comMITTed to Romney!

I believe it was reader Celestina who coined this phrase, and I whole-heartedly agree.  Here are 2 articles today that show we need to continue to vote for Mitt, write his name in, or request an absentee ballot now, in order to vote for him in a future primary.

Mitt Romney Still Controls Montana Delegates

The fate of Montana’s 25 votes for the Republican nomination remains uncertain even though Mitt Romney won the state in Tuesday’s caucus.

Romney suspended his national presidential campaign two days after Super Tuesday, the busiest primary and caucus day of the campaign. but he hasn’t given up his delegates yet. All 25 Montana Republican delegates are required to vote for Romney in the first vote at September’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. But after the first vote, the delegates can vote for whomever they please. Ultimately, Montana’s delegates will be decided at a convention in June.

Only two things can release these delegates from their obligation to Romney at St. Paul’s convention: Romney must completely withdraw as a candidate, or Romney can officially release the delegates to vote for the candidate of their choosing…
Montana’s 25 delegates are still Romney’s and Romney hasn’t thrown in the towel…”

Obama, McCain, Romney Place Names on Indiana ballot

Signatures for Clinton, Huckabee, Paul still being counted
By Eric Berman
2/12/2008

Six presidential candidates have turned in petition signatures to get their names on Indiana’s primary ballot.

Candidates had until Tuesday to gather and turn in 500 signatures in each of Indiana’s nine congressional districts. Obama’s Democratic rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, is expected to meet that goal and qualify for the ballot.
Among Republicans, Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will appear on the ballot, even though Romney suspended his campaign last week. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Texas Representative Ron Paul have turned in signatures at the county level but have not yet delivered them to the statehouse…”

Share on Facebook

Share This

Before you pull the lever for John McCain on Super Tuesday, please consider the following information first. As a Mitt Romney supporter, I would prefer to convince people why they should vote for my candidate, rather than against John McCain. However, I’ve tried this approach for the past 18 months, but people haven’t been able to get past his religion or the false impression that he’s a flip-flopper. As governor, Romney never contradicted a position he campaigned for in 2002 and while he did change his stance on abortion, he upheld his campaign promises throughout the end of his term. You can trust that the stances he is taking for America (which are decidedly different than the needs of Massachusetts in 2002), will be consistently adhered to while he is in office.

McCain on the other hand consistently changes positions, or blatantly lies about his record and the records of others. As accounts continue to surface about his private dealings with fellow legislators, staffers, and other private individuals, it is abundantly clear that John McCain is concerned about the one thing he’s always been concerned about—himself.

Perhaps you’ve resigned yourself to the “electability” argument, and believe that John McCain is the only Republican who could win in November. McCain will be the first one to tell you not to trust polls that come out 6 months before an election (just look at last July’s polling data for McCain). Additionally, you give the Democrats too much credit. As the economy and budget woes worsen, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama has any credibility to solve this impending crisis. On this issue alone, John McCain would be much easier to beat than Romney since he can’t run effectively on the economy. If we nominate John McCain, it will be like nominating Bob Dole all over again (and he was supposed to be the most electable at the time).

For all you know, everything I have just said could simply be made up charges for political reasons. So I ask you to take a look at the whole picture of John McCain’s life and his accelerated advancement through the naval ranks—in spite of his poor record and actions unbecoming of a Naval officer. As you read the following story of McCain’s Naval record, compare this with Mitt Romney and answer the following questions:

· Both had influential fathers, what did this give them in life?
· Both were accepted to prestigious universities, what did they do with that opportunity?
· Both had careers that ended in high-profile positions. How did they get there?
· How do their personal and family lives compare?
· What kind of people do they associate themselves with?
· What have these two candidate shown that they are good at?

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

It’s still the economy

There, I said it. Last night’s debate once again proved that McCain and Huckabee have no sense on the economy. Are you kidding me? A cap and trade system with no limit to the taxes it imposes on the U.S.? Who does McCain represent, anyway? Mitt continues to show that despite good sounding proposals from the other candidates, his knowledge of the economy trumps their half-baked solutions. Want to solve global warming? McCain’s approach taxes U.S. citizens without a cap for a problem we’re only a part of. Want to stimulate the economy? Huckabee’s solution of using infrastructure projects sounds good, but as Mitt points out, they take years to develop. These are insights that McCain and Huckabee couldn’t come to on their own, suggesting their programs as President would continue to have similar flaws. As usual Mitt’s responses were the most thoughtful, substantive and intelligent. For me, in my relatively few 41 years, I saw Reagan take office with little foreign policy experience and end up winning the cold war. McCain’s Vietnam experience was 30-40 years ago and not as relevant now. Mitt would be a fantastic commander-in-chief. But I’m not ready to see John McCain try to run an economy he barely understands, taking risks with my pocket-book along the way while collecting his government salary and living off his wife’s riches. Mitt’s lived in the real economy and has had to perform in a real job, as well as in government. He’s lived in both worlds; McCain has lived in one, out of touch with me and mine.

Kudos to My Wife

Kudos to my wife for finding the following useful information pre-Super Tuesday:

1. Someone on a Canadian website calls it like it is for U.S. Republicans and their choice of Mitt vs. Mac. This person isn’t even a Mitt fan, but recognizes the choice of McCain would be disastrous. If you’re a Republican reading this, whether conservative or moderate, think about John McCain essentially having free-reign to sign bills into law that a liberal Democratic Congress sends to his desk. Do you think he’d stick with Republican ideals? I really don’t think so as his record indicates otherwise.

2. The National Review seems to remain a voice of reason on Mitt vs. Mac. McCain’s coronation is pre-mature. Sure we would have liked to have had Florida, and we’d have been saying the same things about our being a front-runner if we’d won. But the truth would have been, as it is now, that Mitt’s leading in a number of Super Tuesday states, and the race is unlikely to be decided even afterward. See this link for recent analysis from National Review Online.

Super Tuesday: Who Wins Your Confidence?

With 23 states and, as I recall, a thousand or so delegates up for grabs Tuesday, McCain’s “imposing” lead is how many? Twenty-eight whole delegates, according to CNN. This race is not about those delegates, but about winning the 40X that amount available Tuesday. And even then, the GOP nominee still won’t be decided. This cite is from USA Today:

There will be more than 1,000 Republican delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to give a candidate a substantial boost toward the 1,191 needed to win the nomination — but only if one man emerges victorious in numerous states.

“I think you could have two or three viable (GOP) candidates” following Super Tuesday, said Ohio Republican Chairman Robert Bennett.

“Somebody’s going to have some big wins, but you’re going to go into March 4, and you’re not going to have an apparent (GOP) nominee,” Bennett said.

So the race is still up for grabs.

If you’re a California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. etc. voter voting this Tuesday, and you’re choosing between Mitt and Mac, think about who’d you rather have trying to stem the tide from a Democratic Congress: Mitt Romney, the consistent choice of the conservatives in every state so far, or John McCain, choice of the liberals.

Don’t think it matters? Remember the recent debate about expanding SCHIP, the welfare program Congress wanted to expand by multiple billions of dollars? Democrats in Congress passed it, but who stood in the way? President Bush. Without his veto pen, we’d be looking to foot that tax bill now when it’s become clear that tax rebates are required to stimulate the economy, and not huge welfare projects that increase the deficit. When the next bill comes to the desk of the President, and we know it will come, are we confident McCain would vote according to Republican principles? If you think so, think again: McCain was one of two Senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts (McCain admits he was wrong, but if he’d had his way the economy would have been tanked); illegal immigration (McCain supported a permanent residence for illegals, and now only partially admits he was wrong and has assumed Mitt’s position on securing the border); campaign finance reform (he’d do it again); global warming (bad approach, and he’s a co-author). It’s nice to admit when you’re wrong, but it’s even better not to be wrong in the first place on issues that will cost us billions. On issues as complicated as the economy, and even on national security, we need an intelligent man who can figure out what to do before he forms an opinion.

We are not alone.

All us Mittsters, and those who feel they align with Mitt but aren’t sure about voting for him due to the press’ coronation of McCain, should realize that there are a lot of people out there that are looking at Mitt vs. Mac for the first time, whether because they left Fred or Giuliani, because they realize Huckabee isn’t going to win (just look at the Ron Paul-like marginalization of Huckabee in last night’s debate) or whether they just can’t stomach McCain and his liberal past, and Mitt will win among principled Republican voters. Let’s also remind ourselves of the hundreds of thousands that have already voted for Mitt: the total number of voters who have decided 1st vs. 2d in Iowa, NH and FL has been very small. I’d be interested in seeing what the current popular vote count is (the difference between McCain and Mitt is not large). And if we work to get Mitt more delegates than McCain on Super Tuesday, McCain’s 28 delegate lead will recede into memory.

No Scaling Back Now

Some reporting went on this morning about Mitt scaling back advertising, but the National Review pointed to this article at Yahoo to the contrary.

McCain Stole Florida

For those of you first-time readers, you should realize that John McCain’s apparent momentum (all of 5% of the voters in Florida) was the result of what many have reported to be dirty politics. In 2000 McCain got am-Bushed in South Carolina with lies and innuendo. The people who did it to him worked for George Bush, and now work for McCain. And they pulled a similar trick last weekend: they purposefully distorted Mitt’s record supporting the surge and as Massachusetts governor. Issues aside about the actual record (both issues are Mitt strengths), many media outlets have continued to ask McCain about this (including in the debate last night) because it takes a real contortionist to come up with an argument that McCain was using “straight talk,” and Mitt of course called McCain on it. The media then said the fight was getting “nasty,” but in reality it was Mitt responding to lies about his positions. The resulting swing, based on McCain’s untruth’s and the public’s perception of the race getting ugly, turned some in McCain’s favor. Of course it’s ugly to call someone dishonest, but it’s even uglier if that claim is true. In addition there were reports of lots of mis-deeds reported elsewhere on this site. Bottom line: don’t be fooled by the reported “momentum.” The margin of victory wasn’t significant, conservatives are voting for Mitt, many when faced with Mitt vs. Mac are repulsed by the latter, and, last but not least, the most qualified candidate is still Mitt Romney, who hasn’t resorted to the sorts of dishonesty as McCain has.

Huckabee Supporters’ Coming Crisis of Conscience

If you’re a Huckabee supporter, I believe you have a real crisis of conscience developing. Should you support Mike, who represents your views on social issues but is unlikely to get beyond Tuesday, or do you bet on Mitt or Mac. With McCain’s less than solid record on social issues (other posters help me out here), you may want to consider whether you’d be comfortable with McCain as the candidate. Mitt may be your only choice for a real, pro-life, pro-family, anti-gay marriage candidate. It’s been nice to have Mike in the race I’m sure, as he probably looks like folks you know and see in church on Sunday. But who’s closer to your real ideals, Mitt or McCain? I believe it’s Mitt, and would encourage you to really think about who you’re voting for Tuesday. Damaging Mitt for Mac’s gain is counter-productive to your real concerns, and I believe it’s time to switch horses. It looks like Fred Thompson’s supporters have come our way, and it’s likely many Rudy supporters (though not all) will move to McCain. Who are you most like? Conservative Fred, or socially liberal Rudy? Notwithstanding our candidates’ disagreements, we’d welcome you into the fold.

What you can do to help win

Super Tuesday isn’t about Mitt, it’s about us. He carried the load in the “retail politics” states of Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. But now we need to get out in our own areas with signs, buttons, phone calls and reach out to everyone we know to pull them into Mitt’s fold. So, no. 1, get out and vote. No. 2, make those calls if you’re in the campaign. Talk to friends. If they’re pro-Mitt, or supported Fred, Rudy or Huckabee, tell them they have a choice: Mitt vs. Mac, and they need to choose who they really want. Let’s go.

Share on Facebook

Share This

By: Charles S. Johnson
Helena Independent Record
Saturday, Jun 23, 2007

“Exuding optimism and barely mentioning President Bush, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney vowed Friday that he would continue to wage the war on terrorism if he’s elected president next year.

“Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, addressed the Montana Republican Party at a breakfast meeting where he drew rousing applause from the sellout crowd of more than 340 people.”

…

“‘It’s a time to be optimistic and not a time to look down on our shoes,’ Romney said.

“Citing new U.S. trade opportunities in China and India, Romney said there are now one billion new consumers for U.S. medical and pharmaceutical products and computer hardware and software.

“‘Our Democratic friends, our liberal friends, are tempted to say our source of strength is our government,’ Romney said. ‘The source of America’s strength is its people.’

“America’s strength, he said, lies in its hard-working people who value education, are willing to save for the future, ‘who largely believe in God or something greater than ourselves’ and are willing to take a risk.

“Romney quoted President Ronald Reagan by saying, ‘Conservatism is a philosophy of strength - strong military, strong economy and strong families and values.’”

…

“Romney took a swipe at Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards who said there is no war on terror.

“‘There is a war being waged,’ Romney said. ‘If I am president or any Republican is president, I’ll tell you what: There will be a war waged on terrorists.’

“He called for keeping federal taxes down and, in his lone reference to President Bush, said he favors extending the Bush tax cuts. Romney called for eliminating the federal estate tax, or death tax as he called it, and eliminating federal taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains.

“Romney also put in a strong pitch for family values, calling for efforts to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock.”

“Many of those attending the convention were pleased with his speech.

“‘Wow, that was a knockout,’ said Sen. Greg Barkus, R-Kalispell. ‘Unbelievable.’”

…

“Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, said he liked the ‘overall optimism’ and Romney’s focus ‘on the American people.’

“‘It was good,’ said Sen. Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo. ‘I was impressed. He’s the best I’ve seen so far.’

“Rep. Elsie Arntzen, R-Billings, a teacher and potential candidate for superintendent of public instruction, said she asked Romney afterward about where he stood on education issues. Romney told her he wants to continue the testing under the No Child Left Behind law.

“‘He was impressive,’ she said. ‘It was an emotional speech.’”

View Entire Article

Share on Facebook

Share This