comMITTed to Romney!

I came across this article by Peggy Noonan this morning and although it is dated Jan.2, 2009, it seems to be an article that was written some time ago, around the period following the 2008 primaries.

The article deals with some of the leading figures in the election, but I wanted to excerpt the part that deals with Gov. Romney. I know this can be categorized as “water under the bridge” but it is still encouraging to hear another opinion from the political right, other that the Mike Huckabee looneys who are forever decrying doctrinal deviations.

~~John Cronin~~

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

The Republican contest may well end on Tuesday, but I sense little relief and much unease. In terms of avowed programs, policies and approaches, Mitt Romney was the more conservative candidate, and his even-keeled air won many friends. He offered executive experience and business acumen. As for how he came across, here is Mike Deaver on Ronald Reagan: “This is a face that when the baby sees it, the baby smiles.”

His supporters tell me he will fight to the end. The conservative establishment still has hopes. But the great unruly base may be doing some redefining.

If you go by the Florida returns, maybe this year positions aren’t everything. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who suffered 5½ years in the Hanoi Hilton. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who has endured a lifetime in the rounds in Washington and survived as antispending, antiabortion and pro-military. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the old fighter jock who’ll keep the country safe in a rocky time ahead. And maybe Republicans on the ground are saying: He earned it.

The conventional wisdom is Mr. Romney can’t win it while Mike Huckabee’s in it. If Mr. Huckabee dropped out, Mr. Romney might pick up his conservatives. But Mr. Huckabee seems very happy running, and perhaps happy thinking of his future as the Mitt slayer in the party of John.

Mr. McCain seems to me to have two immediate problems, both of which he might address. One is that he doesn’t seem to much like conservatives, and never has. They can’t help admire him, but they’ve disagreed with him on so many issues, and when they bring this up his demeanor tends to morph into the second problem: He radiates, he telegraphs, a certain indignation at being questioned by people who’ve never had to vote in Congress and make a deal. He’s like Moe Greene in “The Godfather,” when Michael Corleone tells him he’s going to buy him out. “Do you know who I am? I’m Moe Greene. I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders.” I’ve been on the firing line, punk. I am the voice of surviving conservatism.

This doesn’t always go over so well. Mr. Giuliani seems to know Mr. McCain is Moe Greene. Mr. Huckabee probably thought “The Godfather” was kinda violent. Mr. Romney may be thinking to himself, But Michael Corleone won in the end, and had better suits.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Wouldn’t it be cosmic karma if Huckabee and Palin fought each other to a second place tie in Iowa in 2012, while Mitt Romney cruised to a win without even breaking a sweat?

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16710.html

Former John McCain pollster Bill McInturff said Thursday that in a potential 2012 GOP primary, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would have a leg up on her rivals because she is “well-suited” to campaign in Iowa.

McInturff pointed to the fact that despite a bruising presidential campaign, Palin’s favorability ratings among Republican voters is still extremely high. While Palin comes with some baggage among the general electorate, for Iowa, where former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee successfully drew a large number of social conservatives to his winning bid, she has strong prospects.

“She’s a candidate that would be well-suited to doing well in Iowa,” McInturff told reporters at a breakfast in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. He conceded that Palin creates “a sharply different reaction with swing voters and core primary voters” but said the latter “are not anywhere close to the center.”

If Palin is weighing a potential run, McInturff said that difference and the advantage it gives here is something she is keenly aware of. “She has a very strong political instinct,” he said. “She has a sharp and calculated instinct.”

Reflecting back on the presidential campaign, the pollster said that the McCain campaign had a brief window where they believed victory over President-elect Barack Obama was possible. But that hope was dashed when the campaign’s back was broken by the financial crisis.

“If we had to collapse America’s economy, I wish it had been on Dec. 15 instead of Sept. 15,” he said. Leading up to the financial crisis, he said, the campaign was prepared to launch an offensive to exploit the lingering uncertainties voters had about Obama, but that when the markets crashed, “You didn’t have a presidential campaign anymore, you just had the two campaigns reacting to this.”

“People had substantial and serious concerns about this guy,” McInturff said of Obama. “But if you give people a choice between a proven failure and an uncertain future, they will always choose the uncertain future,” he added, referring to the contrast between Obama and the damaged GOP brand.

The pollster also said the crisis changed McCain’s normal instincts as he tried to demonstrate a presidential level of leadership. For instance, he said, “If John McCain was just a U.S. senator, I cannot imagine him supporting the bailout. . . But you’re not going to be a senator, you are going to be president of the United States.”

Even after the financial crisis, McInturff said the Arizona senator was still within striking distance of Obama until former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed the Democrat. “We had three days where after the Powell endorsement the bottom just fell out,” he said.

Early into the afternoon on Election Day, McInturff said the McCain campaign knew that Obama’s victory was imminent as it read exit poll data. He said, though, that nobody was mourning the loss like they were “sappy volunteers.”

“Your job is to fight like hell, even if you’re getting beat with a baseball bat on the way out,” McInturff said.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Until last night, I’d never been on Pastor Mike’s PAC site. It was interesting to see how active he intends to be, starting right after the first of the year. I’m glad Gov. Romney’s as active as he has been. IMHO, MR has been a much more effective campaigner for Congressional Republicans than MH, who was noticeable by his absence in this past election.

BTW, there was a figure that is quoted in the article on his PAC site that stated that his volunteers made 4,000 over several days. When we were is Des Moines in January of this year, we made 20,000 calls in one day!!

~~John Cronin~~

What’s Next For Huck PAC?
By: Mike Huckabee

Many of you are asking me online and in line at my book tour stops what’s next for Huck PAC. Sarah and the team have been working hard on the next phase of development and I wanted to tell you about some of it today.

First, during Saxby Chambliss’ runoff campaign we saw that Huck PAC supporters were able to make a real difference on the ground. With over 4,000 calls made in a period of days by a few hundred volunteers we made a real difference turning out the vote for Senator Chambliss. Moving forward we want to build on this effort and grow it nationally.

In the coming days we will form a National Volunteer Team for Huck PAC Our goal is to identify volunteers nationwide, organize into local groups and then assist Huck PAC endorsed candidates.
We will also begin asking for volunteers to serve as group leaders willing to take a leadership role in their community. These leaders will setup events, distribute literature, make calls, knock on doors and much more. Our goal is to have at least one Huck PAC group leader in every county in the nation by the end of 2009.

This is one part of our plans but is a very important part. We want to make a difference locally in the races of the candidates we are supporting (as we did with Saxby) and we believe having a volunteer team in place will make a big difference. I will blog about much more very soon.

Moving the cause forward into the New Year!

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.politickerma.com/wallyedgema/2060/romneys-2012-base-utah

By Wally Edge
Vice chairman of the Utah Republican Party Todd Weiler on why Gov. Mitt Romney (R), not Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), has the upper hand in Utah for 2012:

“The conservative base in Utah, I think they’re still looking forward to a Romney run in 2012,” Weiler said. “I’m not surprised people aren’t lining up to jump on the Palin bandwagon just yet.”

Weiler said the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake guarantees Romney will “always be Utah’s favorite son. If he wants to run, he’s going to have a home base here. Just being Mormon is not enough.”

During the Republican primary, Romney carried the state with 89.5 percent of the vote, a much higher share than the 51 percent he earned in Massachusetts.

Romney won a total of 11 states during the primary including — you betcha — Alaska, where he garnered 36 percent of the vote.

WALLY EDGE can be reached via email at politickerma@gmail.com.

Share on Facebook

Share This

If this is a legitimate article, the “activist” quoted is displaying logic that has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese. Let’s dissect the quotes.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/08/12/
copy/noromney.ART_ART_08-12-08_A3_L3B0IQ1.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

Ohio activists reject Romney
He would be poor VP choice, they say

Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:20 AM

By Jonathan Riskind
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

WASHINGTON – Some Ohio social conservatives say they know whom they don’t want John McCain to pick as his running mate: former Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney.

In a move that may say as much about their continuing uneasiness regarding McCain as it does about their mistrust of Romney, an alliance of Buckeye State social conservatives is trying to form a group: Social Conservatives Against Romney.

“Social Conservatives against Romney.” I suppose it would be too much to ask what these folks are for, like a strong pro life position that has been held for several years after what I believe was a sincere change of heart, a pro business position that favors a corporate tax cut that will enhance America’s competitive position, a pro military policy that will protect America from the totalitarians that would love to destroy us and our ideas of democracy and freedom.

Although McCain is keeping his potential vice-presidential choices a tightly held secret, Romney is said to be on the short list.

Romney is said to be on the short list. I wonder why that is. Could it be because of his unrivaled competency in so many areas, his evident intelligence and grasp of complex issues. Where is Huckabee on that list? Perhaps he is not on the list because he has been correctly categorized as a smooth talking lightweight?

“Christians are praying earnestly for the right person,” said Diane Stover, a Parma resident who was a delegate for GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, a favorite of many social conservatives, in the Ohio primary. “McCain wouldn’t have been our person. But we definitely feel like it would be a huge help to John McCain to pick someone we can be confident will represent the value-voter position. I don’t think it helps him (McCain) at all in Ohio if he picks Romney.”

Oh right. You folks have obviously distinguished your selves as great candidate-pickers. Your first choice was asked during the primaries if he was a “foreign policy expert” and he infamously replied: “No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.”

A McCain spokesman said the campaign won’t comment on any aspect of the process of selecting a running mate.

Jane Maines of Hamilton, also a former Huckabee delegate, said the anti-Romney Ohioans hope their group will spread to other states.

They apparently want to extend the winning streak they enjoyed during the primary into the general election.

Stover and Maines are among about a dozen activists who met near Cincinnati last week, with Stover participating via phone from the Cleveland area, to discuss how to launch the group.
“We’re hoping this will become hugely widespread,” Maines said.

Big things can start from small beginnings, but in this group’s case, I think it will probably be more of a case of starting small and then shrinking.

She said she doesn’t consider the anti-Romney effort to be anti-McCain, despite saying McCain is not a “real conservative.” She said she and other conservatives will support McCain in November, noting that he has had a consistent anti-abortion voting record as a senator from Arizona.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, is too inconsistent on issues such as abortion and gay rights “for someone who calls himself a conservative,” Maines said.

The group overlooks McCain flips on taxes, domestic drilling and his huge flip on illegal immigration….All this makes me think that this tiny group in more about religious intolerance then it is about Gov. Romney’s political positions. As a Reagan Republican and as a conservative Catholic, I will repeat what I started saying almost two years ago. Mitt Romney more closely represents me and the values that I share with my Catholic and Protestant friends and associates than any of the candidates in either party this election cycle. If Mitt Romney does not get the VP nod, I will be ready to support him again in 2012.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/25/
mccain-and-huckabee-together-again/?mod=WSJBlog

Slouched in one of the two captain’s chairs, Huckabee used his time with the press to take a thinly veiled jab at another former opponent, Mitt Romney. “You know for me, the fortunate thing is I don’t have to go around and unsay anything I said during the campaign,” he said, earning another chuckle from McCain.

So, Pastor Huckabee didn’t have to “unsay” any thing he said during the campaign. Could that be because he didn’t have anything to say worth saying in the first place?

As for McCain, Huckabee added: “We had a very civil relationship. I thought it was significant that I felt like the two of us who ran, frankly the two most civil campaigns in the entire Republican primary ended up the last two on our feet.”

Pastor Huckabee, by the end of the primary campaign, you weren’t on your feet, you were on another area of your anatomy, the part we use when we are seated. I honestly don’t think a very distant second, when all the viable candidates except McCain had withdrawn from the race, qualifies as being “on your feet.”

Romney dropped out of the race on Feb. 7. Despite his slim chances, Huckabee held on until March 5, when McCain secured the nomination.

Huckabee “held on” until he got his Hollywood agent and was offered a book deal.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

There has been lots of discussion about where die-hard Mitt supporters should go now that he has suspended his campaign. Here is my humble contribution to that conversation.

As I see it, the answer is to support…nobody for the primaries. Let McCain and Huck battle it out. Huck will get some more delegates. McCain will either clinch or be just short, and Huck will force himself onto the ticket. We wll have a McCain/Huck ticket which will go down in flames (not saying I want this or think this is a good thing…I just think this is how it’s going to play out). Mitt can stay above the fray and become the leading Conservative candidate for 2012.

If you could guarrantee me a Republican Congress (or at least one of the chambers), I wouldn’t feel bad at all about McCain/Huck losing. Problem is that a Republican Congress seems unlikely or at least tough to project at this point, so what we do in November is a more complicated question, which I haven’t figured out yet for myself.

The plan for the primaries is easy, however. Continue to vote for Mitt (or none of the above if you can’t vote for Mitt)! Let McCain and Huck win/lose on their own merits!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Many who read or write on this blog may feel disheartened by Romney’s “defeat” (actually a strong 2nd) in today’s Florida Primary. Certainly after much hard work by all of us it is only natural to sense some discouragement…somewhat like the wind being knocked out of your sails for a moment. We had expected a victory and we wouldn’t settle for less. As an avid lover of the sea I have noticed that the wind always returns and the sails fill again sending the ship to its intended destination.

Florida was one state out of fifty. Super Tuesday is coming. We cannot let the outcome of Florida betray our enthusiasm. Romney will win the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

Ann Romney brings immediate optimism with her statement, “This is just a send-off point; this is not an end.” I love the excitement she brings to the moment. What a great political partner to have in such a tight and contentious race!

One of the greatest Presidents in our history was an eternal optimist. After many political defeats (and one in particular), Lincoln told his friend Dr. Ray who continued to brood over Lincoln’s defeat, “You will soon feel better. Another blow up is coming; and we shall have fun again.” (Quoted from Team of Rivals)

Lincoln was not discouraged by his defeats…only his friends were. Like them, as we refocus our efforts towards Romney’s eventual nomination, we need to pull the bootstraps tight and start working the trenches just a bit harder. We are fighting for certain principles and for a better America. Each state individually is one stepping stone along the path to ultimate victory. The next contest is coming and it will be fun.

Just like Lincoln, Romney is winning the respect of others, earning their trust and even devotion as he moves along the campaign trail introducing himself to those who barely know him.

Read the following quotes about Lincoln’s strategy for the nomination. I think you will find them similar to Romney’s. These quotes are taken from A Team of Rivals.

As a dark horse, he knew it was important not to reveal his intentions too early, so as to minimize the possibility of opponents mobilizing against him.

It was important that any efforts on his behalf be squelched until the timing was right, and Lincoln, as would be evidenced throughout his presidency was a master of timing.

Not hindered by the hubris, delusions, and inconsistencies that plagued his three chief rivals, Lincoln gained steady ground through a combination of hard work, skill and luck. While his rivals felt compelled to reposition themselves toward the center of the party, Lincoln never changed his basic stance.

Though a successful bid for the nomination remained unlikely, a viable candidacy was no longer an impossible dream. Slowly and methodically, Lincoln set out to improve his long odds.

Most of his audiences had never laid eyes on him.

Once he began speaking he invariably forged an indelible impression, and left an impact on his listeners.

Though sensed by many to be an underdog candidate, Lincoln rose to the top and captured the nomination.

Romney is a master strategist. His focus for the nation is the right one. As we work “slowly and methodically” from state to state bringing the message of change, of fixing a broken Washington, and a re-commitment to time held American family values, I believe that America will listen, and the ‘long odds’ of success will be realized as we witness Romney place his hand on the Bible and swear and oath of duty as our next President.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Here are some latest news bits about Mitt.

Top Thompson Fla. fundraiser joins Romney

By The Hill Staff

Mitchell said she decided to go with Romney after she was contacted by the other GOP campaigns. She said she will likely start raising money for the former governor after she meets with him Sunday.
Mitchell said she thinks “a lot of the people I brought to the table for Fred will go with Romney.”

Scoring Mitchell and her considerable Sunshine State connections could prove to be invaluable for Romney in Florida’s Jan. 29 primary, as poll after poll continues to show a tight race.

Duncan Hunter endorses …. Mike Huckabee?!  Hmmm…

Hunter backs Huckabee

Hunter’s endorsement could help Huckabee with his credentials on illegal immigration and border security. The congressman’s presidential campaign never caught fire and ended Saturday, following the Nevada Caucus.
 

Louisiana results - Mitt gets another bronze - well, probably…

Louisiana Caucus: McCain wins, Paul second, Romney third

State party officials cautioned that the results were preliminary. In order for a voter to be eligible to participate in the Caucus they must have been registered with the state Republican Party by November 30 2007. Party official are still verifying provisional ballots for newly registered voters which may boost Paul’s numbers a little since most of the newly registered voters supported his candidacy.
The delegates elected at the Caucus will attend a state convention on February 16th where they will elect national delegates. As a result it is unclear at this time how many delegates each candidate will receive.

Finally, on a McCant, McCranky, McCain note - Ann Coulter says it like only Ann can.  Hat tip to reader Louise for this one!

‘Straight Talk’ Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth

 

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most “electable” Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn’t lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.

It’s good, keep reading …

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

Update: I was able to verify the delegate counts for Michigan. It required adding 10 for Romney, reducing McCains by 4, and adding 1 to Huckabee. The new totals are reflected in the tables below.

Noteworthy: Romney has received more than half of all delegates awarded at this time.

[table=1]
.

[table=2]
*Wyoming results not included since no vote tally was given

.

[table=3]

.

[table=4]

.

[table=5]

.

[table=6]

.

~Nate Gunderson

The information above was taken from Wikipedia (schedule) and CNN.com (results). There are several different tallies out there on what the current delegate count is. I used CNN.com’s tally not because it showed Romney with the largest lead, but that it had the most detailed info including ALL delegates that have been awarded so far, and I was able to verify most of the info from the individual state GOP websites.

Question: In tabulating Delegates, what does the ‘Other’ category mean under GOP primary results?

Answer: (From commenter SGS) Not all delegates are allocated to the candidates based on the states’ primaries. There are about 400 delegates (out of about 2000s) that are reserved to the Republican “insiders”, like state and national RNC leaders. They normally do not declare who they are in favor of until the party convention. But they can do so at any time.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Tonight on Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity gave voice to something I have been thinking for over a week. That there seems to be some sort of collusion among the members of the MSM in their attempts to talk Mitt Romney into quitting a race that he is currently very competitive in.

The chorus line of talking heads who daily call for Mitt Romney to withdraw from the race seem to have a strange disconnect with reality. As we have pointed out here on several occasions, does it make any sense for the delegate leader who has one 1st place finish and two 2nd place finishes to withdraw after only 3 out of 50 elections have been completed?

Sean Hannity said that he thought there was a “conspiracy to suppress the vote” in connection with the Romney candidacy. I have most assuredly noticed the same dynamic in play. This tells me that the Left fears the prospect of Romney staying in the race long enough to get to a state that more accurately represents the mainstream of the American electorate. A state where voters don’t cast their ballots along the lines of “identity” politics. A state where large percentages of Independents don’t cross over to vote for the weakest Republican.

In other words, a state where real Republicans and real Democrats vote for candidates based on bread and butter issues like national defense, immigration, the legitimate role of government, taxes, the economy, Supreme Court Justices and strengthening the institutions of marriage and the family.

Let’s do everything we can to encourage members of our families and our friends and co-workers to get to the polls and to reassert the strength of the Regan coalition behind the man who best represents that great movement, Mitt Romney!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

As I have witnessed John McCain’s campaign being revived from a near death experience, I have often wondered how any conservative voter could possibly have forgotten his wrong headed support of the “No Illegal Alien Left Behind” bill in June of last year.

Then I came across Laura Siple’s comment and was very encouraged to know that not everyone is suffering from temporary amnesia. Hat tip to Laura for bringing us her in state view of Sen. McCain and his allies.

Laura Siple on 09 Jan 2008 at 11:15 pm edit this #30

Living in South Carolina I can say that many conservatives here have not forgotten McCain’s stand on illegal immigration. One of his chief supporters, Senator Lindsay Graham, heard the displeasure of SC conservatives while giving a speech during the “amnesty” debacle. He was roundly booed. Huckabee, on the other hand, as an evangelical will draw that support. Mitt should focus on illegal immigration AND how he is the only one on the podium who can say he has created and saved MANY jobs through his vast private sector experience. I also don’t think it would hurt to mention that he was endorsed by Robert R. Taylor, dean of Bob Jones University’s college of arts and sciences. Mr Taylor said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, antigay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives. This endorsement was given in October 2007. Taylor acknowledged that endorsing a Mormon for president risked alienating the university’s conservative donors and alumni. But, he said, “we’re not electing a pastor — we’re electing a president.” This may not be big news outside South Carolina, but it was big news here.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

We all know Tuesday is a big day for the campaign. It’s a showdown in Mitt’s first home state, but he’s up against John McCain, who has some natural appeal to Michigan’s large block of independent voters (he took the state in 2000), and Mike Huckabee, who is after Michigan’s large group of evangelicals and appears to have an accord with McCain to let him sail smoothly for now (can you say “Veep”?). It may not be easy, and though Mitt’s in striking distance (see Real Clear Politics’ amalgamation of polls), it’s possible Mitt may not get the gold. But here’s why we need not get too down if it happens.

Michigan is not winner take all. Mitt will still be in the delegate hunt even with a strong 2d place finish and, if the current numbers hold, would likely still be in the delegate lead. More good news: other campaigns are running on empty. McCain likely got some cash after NH. But the word is that nearly every other campaign is struggling to keep up with expenditures. So Mitt would still have an organizational and financial advantage going into the next couple of contests, and very soon thereafter, Super Tuesday.

Finally, many people realize that it’s been a confluence of fortunate circumstances for both Huckabee and McCain (and in part it’s due to their unholy alliance) to have stolen 2 out of the first 3 states from Mitt, and those circumstances would also account for a “place” in Michigan. Many understand those circumstances won’t apply to the rest of the country and it’s too early to crown a victor after 4 states. McCain has some real problems with the conservatives and moderates that make up the majority of the Republican party. And despite his claims to the contrary, McCain LOST to Mitt in the Republican vote in NH (it was independents that gave him the extra 5% he won by). Even if McCain won Michigan, a close second by Mitt would likely erode McCain’s already tenuous claim he’s the front-runner, and certainly slows the perceived momentum.

For a reminder of McCain’s challenges with conservatives and moderates, see this post by a pro Rudy writer. He makes the point, as many are now making, that McCain will be difficult to sell to the conservative Republican base (see also the summary of the results from NH posted here by our own Jeff Fuller, which clearly show it was the libs that delivered NH). The fact McCain’s not really a conservative (anti-Bush tax cut; pro-amnesty; liberal on climate change; etc., etc.) hasn’t been lost on the rest of the country:

many [of the other campaigns] have trouble seeing just how dispirited the base would be with McCain as the nominee, particularly if Obama manages to pull it out, but also against Hillary.

It’s time to take the gloves off. If you assume that McCain can still lose this, it’s a matter of driving straight down the fairway to Minneapolis-St. Paul. If you assume he’ll still be the nominee, it’s a matter of testing whether conservatives can set aside some pretty serious objections to a likely nominee.

If conservative distrust of McCain still isn’t as big a deal as I think it is, so be it. But the nomination is too serious to approach this with anything but eyes wide open. We can’t afford to get buyer’s remorse — of the kind we’ve already had with McCain for most of the last eight years — particularly as he tacks left against the Democrats and his general election numbers sink back to where they were when he was last under attack in the spring.”

With perceived front-runner status comes a scrutiny like no other. People wonder if you’re really “presidential.” And I daresay there aren’t many Republicans who can picture a volatile 72 year old man with a known temper and no knowledge of the economy as their president in a turbulent economic time. With 24 years in the Senate and a plush tour bus, he’s out of touch with mainstream Americans. To quote the phrase, “it’s the economy, ….” The economy has displaced the war as the number one concern of voters. Michigan’s economy is suffering more than many other states (with unemployment 3% higher than the national average). And McCain has no “street cred” on the economy, essentially giving up on Michigan’s auto industry in the recent debate. Meanwhile, the economy is Mitt’s forte.

So if we don’t get what we want on Tuesday night, all is not lost. Michigan’s an uphill battle for Mitt I think he can win, but even if not, we’d still only be 4 states in, with no one else clearly in the lead or with momentum, with his main issue being at the forefront of everyone’s minds and having more money and organization after the other campaigns threw everything they had at him. I think that gives him a a real chance after Michigan, maybe even with the delegate lead, whether win or place. So keep on keepin’ on, making those calls, writing those checks, and showing that energy that draws people to us. We can win it!

Share on Facebook

Share This