comMITTed to Romney!

There are a few things that are important to me in a President.

First, that he (or she) be someone I can trust. Second, that they share some core conservative principles that I do, like family values and being pro-life. Third, that they be conservative fiscally so as to promote the economy and not have to raise taxes. Finally, I want someone who will support the military. To me, Romney does the best on all these tests.

Someone I Can Trust

On the “someone I can trust” scale, I’ve met some of Mitt’s family and have been impressed without exception at the quality of their character. I trust Mitt will make the right decision for our country, even when no one is looking.

I’ve heard the charges Mitt’s changed his position on issues, but I’ve been paying attention and the only meaningful change was on abortion, where he had been pro-choice on the theory the government shouldn’t get involved, and changed to pro-life when presented with an issue about embryonic research. He realized that Roe v. Wade had cheapened our view of human life, and that life needed to be protected. He didn’t need to make that change: Rudy Giuliani, for example, was comfortable running as a pro choice Republican. To me, the fact he changed shows he was thoughtful, honest and not sticking to a position out of political expediency. And I believe his sincerity on this issue. Readers should note that Reagan started life as a pro-choice politician, but ended up one of the strongest supporters the pro-life movement has seen. As I watch the debates I feel I can get a sense of Mitt’s genuineness. He’s very business-focused, the best-spoken and the most presidential, and I see him as sincerely wanting to debate the issues and do what’s best for our country, while other candidates, McCain and Huckabee in particular, seem to be jockeying for jokes or personal attacks. I trust Mitt, but I don’t trust Huckabee or McCain. Particularly after McCain’s vacation from the truth this weekend in distorting Mitt’s position on any number of issues (see George Will’s article about this, calling McCain’s move Clinton-esque). I trust Mitt so much I’m up at 1 a.m. writing this, flew myself to Iowa on my own nickel to help the campaign, and drove to Vegas to help again. Mitt inspires that sort of loyalty.

Conservative Principles

On conservative principles, he has pledged to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. I don’t believe any other candidate left in the race has Mitt’s commitment on this point. See above.

The Economy

On fiscal matters, I think Mitt Romney stands head and shoulders above the other candidates. With his experience in business, the Olympics, saving a liberal state from a $3 billion deficit without raising taxes and his current economic plan (which I’ve said before I consider to be genius in certain respects, such as the 2 year window to expense capital purchases, which would incent businesses to make large purchases now, creating jobs), he’s got an expertise no other candidate can come close to. And with the economy’s current state, I think this expertise will become even more important. I don’t trust the other candidates to learn how to run the world’s biggest enterprise on the fly, particularly McCain (who’s been inside government his whole life and whose economic stimulus package was roundly criticized as doing as much to harm the economy as help it).

The Military

Finally on the military, I know McCain would support the military but I view that as his only strength, and in some ways this could be a weakness. Pat Buchanan said tonight he believes that if McCain is the nominee, we will go to war with Iran. That’s not what we need after being bogged down in Iraq, but McCain’s likely too stubborn to see that, and too likely to get upset and do something rash. Don’t think that will be lost on the Democrats, either. And we need someone with a broader skill set than just defense. Romney has said he’d build up the military, replace aging machinery and provide better veteran care. And I trust his judgement and temperament much more than McCain’s.

Summing Up

Some of the biggest problems our nation faces have been ignored and festered during McCain’s 24 years in Congress, such as illegal immigration, failure to preserve manufacturing jobs, etc., so I don’t view him as a solution, but part of the problem. He’s not an agent of change, he’s a symbol of the status quo. If he really were a leader, I think he’d have found a way to address some of these issues in Congress. I don’t want to send McCain back as President when he admitted he came to change Washington, but Washington changed him. I trust Mitt to go to Washington, cut the pork, raise military spending, cut taxes and balance the budget. Mitt will lead, he will carry the flag on conservative principles, fix the economy the right way, make our military strong and preserve our national security both economically and militarily. That’s why I think he’s the right man for the job.

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

There is a big fight going on over at National Review about who is most electable.

KLO says this;

Adler also makes the improbable claim that Romney has been revealed as a very weak candidate, even though the information is right there on The Corner that Romney has garnered more votes so far than anyone else in the race.

(Read more if you want to read a non-spell checked rambling rant on the National Review, and where Romney stands).

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Read the whole thing. Here are some choice quotes:

In 2000, running against George W. Bush and the entire Carroll Campbell machine in South Carolina, John McCain got 42% of the vote, and 240,000 votes out of 573,000 or so cast.

Tonight, he got 33% of the vote in a field where his top challengers—Romney and Giuliani—aren’t even running, and 135,000 actual votes. If just the same people who voted for McCain in 2000 had voted for him today, he would have won 50+% of the South Carolina vote. That would have been truly impressive.

Instead, John McCain LOST the support of 100,000 people—and he’s the winner?

McCain had the same “success” in New Hampshire (McCain, 2000: 48%, 116,000 votes; McCain 2008: 37%, 89,000 votes) and Michigan (2000: 50%, 600,000 votes; 2008: 30%, 257,000 votes).

Share on Facebook

Share This

This excellent article speaks for itself.

It is important for us to remember McCain’s track record of sticking it to Conservatives.

The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

Share on Facebook

Share This

McCain’s Attack Mailer

More than just the same old personal attacks, McCain has now launched a mailer exaggerating increases in fees in Massachusetts while Mitt was governor and criticizing Mitt for other things. See the Politico for the story.

Astute readers will recognize the hypocrisy here. McCain cried “foul” when Mitt presented McCain’s record on the Bush tax cuts and amnesty for illegals. While McCain didn’t agree with Mitt’s definition of amnesty (though Fred Thompson did agree with Mitt in a subsequent debate), McCain’s only responses were to cast aspersions on Mitt’s character, effectively calling Mitt a liar. He also criticized the ads as “negative.” Well, here’s McCain doing what he so roundly criticized. Here’s his campaign’s response:

Asked how they reconcile running a positive campaign with such a mailer, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: “We’ve been attacked enough times by Mitt Romney to justify getting out front to set the record straight.”

Sound like any two year old you know? “He did it first!”

JMart Points out McCain Flaws (Quoting Mark Lavin)

Jonathan Martin of the Politico recently posted a blog wondering aloud why no GOP candidate is hitting McCain on his “obvious” flaws in his not-so-conservative Senate voting record. He provides a link to a National Review Online article written by Mark Lavin on this subject. The obvious answer to me is that McCain and Huckabee have a marriage of convenience. It’s in both’s interest to take Mitt down, and McCain is gambling he may never have to get negative on Huckabee as Huck is likely to fade on his own. Huckabee knows he’s helped as well and is willing to take his chances against McCain later one on one after a more conservative rival is gone. But for you wondering why everyone considers McCain a liberal (and why he continues to garner more support among liberals than among people classifying themselves as “Republican”) see the following:

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that McCain is not one of us and is a better candidate for a third party, or even the democrats, than for the Republicans. Most Republicans have recognized that (remember his no-show in Iowa and losing among actual Republican voters in NH to Mitt). We need to spread the word so we don’t inherit McCain as our candidate through dirty pool.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Thanks to John Cronin for the current delegate count, which Mitt leads. But let’s also try this with an Olympics theme. USA! USA!

Current medal count on the GOP 2008 Winter Games, in order:

Mitt: 1 gold (WY), 2 silvers (IA, NH)
Huck: 1 gold (IA), 1 bronze (NH)
McCain: 1 gold (NH)

Mitt also leads the popular vote counting only IA and NH (couldn’t find the info for WY, which should add significantly to his lead). While McCain’s win is impressive for his comeback from the dead, he’ll start getting real scrutiny once the charm wears off. I find it hard to anoint him the GOP nominee just yet with just one win under his belt, particularly with the name recognition in NH and having carried it decisively in 2000. I believe his margin of victory tonight was by less than he beat GW back then.

USA! USA!

Lessons Learned?

If I had to cite lessons learned, I’d focus on the last few days in NH where I think Mitt was making a rebound before time ran out. Here is my sense as a true lay observer:

1. The debates helped. Why? Piling on didn’t look good for John, even though he came out the victor tonight. And in the 2d debate the press was uniformly positive, I think because Mitt stayed on his message. People seem to want to connect with him, and he succeeded in that 2d debate.

2. Mitt seemed to “find his voice” (to use his term). Again he started connecting with people. Mitt just seems too good to be true to some. It seems the best way to combat that is to let them get to know you personally; put yourself out there and stir real emotion (remaining presidential, of course).

3. As Mitt stayed on message about change and fixing Washington, people seemed to see someone they could vote for, instead of someone they’re less likely to vote against.

4. The main stream media is mostly just looking for a story. That may not sound like a revelation, but I personally don’t think the press is always biased (okay, Jonathan Martin at the Politico seems to be). The focus just goes to the “story”: Obama’s charisma, John McCain’s resurrection, Hillary’s tears; etc. Mitt needs to find a positive story (perhaps a decisive win in Michigan!) for them to report on. Comebacks seem to attract attention (McCain has had one, Huckabee has had one, Obama has had one, Clinton has had one–now it’s our turn).

Bottom line from the above: I think Mitt’s got a great, positive message he can continue to deliver and I’d encourage him to get out there and deliver it passionately, like we know he can. There’s a reason the National Review chose him: his positions on all the issues, which I know he believes in. And we shouldn’t necessarily look for any breaks from the media, nor take it too personally if they’re negative. It’s kind of like the refs in a sports contest: you can’t complain about them, you just have to play through it and give them something good to talk about.

The Independent Factor

The thought was Independents would pile on for Obama, but perhaps they went to McCain instead, thinking Obama had it in the bag. Here’s a quote from CNN tonight:

exit polls showed 37 percent of those who cast a Republican ballot Tuesday identified themselves as independents, and McCain got the votes of 39 percent of them, compared with 27 percent for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished second Tuesday. Romney and McCain were almost even among those who identified themselves as Republicans, with 33 and 34 percent, respectively”

While it’s clear McCain got more of them, I wonder where the rest went (only 66% of Independents voting Republican are accounted for above). In any event one final takeaway from this is not to get too cocky about Obama’s ability to draw Independents, or to even beat Hillary. Some good news in that is that the Democratic race may be as lengthy as the GOP race. Some had said a long fight in the GOP after the Dems had already anointed their candidate would favor the Democrats. Even more good news–Republican turnout was quite high in NH as well, meaning the GOP is paying attention, as we all know they should. And to repeat, with all the record turnout, MITT LEADS THE POPULAR VOTE.

USA! USA!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Fox News’ commentary said Mitt had “hit a home run.”

Fox’s Frank Luntz said “With just two days to go, Mitt Romney hit a home run tonight.” Other key quotes about responses from Luntz’s focus group: “Mitt Romney consistently got the best responses throughout the evening…incredibly favorable.” “When Mitt Romney talked about where he stood on immigration, the dials shot through the roof.”

The overwhelming response in blogs is positive. Mitt really helped himself tonight.

From the National Review:

Kathryn Jean Lopez says:

“The fighter is out in him tonight. No one is going to call him a wimp tonight, that’s for sure. He’s taken initiative, from minute one. And he’s turned the tone of his campaign around. He’s letting Romney be Romney — the confident, forward-looking candidate with a conservative temperament he is — it was those qualities that first made me pay attention to him when he was in the statehouse. I think he’s being himself tonight. We saw him be himself during the religion speech. And we’re seeing it tonight. This Mitt is the Mitt we have to see everyday from hereon out. It took a while for him to be unleashed but I don’t think it’s too late by any stretch. Let Mitt be Mitt and Mitt might win.”

From Rich Lowry:

“Politics is a game of adjustments, and Romney adjusted to the debate from last night, realizing that he’d be under constant attack tonight and he’d better gird himself and go on offense. He spoke forcefully and put the case for himself as the reformist businessman in the best possible light. I think he basically dominated the first hour, and fell off a tab after that, but otherwise was truly excellent. His best performance yet, in very high pressure circumstances. His answers on taxes, job creation, and immigration were top notch … [I]f he somehow wins NH, tonight will be a big reason why.”

McCan’ts “Experience” Question; I.e., Why Not McCain?

McCain wants us to believe with 20+ years in Washington, and over the age of 80 at the end of a 2d term, he’d change his stripes and try to improve the system he’s helped construct and has benefited from for 2 1/2 decades. Sorry, but if he was serious about fixing something before he would have done it by now. And because of his age he’s a lame duck president on day 1. A nearly 80 year old with a history of a temper with his finger on the button? Quack quack. Others also noticed the McCain slam on Bush (the remark about governors). This is why McCain is NOT a republican candidate. I’ve heard one Senator say that if a secret poll were taken on the Senate floor, they’d nearly unanimously support Mitt over McCain, which McCain seems to acknowledge in his comment he hasn’t won any congeniality contests in the Senate. And he’s supposed to suddenly “change” and work with these people to get things done? GOP: IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. MCCAIN WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT HE’S DONE FOR THE PAST 24 YEARS.

Here’s another quote from Mark Levin tonight at the National Review in that regard:

“[C]ome on John McCain. You’re known in Washington as, well, very temperamental and holding grudges. Let’s not pretend you are Mr. Positive when, in fact, you are not.”

Expect mainstream republicans to reject this man, starting tomorrow in the AM radio shows when they call out his school-yard tactics with cohort Huckabee.

After Wyoming’s sweep by Mitt, McCain’s undignified attacks last night and Mitt’s performance tonight, expect Mitt’s poll numbers in NH to take a bounce upward. With the race being as tight as it is, Mitt’s performance tonight was big.

Share on Facebook

Share This

“At certain moments it had the effect of making Romney look more sympathetic, at others it made him look like the only adult on stage, and at others it made him look like he must be the front-runner, since people were so determined to take him down a peg. McCain in particular seemed to go too far, looking and sounding downright snide at times.” (Noam Scheiber, “Too Much Romney-Bashing,” The New Republic’s The Stump, http://blogs.tnr.com/, Posted 1/5/08)

Watch Sen. McCain’s Vitriol: www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6DR1Y3j_4k

Political Observers Noted Sen. McCain’s Nasty, Personal Attacks During The Manchester Debate:

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “Is He Going Too Far?” “All of the animosity that McCain has toward Mitt Romney is coming out tonight. Is he going too far?” (Philip Klein, “McCain: I Agree That Mitt Is Candidate Of Change,” The American Spectator Blog, www.spectator.org, Posted 1/5/08)

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Disdain.” “A clearly heated McCain, whose disdain for Romney was on full display tonight…” (Chris Cillizza, “The Republican Debate: The Roundup,” The Washington Post’s The Fix, www.washingtonpost.com, Posted 1/5/08)

National Review’s Andy McCarthy: “Cheap Shot.” “Moron Moment for McCain … and why some of us will NEVER support him. Cheap shot at Romney (candidate of change) as a set up for saying what a really fine guy Obama is.” (Andy McCarthy, “Moron Moment For McCain,” National Review’s The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/5/08)

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber: “Downright Snide.” “At certain moments it had the effect of making Romney look more sympathetic, at others it made him look like the only adult on stage, and at others it made him look like he must be the front-runner, since people were so determined to take him down a peg. McCain in particular seemed to go too far, looking and sounding downright snide at times.” (Noam Scheiber, “Too Much Romney-Bashing,” The New Republic’s The Stump, http://blogs.tnr.com/, Posted 1/5/08)

Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “McCain Lobs Another Grenade.” (Jonathan Martin, “McCain Lobs Another Grenade,” Politico, www.politico.com, Posted 1/5/08)

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: “Unattractive.” “That McCain follow-on was unattractive from a man who is better than that.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “I’ve Lived…Change.” National Review’s The Corner Blog http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/5/07)

Michelle Malkin: “Snidely… Cackles.” “McCain snidely attacks Romney: ‘You are the candidate of change.’ McCain cackles.” (Michelle Malkin, “Saturday Night Jive,” Michelle Malking Blog, http://michellemalkin.com, Posted 1/5/08)

Riehl World View’s Dan Riehl: “Well-Known Temperament Problems.” “If you were looking for substance across the board on issues, I think Romney was the clear winner in tonight’s debate. McCain’s well-known temperament problems lingered barely below the surface much of the evening, especially when someone dared disagree with him. Except of course, for his hugs for Hillary and slaps on the back for Fred. This is a change election and old hands from the Senate will not get it done.” (Dan Riehl, “ABC Debate: It Was Romney’s Night,” Riehl World View Blog, www.riehlworldview.com, Posted 1/5/08)

CBN’s David Brody: “We’ll See If Voters Think McCain’s Attacks Crossed The Line.” “Then McCain tussled with Romney over immigration and told him that Romney could spend his whole fortune calling McCain’s immigration plan amnesty but he’d be wrong. Man, going after him for being rich, that’s a blow. We’ll see if voters think McCain’s attacks crossed the line.” (David Brody, “Brody File Reaction TO Republican Debate,” CBN’s The Brody File, www.cbn.com, Posted 1/5/08)

National Review’s Andy McCarthy: “For Amnesty Before He Was Against It.” “McCain — the guy who was for amnesty before he was against it before acknowledging that it’s the only solution and is not amnesty in the first place except it kinda, sorta is, except that he’d never be for amnesty — says Romney is the ‘candidate of change.’ Change.  You’d almost think of a resolutely, died-in-the-wool pro-lifer filing a brief in the Supreme Court to suppress the First Amendment rights of a pro-life group to help pro-abortion incumbents get elected … not that Senator Straight Talk would ever do such a thing …” (Andy McCarthy, “Re: Romney And The Onslaught,” National Review’s The Corner Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/5/08)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Taking the Silver in Iowa.

Like Mitt said, it’s not what we’d hoped but it’s still a great finish, and preparation for the ultimate gold. We need to keep things humming along. What can you do? Make sure you make your phone calls for Mitt (if you’re not already a volunteer, contact the campaign to find out how to become one). As I said yesterday, considering where the campaign’s been and where it’s going it’s no time to get concerned about one bump in the road. Here are some facts to keep in perspective:

Wyoming’s caucuses are tomorrow, and both Mitt and McCain have big appearances on the Sunday shows. As “Richard” posted on Politico, Mitt can actually move into first place in the delegate count depending on the showing in Wyoming, and could even retain that lead with as much as a solid 2d place showing in NH.

“Isn’t it interesting people are making fun of Wyoming. That’s like football fans saying they don’t care about field goals. They would just as soon pass them up. Well, Mitt isn’t going to pass anything up. Since not very many people are aware, it takes 1191 Delegates to WIN the republican nomination. So far Huck has 20, Romney 18, McCain and Thompson 3, Paul 2 and Giuliani 1. Wyoming has 14 delegates up for grabs, New Hampshire 14 and Michigan 30. So, because the media looks to promote certain states, it truly is the number of delegates available. By the way, Romney, Thompson and Paul are the only ones that have been to Wyoming so watch them snatch up the delegates….”

I’m not sure these numbers are right but they’re roughly consistent with what I’ve read elsewhere. Mitt being in first place for delegates after NH is more than we could have hoped for a few months ago, and that’s a very achievable goal. We all knew it would be a close race; now we need to pitch in to make it happen! A quick stat: 2 of the 5 brothers were at the Des Moines airport early this morning, and at least one was headed to Wyoming, so Wyoming is clearly going to be feeling the love.

Mitt’s Game of 3D Chess

I happened to find my way into a Q&A Kevin Madden was giving to reporters before Mitt’s appearance at the Sheraton last night. Here are a few shots:

Kevin may have the best tie I’ve seen so far in the campaign, even including Mitt. Try to get a good look.

Kevin told them that Mitt’s playing 3D chess versus his opponents’ checkers, pursuing a multi-front war while his opponents have largely focused on one state. And (using my words) this race is like the Tour de France: winning a particular stage isn’t the important thing, it’s standings at the end. In Lance’s seven tour wins, he won on average fewer than 3 stages per year (20 total stages in 7 wins).

Bring on NH!

McCain is Mitt’s main competition in NH as we all know. Mitt has a new ad, as does McCain. In his, McCain blatantly spins a couple half-quotes from Mitt to make false claims. In one of Mitt’s statements Mitt said foreign policy expertise is easy to find; you can go to the State Department to find someone versed in knowledge, but that expertise (like McCain’s) alone isn’t enough. But the ad twists the statement to say Mitt would rely on the State Department for leadership, which was the exact opposite of what was intended. We need to make sure we call him on this sort of false claim and twisted quotes. So much for John remaining above negative campaiging (as if he’d ever tried).

As a result, now would be a good time to reinforce Mitt’s leadership experience and executive successes (contrasted to McCain’s 20+ years leisurely creating laws after dispatching lackeys to do the research for him). We need to remind people of Mitt’s strengths and that he’s succeeded at nearly everything he’s touched. A few talking points:

1. He had the leadership to turn around the Olympics.

2. He had the leadership to turn around a collection of companies while at Bain, solving problems people before him couldn’t. Sound like a skill we could use in our President today?

3. He had the leadership and determination to keep all the campaign promises he made in Massachusetts, while working with a democratic legislature. By contrast a “maverick” has a hard time getting things done because they don’t tend to play well with others.

4. He had the leadership to organize and motivate volunteers to turn out more voters than expected in Iowa.

5. He showed grace and leadership last night in acknowledging Mike Huckabee’s success, but motivating and convincing the troops we’ll do better in New Hampshire.

6. He has shown the strength of character to think about solutions to problems before he implements them, but then to decisively execute on his plan.

7. He’s the only one that can represent the entire republican party, as the National Review pointed out in their endorsement. In looking at all the candidates, he has the best chance of winning it all, and if you listen carefully he is still the defacto front runner. All guns seem to be pointed at Mitt.

You heard it here first: if we can remind the people of NH what Mitt has accomplished, we will win in NH. People in NH know we need real leadership in Washington. A repackaging of the same old ideas and people just won’t cut it anymore. If there was anything clear in Iowa last night, change and effective leadership are what people are looking for. John McCain is a member of a Congress whose approval rating is abysmal. He has had his chance to be an agent of change as a Washington insider for the last 20+ years. If he hasn’t had shown the leadership yet to solve the problems we have in our society, how will he suddenly start showing leadership now as President? He’s had his chance. We need to tell Washington and Johnny Mac to lead, follow or get out of the way.

Last Thoughts About the Iowa Caucuses

My wife and I drove to a northern suburb of Des Moines last night and attended a caucus of about 130 people. The process, though less complicated than for the dems, was still fascinating. The republican leader (clearly an untrained volunteer from the local community) had an envelope of instructions on how to run the show, and was learning along with everyone else. I felt like I was watching pure democracy, with all its wrinkles. After getting organized, representatives of each campaign were given a chance to speak. When Rudy’s name came up someone shouted “Rudy who?,” generating guffaws. Statements were made on behalf of Huckabee, Fred and Mitt (this last made by yours truly). Votes were cast on yellow ballots made from quartered sheets of 8.5×11″ paper. Ballots were hand-collected and sorted into stacks for each candidate. Votes were then counted and re-counted, then telephoned into GOP headquarters. My wife noted a number of people changing their party affiliations at the door, confirming anecdotally what the national press has observed, that someone out there was driving new voters to turn out, we believe evangelicals.

The Post-Game Party

At the final party Doug Gross, Mitt and Ann re-enthused the crowd.

Here are some pictures:

Now off to bed so I can come back again tomorrow. It’s now after 3 a.m. central time, so I’ve been up about 23 hours straight. Keep it up everybody out there, we all know how much this country needs a man like Mitt Romney (for a reminder see Thomas Alan’s blog on this very site). One last bit of encouragement. Close your eyes and imagine Mitt raising his hand and taking the oath of office in January 2009. Now open those eyes and let’s get it done!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Campaign Chairman Says Reagan Legacy “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot”
“All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” – Townhall’s Matt Lewis (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chairman Declared The Reagan Coalition Dead:
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chair Ed Rollins: The Reagan Coalition Of Social, Fiscal, And Defense Conservatives “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot To People Anymore.” Huckabee Campaign Chairman Ed Rollins: “The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, anti-tax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins On The Reagan Coalition:
“It’s Gone.” “[Huckabee's] success is setting off a debate in his party over whether his success marks the fading of the old Reaganite conservative coalition — social conservatives, anti-tax activists and advocates of a muscular defense — or, rather, offers a chance for its rejuvenation. ‘It’s gone,’ said Ed Rollins, who once worked as President Reagan’s political director and recently became Mr. Huckabee’s national campaign chairman.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins:
Some Parts Of Reagan Coalition May “Go By The Wayside.” “‘It is a time for a whole new coalition — that is the key,’ he said, adding that some part of the original triad might ‘go by the wayside.’” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Gov. Romney Aims To Keep The Reagan Coalition United:
Townhall’s Matt Lewis: “Rollins’ Pronouncement Is Almost An Argument To Vote For Mitt Romney.” “All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
National Review:
“Romney Is A Full-Spectrum Conservative.” “Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Gov. Mitt Romney:
We Need To Unite “Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives And Defense Conservatives.”
GOV. ROMNEY: “I believe that to win the White House that our candidate has to be somebody who can represent and speak for all three legs of the conservative stool or conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan put together – social conservatives, economic conservatives and defense conservatives.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, Press Availability, Grand Rapids, MI, 10/13/07)
Gov. Huckabee Alienates Fiscal And Foreign Policy Conservatives:
National Review:
Gov. Huckabee Would Pull Apart The Conservative Coalition By Alienating Economic And Foreign Policy Conservatives. “Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Club For Growth’s Pat Toomey:
Gov. Huckabee Is “A Big-Government Liberal.” “In order to earn back the public’s trust on economic issues, not to mention offer a compelling contrast with a Hillary Clinton-led Democratic ticket, Republicans must present a consistent message. A big-government liberal like Mike Huckabee, who takes pleasure in attacking the Republican party as the ‘party of Wall Street,’ will only reinforce the image of Republicans as ‘the big spenders that they used to oppose.’ A Huckabee nomination, even as vice president, will make it impossible for the Republican party to reclaim its brand of fiscal conservatism and limited government, without which it cannot be a majority party again.” (Pat Toomey, “Dump The Huck,” National Review, 10/26/07)
Columnist Robert Novak:
Gov. Huckabee “Is A High-Tax, Protectionist Advocate Of Big Government.” “Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.” (Robert Novak, “The False Conservative,” The Washington Post, 11/26/07)
CNBC’s Larry Kudlow:
Gov. Huckabee Naïve “On Dealing In International Affairs With Iran And Others.” CNBC’s LARRY KUDLOW: ” Condi Rice came out of the State Department … and attacked him because of his naïveté on dealing in international affairs with Iran and others. He doesn’t seem to understand power politics, and that we are in a jihadist global war.” (Hugh Hewitt Radio show, YouTube, 12/21/07)
Columnist Charles Krauthammer Said Gov. Huckabee’s “Naïve And Unconvincing” Views On Foreign Policy Are Disqualifications To Be President. “Huckabee is funny, well spoken and gave a preacher’s stemwinder that wowed the religious right gathering in Washington last Saturday. But whatever foreign policy he has is naive and unconvincing. In wartime, that is a disqualification for commander in chief.” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Fine Field Of 4½,” The Washington Post, 10/26/07)

Share on Facebook

Share This

The National Review has added its estimable voice in opposition to the attacks that have been hurled at Romney in NH by the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor.

Misled in New Hampshire

By the Editors

John McCain’s aides complain that Mitt Romney is running a negative campaign. Those same aides have been attacking Romney themselves, but for the most part they can outsource the negativism to their friends in the press — starting with the Union Leader, a prominent conservative newspaper in New Hampshire that has endorsed him. (We have endorsed Romney.)

The Union Leader’s advocacy of John McCain has become so fierce and lopsided that it has practically transformed itself into a pro-McCain 527 organization. It has not formalized the arrangement, which is lucky for it: If it had, McCain would, on his campaign-finance principles, have to try to shut it down.

There is a lot to like about Senator McCain, and we do not fault the Union Leader for endorsing him. We do fault its double standards. The newspaper counts it as a damnable “flip-flop” every time Romney has changed his position or even his emphasis. McCain can switch his views on the very same issues without a disparaging word from the Union Leader.

Take taxes. Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, stayed neutral in the battle over President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. We wish he had spoken up in their favor. Senator McCain, alas, was not silent: He voted against the tax cuts, as he had voted against the 2001 tax cuts. He flip-flopped on estate taxes, defending them after having voted to get rid of them. As he geared up to run for president this time around, however, McCain became a born-again supply-sider. Now he wants to keep the tax cuts he originally opposed.

The Union Leader has blasted Romney for changing his mind on immigration. It accused him of lying, too, for saying that McCain wanted to let illegal immigrants earn Social Security benefits while working here illegally. But Romney was right. McCain has voted to let illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions become citizens and then receive benefits for their prior illegal work. Few Senate Republicans joined him.

We won’t throw around the word “lie” quite as recklessly as the Union Leader, but its candidate first argued for an “amnesty” and then spent months claiming that his immigration bill did not amount to one. And if flip-flopping on immigration is a crime, McCain can be charged with it, too. He himself says that he has changed his position on the issue. One of the principal points at issue in the debate over his bill was whether we should try “enforcement first.” Since the bill’s collapse, McCain has said that he now understands that we should. If that is not a flip-flop, it is only because his claims of a change of heart are insincere. (The liberal newspapers that have endorsed him seem to think so.)

Some of Romney’s critics allow that all politicians change their positions over time, but say that Romney stands out for changing his very political identity. Supposedly he ran as a moderate technocrat in Massachusetts, but is running as a culture warrior in the Republican primaries. We think both halves of this characterization are overstated, but in any case it is not a critique that John McCain’s supporters can credibly make. McCain was a reliably conservative legislator for 15 years. Then he moved left for three years, so much so that liberals began urging him to change parties. Then he zigged back to the right.

For us, the most important question about a flip-flop is whether the movement is in the right direction. We are glad that Romney has changed his mind about abortion and McCain has changed his about taxes, although we prefer Romney’s open admission that he was wrong in the past to McCain’s evasiveness. We hope McCain comes around some more on immigration, and campaign-finance reform, and a lot of other issues — and we will not attack him as a flip-flopper if he does. Voters who hold flip-flops against politicians, however, should be warned: McCain is every bit as much of one as Romney is, and all the bile of New Hampshire’s editorialists cannot change the fact.

Here’s why I support Mitt Romney for President.

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Great article from Ronald Kessler over at Newsmax on why Mitt is the best candidate. The whole thing is worth a read.

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This