Browse > Home / Archive by category 'CNN'

| Subcribe via RSS

***Ads Do Not Necessarily Represent The Opinions of the Staff of comMITTed to Romney***

***Support comMITTed to Romney by visiting our sponsors***

Profile Image of Craig Edwards
Craig Edwards

Romney talks 2012 (politicalticker)

March 31st, 2009 | No Comments | Posted in 2012 Election, CNN, Media Appearances

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — still among the most visible faces in the Republican Party — isn’t ruling out another White House run in 2012.

“I love what Yogi Berra said — I can’t get it exactly right, but it’s something like this: ‘I don’t like forecasting, particularly if the future is involved,’” said Romney on CNN’s American Morning.

Romney’s continued fundraising prowess, active political action committee, and presence on the cable news circuit have led many political observers to speculate he is laying the groundwork for another presidential run.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Gov. Mitt Romney on Larry King Live - Transcript

March 20th, 2009 | 6 Comments | Posted in CNN, Interview, Larry King, Larry King Live, Mitt Romney

Here’sssssssssssssss Romney:

Larry King: Some are seeing a problem with the president doing the “Tonight Show,” the first sitting president ever to do a late-evening [talk] show. Do you have a problem with it?

Mitt Romney: Well, this probably isn’t the right time for it. I line up with Warren Buffett on this. I prefer to see the president focusing all of his time and energy on the economy.

King: That’s what he was talking about.

Romney: He is talking about it. He’s out doing a rally in California. He’s posing for the cover of magazines and doing a number of things. He’s putting together a health care plan, putting together a cap and trade program, a lot of things on the agenda.

And frankly, if you’re doing too many things, a couple of important things can slip by. And one of them that slipped by was the AIG legislation that allowed AIG executives to get these bonuses. It was put in a specific bill.

King: Are you as angered over this AIG thing as probably 90 percent of the public?

Romney: Yes, my view is that this is really the fault of two parties. One, the members of our government that weren’t paying attention, at best. That’s the most favorable way to characterize it. …

The other, of course, is the folks at AIG. And you ask yourself, why couldn’t they have done what other enterprises do that get in trouble, which is people come together; they talk about the sacrifice they are going to make to try and keep the enterprise going. But these guys seemed not to be willing to do that. …

This is a president who is learning on the fly. He’s never turned anything around before. He hasn’t had the experience of leading a nation or a business or a state in trouble. And the first rule I can tell him is focus, focus, focus.

King: How do you account for the fact that his popularity stays high?

Romney: I know that people recognize that this is a man who is a decent fellow. He’s intelligent. He’s well-intentioned. He’s just not experienced in the matters that we’re dealing with right now.

King: The latest polls say you are the leader to get the party’s nomination the next time around. Others say it’s Rush Limbaugh leading the party. Is he the head of your party?

Romney: He’s a very powerful voice among conservatives. And I listen to him. A lot of other people listen to him. He’s not a spokesman for the party, of course. But we don’t have one spokesman right now.

Don’t Miss
Romney picked as GOP front-runner in 2012
King: You are apparently [leading] in recent polls …

Romney: Kind of early, don’t you think?

King: Are you going to run again?

Romney: I can’t imagine making that decision at this point.

King: But you’re going to run again.

Romney: No, I don’t think [so]. I’m glad that you’re so insistent.

King: What did you make of Gov. [Sarah] Palin?

Romney: Boy, she was able to connect with our party in a very powerful way, ignite a lot of enthusiasm and excitement. That kind of political skill is rare. I hadn’t met her before the announcement that she was going to be our VP nominee.

And I thought, boy, she’s going to have a tough time up there on the stage at the Republican convention. Was I wrong. She got out there and just lit the place up.

King: The House today passed a measure to slap a hefty tax on big employee bonuses paid by companies getting federal bail outs. Good idea?

Romney: Well, look, everybody is mad at AIG and their executives for doing what they did. But to suggest that this is not the fault of the people in Congress who passed the specific measure allowing them to take these bonuses is a diversionary tactic and wrong. You don’t have a government take punitive action against a small group of people. Frankly, it’s unconstitutional, in my view.

King: Former President Bush said he’s not going to spend anytime criticizing Obama. He says he deserves silence. However, former Vice President [Dick] Cheney is taking a very different tact, charging that he’s making choices which would make us vulnerable for another attack. Which way do you go here?

Romney: Well, I think there’s a standard which is applied to former presidents, and that standard is that they have had their time on the stage and it’s best for them to step aside and let the new president have his or her chance. I think President Bush is doing the right thing.

King: Do you think we’re more vulnerable to an attack?

Romney: I think if we’re going to release the detainees that are in Guantanamo and put them out either in our own prisons or at prisons in nations that are going to release them, that will make us less secure. … I’m glad that President Obama decided to pull back on his original plans to immediately bring our troops home from Iraq. We’re succeeding there. He’s decided to go a little more slowly. … That’s the right course, and I appreciate that.

King: Do you have faith in American business?

Romney: Yes. … Every job we have that isn’t working for [the] government comes because somebody had an idea and began a business. Small business people, big business people, they’re just American citizens who took a risk, and some of them find the chance to make that risk became positive and generate jobs and income. That’s a great thing.

King: What about when business goofs?

Romney: To err is human and to make bad decisions is also human. You’ve seen some very bad characters. But whether that’s an executive or a basketball player or a politician, it’s throughout every society I know of. … I’m not going to be taking my time taking pot shots at the entire profession of business or any other profession in this country. Except maybe lawyers — I’m kidding.

King: Your wife has multiple sclerosis, a disease some scientists think will be cured through stem cell research. How is she doing?

Romney: She’s doing terrifically well. She’s riding horses on a regular basis. And she’s one of the few that has had very little progression from the disease. So I’m pleased and hopeful.

King: Do you support the stem cell thing?

Romney: I support stem cell research. I do not support creating new embryos for the purpose of taking away the life of that embryo, and taking stem cells from those embryos.

King: Do you think we’re going to cure MS?

Romney: I sure hope so. I think eventually we’ll be curing most of the major diseases we know during our lifetimes.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , , ,

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Governor Romney on CNN Late Edition with Wold Blitzer

January 4th, 2009 | 5 Comments | Posted in CNN, CNN Late Edition, Mitt Romney, Wolf Blitzer

HT: CQ Politics

BLITZER: And welcome back to LATE EDITION. I’m Wolf Blitzer in Washington. For my next guest, a precarious situation in the U.S. automobile industry is certainly a family affair. The former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s father led American Motors back in the 1950s. Some have suggested that Governor Romney would be a good choice, by the way, to spearhead the industry’s recovery, to in effect become the car czar. We’re going to talk about that, the economy, and a lot more. The governor is joining us from Salt Lake City.

But first, I want to get your reaction, Governor Romney, to what’s happening in the Middle East right now. Are you with the Israelis? Are you with the Palestinians right now? Where do you see this situation unfolding?

ROMNEY: Well, you look at the — their current circumstances in Gaza, and you say to yourself, why in the world did Israel allow the rockets to be blasted into Israel year after year, 6,400 rockets shot into Israel without real military response?

From the very beginning, there should have been response to say this is unacceptable. Hamas was very clearly not a government intent on helping their people. When sovereignty was give on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, they didn’t build roads, they didn’t build hospitals, they didn’t build schools or businesses. Instead, they bought rockets, millions and millions of dollars worth of rockets. They were intent on destroying Israel. And in a circumstance like that, Israel has no choice but to take military action. They’re taking it now. It’s terribly unfortunate. But the cause of this is the constant attack over the last several years by Hamas.

BLITZER: The Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus on Friday railed against Barack Obama , and he said this. I’m going to play the little clip and translation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KHALED MESHAAL, HAMAS LEADER (through translator): Mr. Obama, your beginning is not good. You got involved and you had a statement regarding the issue of Mumbai, but you would not get involved and say anything about the enemy’s crime against Gaza. Enough of your double standards, oh, western nations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you have confidence that the incoming president is, from your perspective, going to do the right thing as far as the Middle East is concerned?

ROMNEY: I believe that Barack Obama is firmly behind Israel’s right to protect itself. He said so time and time again in debates as well as in statements since his election. The United States is committed to doing what’s right here. This is obviously a big question for a lot of countries because they look at the opportunity to trade with over a billion Muslims, many of them angry with regards to the Palestinian effort. But, in fact, Israel is in the right in this circumstance. They are an independent nation. They’ve been attacked time and time again by Hamas. And an independent nation has a right to protect itself against this kind of attack.

BLITZER: What do you think of this national security team that he’s putting together, the president-elect, with Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, Jim Jones, the retired U.S. marine corps commandant, the national security adviser, and holding onto Robert Gates as defense secretary?

ROMNEY: I think you have to be pretty encouraged. If you’re a conservative, obviously conservatives have had some difficulty with Hillary Clinton over the years, but she does have experience and she has some perspective with regards to foreign policy that I think will be useful. And General Jones and of course continuing with Secretary Gates is very, very encouraging. These are people who have been tested time and time again. I don’t think you’re going to see a dramatic departure from the historic commitment that we have to peace and prosperity in the world and the cause of democracy.

BLITZER: He’s talking about a $750 billion economic stimulus package. He wants it to be passed as soon as possible. It’s unclear if whether it can be passed before he’s inaugurated on January 20th. What do you think about this proposal?

ROMNEY: Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let’s not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects.

That would be wrong. You’ll see Republicans fight that tooth and nail if that happens. Let’s do what’s right for the economy, and let’s not do what’s a political expedient move.

BLITZER: The economic bailout that the president approved for Chrysler and for General Motors just a couple of weeks or so ago, you’re not thrilled by that, are you?

ROMNEY: No. I think we lost an opportunity there, and maybe we can get the opportunity again in the next several months. But frankly, the U.S. auto industry, the domestic manufacturers, have every reason to thrive and to succeed in this country. There’s no reason for them to continue to lose share as they have over the past 20 years, if they are restructured. And if the excessive costs which they have in health care, in retiree benefits, in work rules, and in labor rates, if those things are brought in line with the foreign manufacturers who make cars here in the U.S., if they’re brought in line, the domestic manufacturers can succeed.

But we had the opportunity to do that, to bring the costs in line, the UAW balked, the industry balked, managers balked in the various company, and the job didn’t get done. And just bailing them out and funding a continuation of the historic loss of market share is not good for the industry long term. I want this industry to thrive and grow, and it can.

BLITZER: Do you think that they can come up with a plan, the auto industry, by the end of March, which they’re supposed to do, now that they’ve been given this lifeline?

ROMNEY: Well, it doesn’t take very long to come up with a plan. The answer for what’s necessary for the industry is pretty straightforward. The question is whether management and the unions will actually take the necessary action. And the only way that they’re going do that is if they realize they don’t have any alternative. And when government is willing to write checks and became them out and continue the status quo, they’re just funding a continuation of the decline of the industry.

You’re going to have to stand up to the UAW and to management and say, these are the changes that have to happen, and if you do these things, we’ll give you the financial relief you need, and if you don’t, we’re not going to help you at all. And that’s the only kind of leverage I think that’s going to get the UAW and management to take the necessary action.

BLITZER: You said you liked the president-elect’s national security team he’s putting together. What do you think about his economic team?

ROMNEY: You know, there are some very good people there. I’m very pleased with the person that’s going to be running Treasury. He’s a capable, experienced individual, having run the Federal Reserve or been chief of the Federal Reserve in New York. I’m very hopeful.

ROMNEY: Look, this is a time when we’re all hopeful for the president-elect. He was kind enough to call our home when my wife was ill, and he said that he and Michelle had my wife in their prayers, and I said, Mr. President-elect, Ann and I have you in our prayers. And we do.

All Americans — Republicans, Democrats, Independents — want to see this president successful. He’s chosen good people. If they do the right thing and put politics to the side and instead focus on what’s right for the nation at such a critical time, we’re all going to be behind him.

BLITZER: I notice in “The Wall Street Journal” on December 27th they ask you for your 2009 resolutions. Among your professional resolution, you said this, “I want to help restore balance in Washington. Our democracy needs two strong parties if we are to deal effectively with the challenges our nation faces.”

On a personal note, you said stop wearing a suit and tie to bed, which was very cute. But let’s talk a little bit about the Republican Party right now in opposition. Who is the leader right now of the Republican Party?

ROMNEY: Well, the great thing about our party right now is there’s no one leader. We have voices from Washington as well as across the nation. You just heard from Governor Sanford, but there are other great governors across the country that are making a real difference, Haley Barbour , Bobby Jindal . I won’t go through the whole list, but you’ve got quite a group of Republican governors and then of course in the Senate and the House, you’ve got strong voices.

And we’ll be listening to those voices. Senator McCain continues to have an influence in the party of significance. And I think you’re going to find that we will, as a party, represent a strong and viable pathway for America to strengthen our economy. That’s issue number one right now, is to get this economy going again, not with old political favors being paid back and earmarks being applied but, instead, by taking action to reduce taxes on the American people and on American business.

BLITZER: Who’s your choice to be the next chairman of the Republican National Committee?

ROMNEY: You know, I haven’t weighed in on that, Wolf. There are several good people who are running. In some respects, I’d hope for a very visible and prominent name to step forward. But that hasn’t happened to date. I don’t think it’s likely to at this stage, but there’s some folks who have been running the state parties and their respective states and some have also been running the national republican committee already.

So, among them, I think you’ll find that the committee chooses someone who can guide our party at a critical time. But really, I think the most powerful voices of the party are going to be elected officials in the Senate, in the House, and in governors’ offices.

BLITZER: You’d probably be a pretty good candidate if you wanted to throw your hat in the ring. Is that something you’re interested in doing?

ROMNEY: Not interested in that race, thanks. I’m going to continue to fight for electing conservative Republicans across the nation. I’m going to do that by fund raising, by giving speeches, by writing op-eds, doing whatever I can to talk about the need to have a strong second party in this country and balancing the overwhelming lead that the Democrats have in Washington right now.

BLITZER: Governor Romney, happy new year to you and your family. Thanks very much for joining us.

ROMNEY: Thanks, Wolf. Good to be with you.

Share on Facebook

Tags: , , ,

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Send Questions for Mitt Romney

July 15th, 2008 | 2 Comments | Posted in CNN, Mitt Romney, Q&A, The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer

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

Tags: , , , ,

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Former White House Spokesman Tony Snow, Dead at 53

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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Profile Image of Rusty
Rusty

McCain: Romney seems interested in V.P spot

 

(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

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

The 900-Pound Gorilla — RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY

Flag Waving

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

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Like shooting fish in a barrel…Lindsay Graham

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

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Jeff Toobin, CNN: “He’s Lying”

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

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

McCain’s Conversation Changer: A Misleading Low Blow

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

Profile Image of Mike Laub
Mike Laub

CNN, Fox News, and others explain Nevada

January 19th, 2008 | 22 Comments | Posted in CNN, Fox News, Mitt Romney, Nevada, Politics, Religion

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

The religious affiliations of the people of Nevada are:

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

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

Do I Detect A Whiff Of Sarcasm?

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

CAN THE ECONOMY SAVE MITT ROMNEY?

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

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Romney on Larry King Live Last Night

January 15th, 2008 | 1 Comment | Posted in CNN, Interview, Interviews, Larry King, Larry King Live, Mitt Romney

Click Here
Mitt Romney on Larry King Live

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Governor Mitt Romney on Larry King Live Tonight 9PM Eastern

Larry King Live
Romney on Larry King Live
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

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Governor Romney’s Michigan Challenge: The Whisper Campaigns

Flag Waving

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


[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]