comMITTed to Romney!

Here are a few encouraging details from tonight’s contest, from the CBS News website:

According to CBS News exit polls, self-described Republicans made up 68 percent of the vote - and they supported Romney by a wide margin. Independents made up just 25 percent of the GOP primary vote today while just 7 percent were Democrats. In 2000, independents made up 35 percent of the vote while another 17 percent were Democrats.

The economy overwhelmingly topped the concerns of voters, with 55 percent of primary voters citing it as their top concern. The Iraq war ranked second, but lagged far behind. Just 17 percent said that was their top concern. Discussion of the economy dominated the Michigan contest in its closing days, as Romney sought to strike an optimistic tone about the future of a state which has seen some 76,000 jobs lost in the past year alone.

… Romney also won among late-deciding voters, indicating that his arguments may have won some supporters.

Takeaways? The GOP is supporting Mitt, and “it’s the economy, _______.”

Additional takeaways? Mitt sticking to his message seems very productive. Mitt gained a head of steam and connected with people, which he’ll need continue. Meanwhile McCain lost momentum as he had to defend his truth-distorting, sack of fibs mailer. In addition, earned media seems much better at conveying and building momentum than paid media.

And lest we forget, the big difference maker in Michigan was Mitt’s “no job left behind” theme, giving hope where the Washington insider offered only pessimism and job retraining. Now that Mitt’s found his stride I expect the good vibe and the connection he’s making with voters to continue.

Share on Facebook

Share This

From South Carolinians for Romney

Question: What do you call someone who denies something to your face, but who knows that at that very moment, he is actually doing the opposite?

Answer: Entrenched Politician

Time has an article entitled “The Dirt Starts Flying” about South Carolina’s Republican primary coming up this week and had an interesting–though not surprising tidbit about the McCain campaign.

But as the McCain campaign rode down the sea coast towards Charleston before the weekend, the candidate spoke as if he was defying history. When asked if he thought he could get through South Carolina without going negative on his opponents, he said, “I think I can.” …
Indeed, even as McCain spoke on the bus, his campaign had already postmarked a nasty negative mailer in South Carolina with several misleading claims about Mitt Romney, including the allegation that the former Massachusetts governor had “provided taxpayer funded abortions.”

Rather than talking about McCain’s hypocrisy, let’s talk about the false claims of the piece.

1) Romney’s health plan allowed for $50 abortions on demand

The truth of the matter is that any health insurance plan in Massachusetts was required by law to include abortions at the same co-pay as other similar surgical procedures–not that there is any such thing as a “similar surgical procedure”, but that’s how the 85% Democrat legislature defined it in their deluded mental state when the law originally passed before Romney was ever elected.

2) Romney increased fees and taxes by $700 million in Massachusetts

This one is more than just two opposing views of the same figures and statistics–it’s outright deception. First of all, the previous governor of Massachusetts had signed into law an increase in state fees that didn’t take effect until after Romney took office. This accounted for $240 million of increased revenue. Then, Romney added $260 million in fees to which he takes full credit. Then another $150 million was raised by closing loopholes in corporate tax law (that allowed businesses to circumvent the intent of the law through claiming specific categories and statuses). I’ll explain this a little better in just a second, but for now, the total comes to $650 million, which McCain then conveniently rounds up to $700 million (what’s $50 million to a 4th-term US senator anyway?).

As for the corporate loopholes, let me give you an analogy to explain what happened.

Let’s say John Appleseed owns an apple stand and sells more apples than anyone else in town. Meanwhile, Joe Florida down the street sells oranges, but he’s struggling due to a deep freeze destroying most of his crop. Joe Florida’s friend, D. Libocrat–the politician who occasionally gets free juice from Joe–writes a bill giving tax breaks to orange sellers. Upon seeing this preferential treatment, John Appleseed runs down to the grocery store, buys a few pounds of oranges and starts to sell them. Then when John files taxes that year, he lists his business as “orange seller” rather than “apple seller”. The result–a significant reduction in Mr. Appleseed’s corporate tax burden.

Governor F. Potus Romney, who sees the “devil in the details”, analyzes the data and finds out that the orange business is doing fine now so he repeals the “orange tax loophole” and now both John and Joe are back to paying normal tax rates.

The tax law in these instances were written to help specific portions of the state’s economy (we hope), so businesses tried to maneuver themselves into those “special-treatment categories” for tax breaks. It’s not surprising that so many of these “special-treatment categories” existed in a state of liberals who preach concern for the common man–but write obscure details into laws that benefit special interests (though I’m sure republicans aren’t blameless).

Fees vs. Taxes:

Some argue that a fee is a tax, but there is a huge difference. Jeff, at Iowans for Mitt put it best when he said,

Service fees are not taxes, service fees REDUCE taxes. Make the user pay so the taxpayer doesn’t have to. Or, put another way:

Fees: Pay for what you get.

Taxes: Pay for what others get.

I would add that exorbitant fees are bad–especially if they exceed the cost incurred providing the service. But no one is claiming that any of Romney’s increased fees were exorbitant. They were a common sense approach that is innately fair. Make the user pay, and not the taxpayer.

Again, it’s not surprising that McCain would try to distort Romney’s record. I’m just surprised he kept a straight face while doing it.

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

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

I’m growing tired of the double standard as it relates to “negativity” on the campaign trail.

Mitt’s been a gentleman, despite running contrast ads against his opponents. He has yet to make any judgments on character or attack personally.

As this video points out, McCain runs a an attack ad and hears no condemnation.

A few weeks ago, McCain ran a vicious, completely personal attack ad against Mitt. Where’s the accountability?

Share on Facebook

Share This

“Mike Huckabee is the candidate that just keeps on giving!” [quote from Jeff Fuller just now after speaking with him]

Does Mr. Huckabee think we are all complete, utter idiots?

[Please forgive me for using the nickname "Duckabee" --- I depart from the normal decorum in this one instance as I believe the label best suits Huckabee as he continues to dodge truth --- I simply could not resist.]

KUDOS to Rusty, Ann Marie, and Mike for getting the Huckabee low-road story up so fast. Is this amazing, or what? Seriously, I think Huckabee woke up this morning and said to his wife,

“I think I want to become the first presidential candidate in the history of the Iowa caucuses to become a certifiable laughing stock of the media and the good folks of Iowa. What do you think darling? What is the best way for me to do that today?”

There are so many words that came to my mind after seeing all the reports today on this. I chose the title of this post from a line in Rusty’s post. Here are the words that came to my mind after watching all of these reports on Duckabee:

— CUNNING — INDECISIVE — MANIPULATIVE — CRAFTY — DISENGENUOUS — UNSOPHISTICATED — BACK-WATER — DISHONEST — CORRUPT — DECEITFUL — FRAUDULENT — DOUBLE-DEALING — UNPRINCIPLED — UNSCRUPULOUS — GUILE — TWO-FACED — DESPERATE (I could list the other 25 but want to keep this short)

Why the word “dishonest”? Simply because Duckabee absolutely knew that the State of Massachusetts, by law, does not allow capital punishment. Even if the guy feigns ignorance on this, he is inept at the very least. Governor Romney campaigned to add the death penalty in Mass.

The best moment of this day with Duck? When he said he made the (”high road”) decision to not run the ad but that he wanted to show it to the reporters so they supposedly would know he made the ad. He made that statement with a complete straight face as if he were serious. Then the entire audience burst out in complete spontaneous laughter and Duckabee stood there with a complete serious face. I totally expected him to burst into laughter himself. That was hilarious!

Carl Cameron, in one clip I saw, said this could end up as a genius move by Duck. If the people of Iowa don’t mind being played the fools by his camp, then maybe. There is a chance that Huckabee has attained “martyr” status in the minds of some in Iowa. If so, then there will be a sympathy following, but still I cannot imagine thinking people backing a person who touts his “Christian values” while his behavior is completely dishonest at best.

No, I think this will sink Huck’s life-raft. Iowans are not fools. Reporters of the MSM are not fools and I think they will turn on Huck. Until about two weeks ago, Huck has gotten a pass from the MSM. His presumptuous, manipulative, and cunning behavior to play all the reporters for fools will backfire. They will shred him in the next few days. Mark my words. It is over for Huckabee. He will get the martyr-sympathy vote, but that is it (credit to Jeff Fuller for this insight). Iowans are too smart to vote for this guy. I think we will see the media eat Huckabee alive over the next three plus days.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in one of the Republican caucus meeting halls to hear the discussions among voters. Oh, how sweet it would be.

Here is how I would like the results to show three nights from now, in Iowa, on Thursday night:

— Romney: 44%
— Hunter: 18%
— Thompson: 9%
— Keyes: 8%
— Giuliani: 5%
— Paul: 5%
— McCain: 5%
— Tancredo: 4% (yes, he will still get votes)
— Duckabee: 2%

I gave Duckabee 4%, not because I think there are really dumb Iowans, but because I think 4% of the Republican voters of Iowa who liked Duckabee a month ago, will not have gotten the news from today.

IOWANS: Please remember that both Giuliani and McCain abandoned the Ames Straw Poll in August effectively telling you a) your straw poll does not matter, and b) we [McCain/Giuliani] don’t want you to have any of our campaign money for your economy.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

After taking a day and a half off from campaigning to film anti-Romney attack ads, Mike Huckabee has decided not to air them. In a strange turn of events in which he held a news conference to unveil the new ads, he decided to announce that he would not. Some members of his staff were no even aware of the change, as the billboards were still up as he appeared on stage. He still showed the attack videos to the reporters and supporters gathered at the  news-conference.

Some in the media will say that this is a honorable, wise move on his part, and likely to define him as an above the fray type of candidate. This move definitely shows his indecisiveness, and lack of focus. He likely has ran out out of money, and was advised not to spend what little cash remained on a flailing last minute drive. You can view more commentary on this surprise move at the NY times political blog. Jonathan Martin of Politico offered the following:

That Huckabee still showed the spot to dozens of reporters jammed into a press conference will ensure the most skeptical, bordering on cynical, coverage on every national news broadcast tonight and in all the major national papers tomorrow.  After it became clear that he was not going to air the ad on Iowa television, but would still preview it here, the press corps offered a collective laugh in plain recognition of what Huckabee was up to.

Viral copies of the ad are circulating the web, and it is becoming obvious  that this was Huckabee’s intent all along. They likely had no money to air the aid and figured the media would do it for them. The backlash from this should be huge, as I am sure the reporters do not like being played for fools.

Is this the end of Mike Huckabee’s bid, or will it yield him positive results? With only one real day of campaigning left who’s strategy will prevail?

Update: To view a slideshow of the insane event click here.

Share on Facebook

Share This