in Urbandale and at the night’s Romney rally.

A Brief Chat with Doug Gross

Toward the end of the afternoon I was privileged to sit down for a few minutes with Doug Gross, Mitt’s Iowa chair.

He’d told the troops in a mid-day rally session that he met Mitt in April of ‘06, and was impressed that Mitt had the whole package. He told me in our interview that for him, the “whole package” meant Mitt had “leadership, values, an ability to get things done and executive experience.” Doug helped the campaign organize for the Ames straw poll, and when I asked him to compare the caucuses with the straw poll, and he said “caucuses are like a straw poll on steroids,” with the need to make sure about “ten times” the number of people show up in caucus locations throughout the state. The caucuses, though, don’t actually select delegates for Iowa. As Doug explained, the voters express a preference for a candidate in the caucuses, but delegates aren’t chosen until June of 2008, when they’re pledged to support the voters’ preference. I asked Doug as we closed what his experiences with Mitt have shown him in the 18 plus months they’ve worked together. He responded that in a campaign “any candidate’s character is tested; Mitt always acts professionally, above board and ethically.” Given the attacks Mitt has endured, that’s saying a lot. Doug, thanks for taking the time!

Pix from the Rally

Mitt’s supporters made their way to a rally at about 7:30 local time. The press was very well represented, with, I’d estimate, 20-30 different cameras set up in a corner of the large room on a platform. Here’s a shot of the size of the relative side of the room. The press is hard to see, but it’s to the right.

I made my way to the left of the stage and stood next to a lone cameraman from C-SPAN. Doug Gross welcomed the crowd from the end of a catwalk extending from the main stage, and inspired confidence that Mitt was, in fact, going to be the Republican nominee and our next president. Doug gave way to Dan Jansen, the Olympic speed skater, who recounted how he’d met Mitt before the ‘02 Olympics and knew Mitt was something special. Dan then ceded the stage to Mitt and Ann. Ann expressed her appreciation and love for the people of Iowa. She then introduced the Main Man. I was able to get a few shots of him as the night went on.

Here’s one as Mitt addressed the crowd from the catwalk:

Mitt’s speech covered his bases: education, overwhelming militant jihadists, and his confidence that the unified American spirit can overcome the challenges we face. He gave Dan as an example of dogged determination that had inspired Mitt, saying “it wasn’t because America had won a gold medal, that had happened before,” but was inspiring because Dan had dedicated himself and finally attained his goal at being the best in the world at something after things had gone wrong in three prior Olympic games. Mitt then gave a tidbit I’d not heard him relate before; he talked about Derek Parra, the speed skater in the ‘02 Olympics that had converted from rollerblading in LA, and found he was fast. Ultimately he won a gold in Salt Lake. When Derek had been asked what his favorite Olympic moment was, it wasn’t winning the gold, but being one of the few athletes chosen to represent America by carrying into the opening ceremonies the flag that had flown over the World Trade Center on September 11. Here’s a link to a story where Derek tells it in his own words. I was in the crowd that night in Salt Lake, and Mitt’s account was absolutely correct. Instead of applause, the crowd, tens of thousands strong, fell reverently silent. At that moment the world paid tribute to the victims of those attacks. Mitt recalled the event with reverence.

Mitt’s speech was a great one. At one point he quoted Yogi Berra as saying he didn’t like making predictions where the future was concerned, but he foresaw a good result in Iowa tomorrow night. I’ve got to say I’m feeling it too.

After the speech he and Ann mingled with some folks in the crowd, before they were whisked away, I believe to be on Fox. Here are a few shots of Mitt mixing it up:

Some CNN Before Blogging

I’m not sure if many of you caught this, but David Gergen was on with Anderson Cooper tonight, along with Gloria Borger. Both Gergen and Borger made some pretty frank statements about Huckabee not seeming “ready,” and that Huckabee has lost his momentum. It confirms what some, including myself, have observed: as the limelight has shown on Huckabee for his 15 minutes of fame, he’s seemed to wilt and do strange things. Here’s the link to the transcript on CNN’s website. After comments that Rudy’s lack of attention to Iowa was certainly hurting, and that McCain will still suffer for his position on immigration, Gergen and Borger shared the following exchange with Cooper (from CNN’s preliminary transcript):

“GERGEN: I think Huckabee had a real chance to take off. And it’s not that he peaked too early, but that once attention turned to him, he started doing strange things.

In first place, his responses to the Bhutto assassination, you know, what we ought to do about Bhutto is we ought to build a fence between us and Mexico. It was like, “What?” He’s not been in the loop on a lot of foreign policy questions.

I mean, to run off and do, to start that ad and going to Arkansas and make an ad and then pull the ad and then show it to the press, to guffaws on the reporters. There’s been a weirdness factor here that I think has really startled a lot of reporters, and I think it’s probably going to hurt him with a lot of the voters.

BORGER: He doesn’t seem ready.

COOPER: Not ready for prime time?

BORGER: Not really.

COOPER: Gloria Borger, appreciate it. David Gergen, as well. Thanks very much.”

Pretty stark words from Gergen, nominally a Republican and a former Clinton advisor, and Borger.

Share on Facebook

Share This