comMITTed to Romney!

I don’t ever recall seeing the comments section of this blog so active. Thanks to all for your interest in ALL THINGS ROMNEY and for your energy.

I wanted to touch on some of the points and comments that I see as being, in my mind, most prominent in the discussions.

One of the points that I see actively talked about is the new “write-in” strategy. I am not willing to concede anything to McCain or to Huckabee, but if it becomes necessary to adopt this strategy, several good things will happen.

1. None of us will get into the regrettable habit of voting for Democrats. You are familiar with the old saying: “Friends don’t let friends vote for Democrats.”

2. We will punish the Republican hierarchy for pushing a fairly liberal Democrat, er, I mean Republican as the party’s nominee. I don’t want to punish the party’s rank and file, just RINO”S like Crist, Schwarzzenneger and Mel Martinez. Psychologists tell us that rewarding bad behavior encourages more bad behavior. How embarrassing would it be for the RINO leadership to have pushed McCain’s candidacy so brazenly, only to have real Republicans write-in Romney’s name en masse?

3. Unlike voting for, you’ll pardon the expression, a Democrat, (any Democrat) a write-in will show up distinctly in the voting tallies, rather than being buried, to a certain extent, in the general election vote totals. I know, exit polling would measure it pretty well, but a write-in strategy would paint a clearer picture.

4. It will send a message to the party establishment that they can’t win without us, no matter how they may hold us in distain.

5. It will settle the religious bias controversy for everyone except the “invincibly ignorant” that if they insist on using this as a strategy, we will use our 35% voting bloc to over ride their 25% voting bloc.

6. It is light years more effective than “sitting the election out.” I am firmly convinced that the Democrats would like nothing better than for us pesky Reagan coalition voters to stay home and forfeit the game. Politically speaking, the general election is the SUPER BOWL. Nobody forfeits that contest. It’s what you work for all season long.

We have also talked a lot about the need to rebuild the Republican party. The current leadership needs to go. I love that old saying: “Politicians are a lot like a baby’s diaper. They need to be changed often and for the same reason.” One of our commenters talked about getting involved in a local election, I believe in a judge’s election. That’s what I’m talking about! She will get to be known within her local party’s membership and over time, access equals influence. Rather than hope the Old Guard will support Mitt in 2012 if it comes to that, why don’t we replace some of them now with Romney supporters? That way we will control the party apparatus.

Reagan built his coalition by working the grassroots for four years. Using the platform of his radio broadcast, traveling all over the country giving speeches that reinforced conservative principles, meeting and convincing voters from all walks of life that conservatism is in the best interests of the country. That is something Mitt Romney has not had a chance to do. You can build up a boatload of political IOU’s that way.

We may yet end up in a brokered convention, but that’s not for sure. Something completely unforeseen could cause us to sweep the remaining states. Never underestimate a hot head like McCain. Who knows what he might say if he explodes. The stories coming out of the U.S. Senate about his profanity-laced tirades suggest that he could change the dynamics of this race at any moment.

And finally, keep in mind that we now have identified the strongest conservative in American politics, Gov. Mitt Romney. His name recognition is now off the charts, his grassroots organization is now battle hardened and experienced. His national campaign staff is the envy of the rest of the campaigns. His fund raising strategy can now develop over a four year period and he will have the necessary time to develop a national network of political support. If, and I do mean if, it turns out that 2008 is not our time, we are in great position to take over the party, barn storm the country and finalize the work of “BUILDING THE REAGAN COALTION, PHASE II.”

~~John Cronin~~

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

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

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