comMITTed to Romney!

1. Obama’s Century?

An article in Rueters UK asked this rhetorical question: “Is this Obama’s Century?” They alluded to his personal popularity and his party’s dominance of Congress and with the recently announced intention of justice David Souter to retire, the opportunity to appoint a liberal justice to the Supreme Court who would still be on the bench long after Obama left office. This kind of silliness is to be expected from the Left, after all that is what they do best. But let’s inject a note of realism into the discussion. Congressional elections are coming up in 2010 and unless Obama starts to produce some tangible results from his $multi-trillion spending spree, he will be very lucky to escape being a one term President, much less becoming a towering figure that will dominate American political thought for a century.

2. Free Speech: For Leftists Only

When Miss California gave her opinion of gay marriage about a week ago, we all knew she should immediately fasten her seatbelt, because she was heading into a storm from the moment those words left her mouth. Sure enough the Libs went into high dungeon over the perceived outrage of a young woman simply expressing her opinion on a controversial subject. They are allowed to spew the foulest attacks on any conservative because, after all, it’s their Constitutionally protected right to do so. If a conservative dares to stray from politically correct thought, they will be attacked in the crudest and most personal ways. A women’s liberation advocate on The Factor said Miss California should get a “heart transplant, rather than a breast implant,” another far left loon said something so crude I won’t repeat it here. So there we have it. Vicious personal attacks for expressing an honest opinion, from the same folks who cry foul if any limits on foul speech or pornography are so much as suggested.

3. Al Gore: Global Warming Profiteer

The Left have made careers for over 70 years decrying the alleged exploitation of the “little guy” by Republican “fat cats” and by “Big Oil, Big Steel” and Wall Street. Now we see the spectacle of a liberal tax and spender like former Vice President Al Gore getting mega rich by exploiting the manufactured global warming hysteria. Mr. Gore had an estimated net worth of $2 million when he left office in 2001, which has now grown to an estimated $100 million. He is said to have ambitions to become the first “carbon billionaire.” His intention is to convince the American public to allow themselves to pay job killing and wealth destroying energy taxes in order to enrich himself by taking financial positions in companies that will benefit from “cap and trade” laws that will not only enlarge an already bloated federal bureaucracy, but hamstring energy companies with brutal tax rates and a host of new regulations that will put them in a very dangerous position. In my opinion, the Democrat Party is now the party of the rich, the party of the “fat cats.”

4. Peggy Noonan Takes Leave of Her Senses

In an article written for the WSJ, Peggy Noonan pens an apology piece for Barack Obama and his administration, the same outfit that thinks flying Air Force One low over Manhattan and buzzing the Statue of Liberty is a really great idea.

At a time when Americans by the millions have lost their jobs and their homes, individuals within this administration don’t have a problem with spending $328,000 of the taxpayer’s money on a stupid stunt that could have been photo shopped.

Under these circumstances, one of the hardest jobs in the world must be the task of the White House Press Secretary, who is charged with putting a happy face on whatever the embarrassment du jour happens to be.

Now, seeming determined to come to the rescue of the “Gang Who Can’t Shoot Straight” is someone whose work I used to admire greatly, Peggy Noonan.

I have quoted just a few sentences of her piece, which reads like it might have been written by an Obama speechwriter.

With the news of the “Republican In Name Only,” Arlen Specter, making official what we have long known, namely that he is an opportunist and a lifelong Democrat at heart, it is especially disappointing to hear Ms. Noonan mouthing the liberal party line, to wit, a great party needs to welcome into the fold everyone who wants to join it, regardless of what their philosophy of government is. No, Peggy, that is not what makes a party great.

What defines greatness in a political party is building a platform that will keep America safe and prosperous, protect life from cradle to eternity, expand democracy and keep this country what it has always been, the hope of humanity.

Quoting Ms. Noonan: “A great party allows everyone in, and allows prospective members to self-define. If they say they’re Republicans, they should be welcomed and helped to find a place where they fit. [Editor’s Note: We have just seen this. Arlen Specter has just found a place where he fits: the Democrat Party] A great party has a lot of such places. A great party is expansive. A great party has give.”

5. Military Commissions Back In Style

Now that the Community-Organizer-in-chief has a 100 days experience in the real world, it seems that his self-assured opinion of military commissions to try terrorists has changed dramatically. No longer does this naïve and inexperienced President reject out of hand the wisdom of not trying accused terrorists in our federal court system.

From FOXNEWS:

Continuing the military commissions in any form would most likely prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Obama’s political allies, the paper noted.

But officials who work on the Guantanamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts, the Times said.

“The more they look at it,” an official told the Times, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

Obama previously said the commissions had “been an enormous failure” and during the campaign said he would “reject the Military Commissions Act.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

During the election campaign conservatives made much of the fact that Obama was as inexperienced lightweight with extensive connections to hard left operatives like Bill Ayers and others like him. People who have made lucrative careers out of hating America. Now, less than 100 days into his administration, the house of cards the liberals have built seems to be on the verge of collapse. POLITICO makes the case that Obama’s policy drift is pleasing no one on either side of the political spectrum.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21569.html

By JOSH GERSTEIN & MIKE ALLEN

President Barack Obama’s attempt to project legal and moral clarity on coercive CIA interrogation methods has instead done the opposite — creating confusion and political vulnerability over an issue that has inflamed both the left and right.

In the most recent instance, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a memo to the intelligence community that Bush-era interrogation practices yielded had “high-value information,” then omitted that admission from a public version of his assessment.

That leaves a top Obama administration official appearing to validate claims by former Vice President Dick Cheney that waterboarding and other techniques the White House regards as torture were effective in preventing terrorist attacks. And the press release created the impression the administration was trying to suppress this conclusion.

The president, who has said he wants to focus on the future rather than litigate the past, also opened himself to distraction and attack by retracting the earlier assurance by top officials that they had no plans to prosecute lawyers for former President George W. Bush who approved the “enhanced interrogation” program.

A Democratic strategist close to the White House said: “The president looked resolute, and like he had threaded the needle perfectly on the substance: The heat from the right was preposterous, and the heat from the left was manageable. But now they look like the scarecrow, pointing in both directions. They got the policy right, but they look confused and beaten down by critics.”

Read more at Politico.com………

Share on Facebook

Share This

As you all know, there was so much news to cover this week, that I thought I’d just post a kind of “catch all” post that would deal with several subjects.

According to the MSM, the Tea Parties were sponsored by “wealthy corporate lobbyists.”

We had a lot of fun with that one. I saw a booth that was signing people up who were interested in future Tea Parties and I called out to the woman at the booth, “Is this where I get my check from the “wealthy corporate lobbyists?” She laughed and said, “No, but if you find one, pick my check up while you’re at it.”

The Tea Parties were gatherings of, according to Janeane Garofalo, “Tea bagging rednecks” and that we were all “racists.”

Nice try, Janeane, but we ain’t buying it. The reason I ain’t buying it is that I was at the St. Louis Tea Party and I know from first hand experience that there were no “hate” messages on the signs and the vast majority of the crowd was typical middle America. People of all ages were there, from silver haired grandparents, to babies in strollers, there were no “skinheads”, no militia types and I didn’t see any signs that had any crude messages. As to the racist libel, I guess the African-Americans attending, holding up signs that protested the massive spending…..I guess they didn’t get the memo.

The rallies were attended by bitter Republicans who were angry about losing the election.

There was a group at the rally who called themselves “Democrats for fiscal responsibility.” I guess they didn’t get the memo, either. A couple standing next to me were Independents who are against this kind of spending, “whether they are Republicans or Democrats who are doing the spending.” In addition, not one politician, from either party, was allowed to get anywhere near a microphone.

The rallies were attended by a “few hundred rednecks” at each location.

What an insult to the American electorate and a flat out lie to boot. The Park Rangers estimated the crowd at 8,000 plus at the St. Louis venue, alone. Add in all the locations around the country and it is obvious to everyone, with the possible exceptions of Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo, that their ridiculous crowd estimates don’t pass the “laugh test.”

The Dept. Of Homeland Security commissioned a report, that was later leaked, to the effect that returning Iraqi war vets are possible domestic terrorists and need to be watched.

You could safely wager money that Janet Napolitano would be doing some serious back pedaling on that one and, sure enough, the ink on the paper hadn’t dried before Napolitano was saying the obligatory mea culpa.

 What passes for Journalism in the United States has sunk to new lows

I am used to the elitists in the MSM peering over their reading glasses and tisk-tisking the “antics” of certain groups within the American electorate, but going after middle America, the heart and soul of this country, is something new. Not only in the recentness of the attacks, but also the tone of the attacks. “Rednecks,” “racists” possible “domestic terrorists.” Is it any wonder these organizations are going down the tubes? They are so out of touch with the rest of the country, it is stunning to witness their naivete. IMHO they have abandoned all pretext of journalism and are now sold out propagandists.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Take a few minutes to watch this YouTube video that shows President Reagan’s response to Col. Gaddafi’s state sponsored terrorism.

This action by Marine and Naval forces happened in 1986 and was the beginning of the end of Gaddafi’s international adventures.

From what I know of the current Somali pirate hostage situation, the feckless Obama administration’s display of weakness has only emboldened the pirates and now they have demanded “safe passage” and a $2 million ransom. Other hijacked ships, with their captive crews, are now heading for the area where the hostage situation is unfolding and what was a contained crisis is now escalating exponentially because we have a poorly advised, rank amateur as Commander-in-chief.

Our prayers on this Good Friday are with the Captain, his family, the military personnel on the scene and with the other hostages held captive by these pirates.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

So I’ve been on a little bit of a Crusade the last couple days over Obama’s plan to close Gitmo - and I have no intention of letting that change, but I can’t help but feeling that I’m distracting from the real purpose of the site, which is to advance Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate in 2012. So, I’ve decided to blend the two by bringing back the clips of Romney discussing Gitmo during the Republican debates:

Share on Facebook

Share This

It is starting to appear as if Obama has already made the first major misstep of his Presidency - at least thats what we can hope. Even with several more pressing and important issues facing the country, Barack has chosen to use a significant portion of his political capital on the potential closure of the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, otherwise known as Camp X-ray. The President signed the executive order today, though he has offered little in the way of alternatives - perhaps because most of them involve moving terrorists to American soil, if not releasing them altogether.

Fortunately for America, the public’s sympathy for the likes of Kalid Sheik Mohamad is significantly less than that of Obama and the Democrats. A solid plurality, 49%, of the American public support keeping Gitmo open, and keeping terrorists out of the United States. A further 19% are unsure or have no opinion on the facility, and only 32% - less than 1/3 of the population - agrees that Guantanamo Bay should be closed.

Polling Details from Rasmussen Reports Website

Share on Facebook

Share This

President Barack Obama hasn’t even been in office for 36 hours, and he’s already started supporting a policy that is not only opposed by a solid plurality of Americans, but that could seriously damage our country’s ability to wage a successful war and terror. In the middle of an economic crisis, a healthcare crisis, and two active conflicts abroad, Barack Obama has choosen the curious priority of protecting terrorism suspects from enhanced interrogation techniques.

Rumors are swirling - backed up by developments today - that Obama will issue an executive order within the next two days that will order the closure of camp X-ray, the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo bay. The alternative to detaining terrorists in Cuba seems to be bringing them to the United States, either that, or sending them back onto the battlefield to kill and plan to kill again.

But bringing them to the United States is dangerous and will damage our ability to fight and win the war on terror, and to prevent future terrorist attacks:

1. Moving terrorists to the United States would place killers just milies from American homes, schools, and offices.
2. Closing Guantanamo Bay could restrict out ability to use enhanced interrogation techniques, which have yielded intelligence about terrorist activities.
3. Moving terrorists to the United States would eliminate the military court system and force terrorism trials into civilian courts, where evidence requirements would make prosecution more difficult.
4. Moving terrorists to the United States would make it easier for them to challenge their detention, and become mired in a legal system that is already over-burdened.
5. Civilian trials could require classified evidence to be revealed to civilian juries to convict dangerous terrorists, and even to the terrorists themselves.
6. Even if conviction could be achieved, executions could take decades. That leaves the potential that many members of victim’s families could pass away before the terrorists who carried out or planned the attacks ever received justice.

But what can Republicans do? The decision to close Guantanamo Bay is Obama’s and Obama’s alone. I think I know the answer. While Republicans cannot force Obama to keep Gitmo open, we can pass a law - or at least attempt to - that would make it illegal to imprison foreign terrorism suspects within United States borders, perhaps with the exception of those awaiting execution for their crimes.

We’ll see, but the American public is on our side in this issue, and, if we’re successful, it could very well be a big victory for the GOP - not to mention American security.

Share on Facebook

Share This

More wink, wink and turn your back border law enforcement and this from the woman who wants to head the Dept. of Homeland Security. Will it take another 911 for these hacks to get the message that if the borders aren’t defended every American is potentially at great risk?

~~John Cronin~~

TOWNHALL.COM

by Austin Hill

Today, the Arizona state budget is right back where it was when Napolitano became Governor - - facing a staggering $2 billion deficit. And as she moves “up” to Washington, the Governor leaves for her predecessor Jan Brewer the tough task of cutting government spending, an ordeal made even more difficult by years of Napolitano’s unwillingness to reign-in her own spendthrift behavior.

In the public safety arena, a state governor’s equivalent of “homeland security,” Napolitano has been all over the road with policy positions. Early in her first term in 2003, she voiced support for a proposal to allow illegal immigrants to be issued state driver’s licenses. When public outcry turned against her, she fell silent on the issue, and later refused to take a position on the matter when her fellow Democrats introduced legislation to actually make the driver’s license “dream” a reality.

And while 2003 saw the states of California and Texas contemplate whether or not to send state National Guard Troops to the U.S. / Mexico border, Napolitano opposed the idea for Arizona, arguing at the time that border security is a “federal issue” and not the job of state government. Yet three years later, in the midst of her 2006 re-election campaign, Napolitano shocked Democrats and Republicans alike by dispatching the Arizona National Guard to the Mexican border, to “help” with the flood of illegal immigrants.

In so doing, Ms. Napolitano grabbed international media headlines by becoming the first state Governor to place National Guard Troops at the U.S. / Mexico border ( a fact that she confidently reiterated during her Senate testimony). Yet Americans don’t realize that the move was almost entirely symbolic - - she sent troops to the border, yes, but she refused to authorize the troops to do anything besides merely “observe” the border.

One of the most extraordinary components of Napolitano’s Arizona legacy has emerged all within the past four months. With virtually no input from the state legislature, the Governor used her executive powers to mandate the purchase and installation of speed-limit enforcing “photo radar” cameras. The cameras are now dispersed literally everywhere in Arizona - - in the city, and throughout the state’s vast rural regions as well.

Napolitano’s approach to speed enforcement is bad enough for its draconian, big brother tactics. But worse still, in a blatantly cynical move, Napolitano established that citations from the statewide “speed cameras” would carry with them no penalty to one’s driving record - - just a monetary fee. As long as offending drivers are willing to write the check and pay off the government, they can continue to violate speed limit laws with no restrictions on their driving privileges, and the state “profits” all the more.

In recent weeks, Napolitano herself has even begun to speak of her “speed cameras” as a “solution” to the state’s budget woes. And this raises an important question: if Governor Napolitano is willing to reduce-down to a mere dollar figure the punishment assigned to the “crime” of speeding, will Secretary Napolitano be willing to place a mere price tag on the crime of terrorism?

Troops doing nothing at the international border. Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Crime and punishment reduced to dollars and cents. This is Arizona homeland security, Napolitano style. Is America ready?

Share on Facebook

Share This

Chicago’s WGN has obviously struck a nerve in the Obama campaign, judging from the extreme reaction it got to it’s 2 hour program on Obama’s ties to unrepentant Weatherman bomber, Bill Ayers.

To many questions in life, I like to apply what I call the “garden variety common sense test.” If something, after a thorough investigation, just flat out seems to defy common sense, then it is almost a lead pipe cinch that you aught to avoid it like the plague.

If I met someone at a party or some other gathering and started to get to know him by asking him questions about his family, where he went to school, where he worked and what interested him and in the course of the conversation he mentioned that he bombed several Federal buildings during his wild and crazy days as a Weatherman radical and that he only wishes he “could have done more”, the “garden variety common sense test” would tell me to look at my watch and say, “Look at the time, I’ve got to get up early tomorrow. It was good to meet you, enjoy the party.”

That would have been the first and last time I would have spoken to that “gentleman.”

The Obama campaign can moan and groan until the cows come home about how unfair all this criticism is, that it is “guilt by association.” But you know what, there are some people, who are not sorry about their past actions and indeed are proud of what they have done, you just have to walk away from, fast.

Obama did not do that. He sat on boards with this man. Ayers was an early benefactor of Obama’s political career. Obama did not walk away from this man Ayers and on that point alone, he needs to be defeated at the polls this November.

~~John Cronin~~

Chicago Tribune.Com
by John McCormick and Steve Schmadeke, updated

DENVER – Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.

“WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears,” Obama’s campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.”

Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently wrote an article for the National Review that looked at Obama’s ties to Ayers, a former 1960s radical who later emerged as a school reform advocate in Chicago.
The magazine had been blocked in its initial attempts to obtain records from the University of Illinois at Chicago regarding a school reform initiative called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Obama chaired and Ayers co-founded.

Obama critics were quick to suggest that political clout could be involved in seeking to protect Obama from embarrassment. The school later reserved its position and made the records available Tuesday.
On Wednesday evening, Obama’s campaign urged supporters to call the radio station to complain.

“Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse,” the note said.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves,” the note continued. “At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.”

Zack Christenson, executive producer of “Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg,” said the response was strong.

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296780190323947

Surge To Victory

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: They said the surge would fail. They claimed we had no allies. They called Iraq a quagmire. They sought to cut and run. Now, our victories over terror are accelerating across the world.

I love this quote from the end of the article: IT’S A BAD TIME TO BE A TERRORIST.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Following is the opening paragraph to this AP article today:

John McCain accused Mitt Romney of wanting to withdraw troops from Iraq, drawing immediate protest from his Republican presidential rival who said: “That’s simply wrong and it’s dishonest, and he should apologize.”

John McCain coming out to blatantly lie like this smacks of complete desperation. John McCain cannot even remember what he says from day to day (see post just below) and now he is flat out lying about a fellow Republican. His new tactics: When in doubt, just lie.

For those who would like to see Governor Romney’s record on the subject (these are what we call facts), please continue reading:

GOVERNOR ROMNEY ON ACHIEVING SUCCESS IN IRAQ

Governor Romney Criticized Withdrawal Timetables And Instead Talked About Setting Metrics To Measure Progress:

Governor Romney: “You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 4/3/07)

Governor Romney: “Could you imagine the setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, ‘Gee, if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date why we’ll go home,’ or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave?” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 4/3/07)

Governor Romney Has Warned About Bringing American Troops Home Too Quickly:

Governor Romney: “Well, there’s no question we all want to see our troops home as soon as we can possibly have them home. But we have to recognize that if we bring them home too quickly or in a way which leads to a collapse of the country or perhaps the Iranians grabbing the Shia south or Al-Qaeda playing a dominating role among the Sunnis or a Kurdish population destabilizing the border with Turkey, you could then end up with a regional conflict which would cause Americans to somehow have to get involved again – this time at a much more ugly situation with more casualties.” (”Laura Ingraham Show,” 3/9/07)

Governor Romney: “I Don’t Think We Should Run Our Foreign Policy Based Upon Elections, Election Schedules Or Anything Of That Nature.” “But Mr. Romney said he did not agree with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, that President Bush needed to resolve the war he started before he left office and not hand it off to his successor, as she said while campaigning in Iowa on Sunday. ‘She can do what she likes – but I take exception to her conclusions,’” Mr. Romney said in an interview while campaigning across this state today. ‘I don’t think we should run our foreign policy based upon elections, election schedules or anything of that nature.’” (Adam Nagourney, “Romney: Clinton’s Wrong About Bush,” The New York Times, 1/29/07)

Governor Romney Has Consistently Said There Must Be “Clear Objectives And Milestones”:

Governor Romney Said There Must Be “Clear Objectives And Milestones” In Iraq. “This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.” (Romney For President, “Governor Mitt Romney On Iraq,” Press Release, 1/10/07)

President Bush Has Himself Talked About The Importance Of Setting Benchmarks In Iraq:

President Bush: “Iraq’s Leaders Must Continue To Work To Meet The Benchmarks That Have [Been] Set Forward.” “As we help the Iraqis secure their capital, their leaders are also beginning to meet the benchmarks they have laid out for political reconciliation. … There’s been good progress. There’s a lot more work to be done, and Iraq’s leaders must continue to work to meet the benchmarks that have set forward.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks On The Fourth Anniversary Of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Washington, D.C. 3/19/07)

President Bush “Pleased” Iraqi Government “Meeting Benchmarks.” “I was pleased that he’s meeting benchmarks that he had set out for his government. One of the benchmarks was to move Iraqi troops into the city of Baghdad – troops that will be complemented by our own troops. He is meeting those obligations. A second such benchmark is that he would change the rules of engagement so that criminals, regardless of their religion, would be brought to justice in equal fashion. He is meeting that benchmark. Thirdly, he passed a budget of which $10 billion is available for reconstruction. He said he would do that; the budget has been passed, he has met that benchmark.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks Meeting With Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Ambassador-Designee To Iraq, Washington D.C., 2/16/07)

I am guessing that between now and Tuesday, the day of the Florida primary, that John McCain will try many other desperate tactics against Governor Romney.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Consider these points:

• McCain’s the candidate of amnesty for illegal aliens, (more here)
• McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research
• McCain has said “I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade”.
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, (and still does), and refuses to sign the “No New Taxes” pledge, (more here)..
• McCain supports legislation that would increase taxes on energy.
• McCain was the ring-leader of the Senate “Gang of 14″, which kept the then Senate Republican leadership from ending the ability of Democrats to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominees, (more here).
• McCain supports legislation to grant due-process rights to terrorists.
• McCain sponsored the legislation which restricts free-speech rights of those involved in the political process, (the McCain/Feingold bill)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Following are results of a CNN exit poll conducted in New Hampshire Tuesday among 1,520 voters. Though these results reflect the fact that the majority of voters chose McCain and Romney, there are some very interesting differences, especially where Romney ended ahead of the winner, McCain:

Republican Voters (”Vote by party ID” — excludes independents) chose:

MR — 35%
JM — 34%
MH — 13%
RG — 10%
.
.
All voters chose their candidate as the “Strongest Leader” — This measures the strength of the voters’ choice (in other words, which candidate got the most votes in this category by comparison to the others?):

MR — 86%
MH — 84%
JM — 81%
RG — 55%
.
.
Voters of New Hampshire that strongly oppose civil unions:

MR — 37%
JM — 32%
MH — 11%
RG — 6%
.
.
Very worried about Terrorism:

MR — 39%
JM — 33%
MH — 12%
RG — 10%
.
.
Voters that think the new President should be more conservative than President Bush:

MR — 35%
JM — 31%
MH — 13%
RP — 10%
.
.
The following result was stunning to me. John McCain, the military man came in third! Even McCain supporters are less sold on McCain by comparison to the other voters. And Giuliani 4th at 58%? What about his “9/11″ credentials?
All voters chose their candidate as the “Best Commander in Chief” — This measures the strength of the voters’ choice (in other words, which candidate got the most votes in this category by comparison to the others?):

MR — 94%
MH — 89%
JM — 78%
RG — 58%
.
.
Conservative Voters chose:

MR — 38%
JM — 30%
MH — 12%
RG — 8%
.
.

Check the gap here between Governors Romney and Huckabee:

Very Conservative Voters chose:

MR — 43%
MH — 19%
JM — 18%
RP — 7%
.
.
Voters that think this candidate shares their values:

MR — 38%
MH — 22%
JM — 16%
RP — 12%

See link in the opening paragraph for many more results. These are but few of many very interesting numbers. Governor Romney was the strongest candidate in many of the voters’ minds.

~ Vic

SMALL DOLLARS COUNT BIG — Please Contribute Here to Governor Romney’s Campaign

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ve had an emotionally turbulent day anyway, it began this morning when I spoke to my dying nephew on the phone as I’m unable to travel to see him before he parts this earth. So, I was already on shaky ground there. Moving forward, when I made the rounds of all my news sources (first stopping at Politico, and then moving on to the ore MSM varieties) I was stunned to hear that Benazir Bhutto had been assassinated. My heart just sunk to hear of it. I guess already being emotional was part of it, but I also believe there was more to it.

I’ve always admired her. I’ve forever had an intense interest in politics and have desired to run for office myself one day, and while I’m not a raging feminist and desire to have female Presidents and Prime Ministers for the sake of having them, I have always loved following female leaders in the world that had the strength, fortitude, and determination to bring about change to this world (I also highly admire Margaret Thatcher and her steel resolve as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). The thing that set Ms. Bhutto apart from Thatcher though was the fact that she became Prime Minister in of all places Pakistan, a very Muslim Nation where it’s most remarkable that it ever happened. Bhutto had moxie. She was one tough woman. I was delighted to see her return from exile to her home country, and even more happy to see that she was running to be Prime Minister again. I have felt a high level of anger toward the Pakistani government of late. I feel that our once “ally” hasn’t done much to nurture that relationship. I had strong hopes that if Bhutto were to win again that that area of the world had some hope for itself. With her death, things are that much more tumultuous than they were before. To conclude, I wish her husband and three children peace. I hope that someone within her group of supporters can rise up and take on the mantle that she was trying to put forth. Rest in peace Ms. Bhutto you’ll surely be missed by this world.

—–>Killed Bhutto’s body flown home.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hugh Hewitt does an excellent job recapping why McCain’s campaign was on life support only a month or two ago only to have been resurrected by the MSM.

On McCain Feingold:

First, they have to forget that the fundraising advantage the GOP built to counter the Dems’ union juggernaut was overthrown by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform,” and done so in an unconstitutional fashion, proving not only McCain’s indifference to the party’s success but also to the idea of Free Speech. This bust of a bill also unleashed the 527s on the land, guaranteeing even more secretive and dirty pool politics. Senator McCain’s signal legislative achievement turns out to be deeply flawed constitutionally and counterproductive of its announced goals.

On the Bush Tax Cuts and Federal Marriage Amendment:

Economic conservatives will also have to have their memories erased of Senator McCain’s votes against the Bush tax cuts.

The neuralyzer will also have to get to the social conservatives and erase the memory of John McCain’s votes against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

On the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill:

The biggest issues for many Republican voters center on immigration and border security. These voters will have to be persuaded to forget John McCain’s ill-fated attempted jam down on immigration which McCain ally Lindsey Graham forced through the Judiciary Committee. Not remembering the bill is a bit of a big order since it was known as McCain-Kennedy and was widely understood by conservatives to be tantamount to amnesty.

On National Security:

National security conservatives will have to agree to set aside the fact that McCaiin’s grandstanding on the issue of the treatment of unlawful combatants in September 2006 derailed the entire GOP’s endgame agenda heading into the elections. The Senate leadership and the White House had agreed on a careful series of legislative propositions on the Gitmo detainees and on surveillance protocols for use when watching terrorists abroad communicating with their allies inside the U.S., an agenda which also included some crucial judicial nominations like the still stalled one of Peter Keisler to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals, an agenda which would have done much to recapture the sense of momentum the upper chamber and the GOP as a whole had lost and which would have focused the public on the war and the role of intelligence gathering in it. Senators McCain and Graham smashed up the entire plan and the Senate majority was erased a few weeks later.

On Conservative Judicial Nominations:

And all conservatives will have to set aside their deep, deep anger over John McCain’s Gang of 14 coup that ended the hopes of restoring decency, order and constitutional process to the judicial confirmation process.

Recall what had happened: Serial filibusters were staged by Dems against many Bush nominees throughout 2003 and 2004. The GOP and the president campaigned on the issue of the judges throughout the elections of 2004, and won a 55 seat Senate majority in part on the strength of the outrage on the issue. Majority Leader Frist set about organizing a strategy –the Constitutional Option or Nuclear Option– which anticipated that a ruling would be requested from the Senate Chair –the Vice President– on whether or not a filibuster could be used against a judicial nominee. At least 50 of the GOP’s 55 senators were pledged to support the chair. A crucial and long-lasting victory would have been won and a principle established.

Days before the vote and the end of the filibusters, John McCain engineered a deal with six other Republicans and seven Democrats which threw some fine nominees under the bus in exchange for a temporary abandonment by Democrats of filibusters against some Bush nominees. The shock and outrage at McCain among conservatives at this awful deal was of a intensity that has rarely been matched. John McCain in effect undid the vote of 2004, compromised away an issue he had not been asked to lead on and on which millions of Republican voters had voted and for which they had contributed. Millions of Republicans care deeply about judges. John McCain did not. He could not allow Majority Leader Frist his victory, but in sabotaging Frist, he sunk his own candidacy. The one issue on which all three core GOP constituencies agree is the importance of originalists on the bench. It was obvious amid the wreckage brought about by the Gang of 14 that John McCain didn’t care about the courts. He cared about John McCain.

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

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Share This