comMITTed to Romney!

H/T: Hotair and Marc Ambinder

The next incarnation of Mitt Romney’s political career is taking shape.

According to two Republicans with knowledge of his plans, Romney, at some point during the next few weeks, intends to establish a new political action committee to help elect Republican candidates.

“We’re thinking about what new entity can be created to allow Governor Romney to remain politically active so he can raise money and campaign for Republicans, and advocate for the issues he cares about,” Eric Fehnrstrom, Romney’s long-time aide, said in an e-mail message.

“You can also expect Governor Romney to be very busy in the remainder of this year campaigning for Republican candidates up and down the ticket, starting at the top with Senator McCain.”

Fehrnstom would not elaborate.

Other Republicans close to Romney said that Romney was looking for ways to position himself as the ideas factory for the Republican party over the next four years, contributing policy to John McCain, if he’s in the White House, or to Republicans in Congress, if McCain is not.

I don’t think it’s set up yet, but if anybody finds out to the contrary, please leave a comment. Mitt can count on me for a donation.

“Ideas factory”…I love it.

Share on Facebook

Share This

If I’m not mistaken, I think that the “Romney Volunteer” mentioned here by Marc Ambinder, may be none other than our own Vic Lundquist.

Vic if you see this post, leave a comment and say hello!

Share on Facebook

Share This

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Courtesy of Marc Ambinder, we can only hope more Evangelical leaders recognize how damaging Huckabee will be to the Republican coalition and all him to the carpet.

The below is an email that Gary Bauer sent to supporters:

To: Friends and Supporters
From: Gary Bauer
Campaign for Working Families

Date: Monday, December 3, 2007

You Be The Judge!

As Mike Huckabee continues to improve in the polls, his positions on the issues are coming under greater scrutiny. Over the last week, a heated debate has broken out between Huckabee and many of the other candidates over the immigration issue, and particularly the question of providing benefits to the children of illegal immigrants.

On Friday, many of the leading groups fighting illegal immigration blasted Huckabee for his position on the issue. While Governor Huckabee now says he is against amnesty and for secure borders, he continues to raise eyebrows with his defense of scholarships and other taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens.

Since the illegal immigration debate will continue to be a big part of the 2008 campaign, and no doubt a key item on the legislative agenda in 2009, as it has been in Congress for the past few years, I want to get your take on the controversy.

The Facts

When he was governor of Arkansas, Huckabee supported legislation allowing illegal immigrants who had attended Arkansas high schools to participate in a scholarship program to attend college. Huckabee lost that debate, and the bill failed. He also strongly opposed an effort by state Senator Jim Holt, also an ordained Southern Baptist minister, to end taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrants in Arkansas and to require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Huckabee denounced Holt’s legislation as “race baiting” and “demagoguery.”

Huckabee’s Argument

Governor Huckabee strongly defends the positions he took as governor on aid to illegals. He argues that denying illegal immigrant students scholarship money would be punishing children for what their parents have done. He says, “my soul will not let me” do that. On ABC News this weekend, when he was asked whether or not he would support federal scholarships for illegal immigrant students, Huckabee said, “I’m not sure…”

Senate Democrats recently proposed the “DREAM Act,” which would have allowed illegal aliens to receive taxpayer subsidized in-state college tuition rates that out-of-state American citizens cannot get. The “DREAM Act,” like other recent immigration “reform” efforts, failed to pass due to overwhelming public outrage.

One year ago, Huckabee compared America’s response to illegal immigration to slavery by remarking, “One of the great challenges facing us is that we do not commit the same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population that we did with African Americans 150 years ago… I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.”

The Critics’ Response

Critics of Huckabee’s positions point out that many illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. because they want to get benefits for their children.

Increasing those benefits, such as college scholarships, would serve as a magnet for illegal immigrants. Since scholarship money is always limited, every scholarship that is given to an illegal immigrant student is a scholarship that is taken away from an American citizen.

In addition, they point out that while it is a Christian responsibility to help the poor, it is not Christian to take someone else’s money through the power of Big Government to redistribute it to the disadvantaged.

Huckabee’s critics also say that comparing slavery to illegal immigration is a complete distortion. Finally, they reject Huckabee’s argument that children shouldn’t be punished for their parents’ actions. Children do get hurt when their parents are punished, including when a parent is imprisoned for criminal behavior.

My Take

I think the critics are closer to the truth in this debate. I believe any Republican presidential nominee who has a soft record on illegal immigration will have a hard time distinguishing themselves from Hillary Clinton, who, as you know, is tripping over herself to avoid appearing to be soft on illegal immigration. What do you think?

Please address the issue I have presented. I have accurately described the two sides of the debate, so I am not sympathetic to the idea that simply posing the question is somehow anti-Huckabee.

Rather this is part of an ongoing debate we need to have in order to understand what the conservative position on immigration “reform” is and to ensure that we have a clear conservative nominee in 2008. This issue cuts across party lines and many Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents - were outraged by the repeated efforts of politicians in
both parties to push comprehensive immigration reform.

Bauer sounds like our own Vic Lundquist in his challenge to his supporters to come back with a fact-based arguement.

Share on Facebook

Share This

From Blog 4President dot ORG

National Review’s Jim Geraghty: “One of [Romney's] strongest performances…” (Jim Geraghty, “Everybody Was Good,” National Review’s Campaign Spot, National Review’s The Corner, Posted 10/21/07)

Powerline Blog’s Paul Mirengoff: “Romney was solid, as he generally is … Near the end of the debate, he finally launched into an attack on the Clinton administration’s ‘vacation from history’ foreign policy (‘we got the dividend but not the peace’). Attacks like that are guaranteed winners in these kinds of debates, and Romney needs to make them at every opportunity.” (Paul Mirengoff, “A Sleeping Giant Wakes Up,” Powerline Blog, Powerline Blog , Accessed 10/21/07)

· Geraghty: “[Romney had] great jabs at Hillary, and seemed to feed off the crowd’s energy.” (Jim Geraghty, “Everybody Was Good,” National Review’s Campaign Spot, The National Review, Posted 10/21/07)

· Geraghty: “Mitt leads the raucous crowd in rejecting Hillary as a potential commander-in-chief.” (Jim Geraghty, “How Do I Give You The Highlights?” National Review’s Campaign Spot, National Review, Posted 10/21/07)

NBC’s Chuck Todd: Romney was “red hot.” (Chuck Todd, “Quick Post-Debate Thoughts,” MSNBC’s First Read,

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "As the Republicans debated who is more conservative tonight, two voices stood out: Mitt Romney's and Rudy Giuliani's." (Marc Ambinder, "The Republican Debate: First Take," The Atlantic Blog, The Atlantic Break, Posted 10/21/07)

The American Spectator’s Jennifer Rubin: “On marriage Romney gives a strong statement in favor of amendment.” (Jennifer Rubin, “Debate 2,” The American Spectator Blog, American Spectator Blog, Posted 10/21/07)

· Right Wing News’ John Hawkins: “Mitt is right about gay marriage. Activist judges are deliberately distorting the law to implement gay marriage…” (John Hawkins, “Debate Liveblogging,” Right Wing News, Right Wing News, Posted 10/21/07)

· Geraghty: “[Romney] makes a strong case on [gay marriage], citing the Massachusetts and Iowa state constitutions.” (Jim Geraghty, “After The Opening Brawl Among the Top Tier…,” National Review’s Campaign Spot, National Reviews’s Campaign Spot, Posted 10/21/07)

The Atlantic’s Marc Marinder: “[Romney's] best moment may have been when he said that an insurmountable problem like the health care crisis can, indeed, be solved. It wasn’t just a candidate saying he was optimistic; he showed how optimism, will and plod can be potent problem-solving forces.” (Marc Ambinder, “The Republican Debate: First Take,” The Atlantic Blog, The Atlantic Blog, Posted 10/21/07)

· The American Spectator’s John Tabin: “He had a target on his back during the health care section, and ably defended himself.” (John Tabin, “Candidate Scorecard,” AmSpec Blog, American Spectator Blog, Posted 10/21/07)

· Ambinder: “Say what you will about the guy: [Romney] expended political capital, he worked hard, and he did something meaningful to reform the health care system in his state. Very few candidates on either side can say that.” (Marc Ambinder, “It Took Romney Long Enough…” The Atlantic Blog, The Atlantic Blog, Posted 10/21/07)

· Ambinder: “But it stands out as an prime example — perhaps the ultimate example — of conservative governance. Romney worked hard at health care in Massachusetts; he worked with Democrats; he worked with Republicans; he wound up with a novel program that, while not perfect and not transferable to other states, stands out as a real accomplishment. Romney calls himself an executive and a manager; with health care, he executed and managed in real time.” (Marc Ambinder, “The Republican Debate: First Take,” The Atlantic Blog, The Atlantic Blog, Posted 10/21/07)

Share on Facebook

Share This