comMITTed to Romney!

By Amanda Earnest

As an avid Mitt Romney fan and supporter, I regularly participate in the Romney campaign’s “Call at Home” program. I’ve “called from home” many different states and have spent hours on the phone with my fellow republicans over the past few weeks, volunteering my time and energy while my baby is napping, to helping Mitt win the GOP nomination. Why? Because I care about the world my kids grow up in; I care about the world I raise them in. My hope for the future is bright for my family and for my children, but today, that hope was deeply (albeit briefly) halted.

The phone system you dial into with this program makes these calls automatically. You stay on the line while the system dials numbers over and over again, until a person actually picks up. At that time, the person’s name and location shows up on the screen.

“Hi there! Is David available?”
“Yes, this is David.”
“Hey David, my name’s Amanda and I’m volunteering on behalf of Governor Mitt Romney today. . .”
My sentence is inturrupted.
“Mitt Romney!? There’s no way I’m voting for him! He’s a Mormon! I have a personal problem with the idea of putting a Mormon in the White house. I’m a Huckabee man.”

After all the calls I’ve made and hours I’ve spent on the phone with people, I have never had this happen. I was a bit taken aback. Obviously not wanting to immediately disclose that I too was “a Mormon” to this man who obviously was not happy with the idea, I politely said,

More »

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

Have you ever wondered why so many evangelical voters are supporting Governor Romney? The writers at the following site are all either evangelicals (5) or Catholic (1). Their reasoning is awesome. Their writing is even better:

Why We Support Governor Romney

After reading their “why” statement, click on “Home” or one of the author’s names to read of their profile.

Just below is the photograph of Nancy French (co-founder) and Charles Mitchell (one of the authors). Both attended the Faith in America speech last month in Texas. Charles is my favorite writer on that site.
.

.
.
~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

In the last month, traffic to this blog site has doubled, more or less. To all of you who have visited this site, THANK YOU! And to all those who contribute as writers, THANK YOU.

For a couple of weeks now, I have been thinking of all the new visitors coming to the site to learn about Governor Romney. Many of us have been studying him for well over a year and we know all about him, his life, his career, his family.

But many of you are new to Gov. Romney and know nothing about him. His speech last month in College Station, Texas was a turning point in his campaign for the presidency, much as a similar speech was for JFK in 1960. Arguably, this speech by Gov. Romney will go down in history as one of the great statesman speeches of all time in this great nation of America. Indeed, many political experts and pundits, including Chris Matthews opined that this speech was the single best political speech they had heard in decades.

I still run into supporters of Governor Romney who still have never heard this speech. This speech is worth the time it takes to watch it. Please do if you have not seen it yet.

I was fortunate to attend this speech. It was an event I will never forget. It was a deeply emotional speech; emotions I observed among many not of the faith of Gov. Romney.
.
.

.
.
~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Some pictures are worth more than a thousand words!

Is it not true that, as Americans, just about every person alive who can vote would not hesitate one second (so they say) to vote for a black man or a woman for President? That this country has progressed over the decades to the point where racial bigotry and gender discrimination are considered relics of the past? We know that both forms of bigotry still exist, but to a much smaller degree than in years past. And yet, religious intolerance, one of the great evils that drove people to found this nation, is still the most conspicuous, insidious, and unspeakable forms of bigotry that pervades this nation!

If you don’t believe me, get a copy of ARTICLE VI — The Movie and tell me I am wrong.

There are still millions in this great nation who are religious bigots beyond comprehension — sorry to say.
.
.

Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials

Share on Facebook

Share This

For many weeks now, I have been saying that all the candidates are out of money except Governor Romney. Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee are all effectively running on fumes right now. All of them have barely enough money to get some ads up in Florida, except Huckabee. After Florida, then what?

But the bigger question is why is Huckabee staying in the race at all? Almost his entire support is the narrow base of evangelical voters. But of them, he struggles to garner 50% of all evangelical votes and cannot even break 10% of all non-evangelical voters. His support is far, far from anything called broad-based. His support is about as narrow as one can get. This Sunday, he will probably continue to keep it narrow by giving a “non-political” sermon (or two, or three, or four) for a hefty fee of $25,000 each, “sacred funds” that, oh by the way, go into his political coffers. That is really a great way to broaden your support!

One last editorial comment before we see these great excerpts. Did any of you catch Huckabee’s reply to the South Carolina flag dispute the other day? He said something to the effect, “If someone came into my state of Arkansas and told me what to do with our state flag, I would tell them where to stick the flag pole!”, and he said it with a broad smile and a laugh. When he wants to be the Baptist minister, he knows how to turn on the humble charm. When he wants to play the shrewd, crass politician, he can easily change course in his language. Language unbecoming any minister of Jesus Christ.

Why are not more Americans able to see through the facade we call Mike Huckabee?

Anyway, check out these quotes. Why is Huckabee still running in this race? Who is he kidding? By staying in the race with such a narrow support base, he is just exploiting those few supporters who are willing to give him money, either directly into his political coffers, or by dropping it in their Sunday church plate.

FLORIDA PRIMARY — Huckabee skimps on Florida for Georgia — Posted on Mon, Jan. 21, 2008 — BY MARC CAPUTO — mcaputo@MiamiHerald.com

“No television commercials. A small and hastily arranged Florida rally. No clear travel schedule. Mike Huckabee is running the most unorthodox campaign of the major Republican candidates. While his opponents blanketed Florida — the biggest primary yet — on Monday, he opened and closed the day in another state, Georgia. … Political observers and Huckabee’s political opponents say it’s all proof that he’s writing off Florida, where he’s not scheduled to campaign Tuesday and where his opponents appear to be out-fighting and out-spending him. Some even speculate that he’s now running for a vice-presidency slot. But Huckabee said reports of his political death are as exaggerated as they are old. ‘’We plan no Mickey Mouse operation in Florida,’’ he said. But he also noted that ‘’no one’’ will have the race ‘wrapped up’ in Florida.”

Or what about this next quote? Apparently, some of Huckabee’s most ardent supporters have finally seen the light with this man:

Washington Prowler — Huckabee Broke — By The Prowler — Published 1/22/2008 12:08:32 AM

“Less than a month after a huge upset victory, and promises that fundraising would be ramped up, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is asking his senior staff to keep working for him without pay, while lower level campaign staff are seeing their salaries cut dramatically or eliminated altogether. ‘The goal is to get a leaner, meaner campaign structure moving into Super Tuesday,’ says a senior campaign adviser. But many of those being asked to take the cut are refusing, and walking away, leaving the campaign with holes to fill. ‘The money simply hasn’t come in at the rate that we expected,’ says the aide. ‘Florida is a $7 million commitment that we can’t meet, and if we did, that leaves us exposed for Super Tuesday, where we have a lot of states and a lot media buys. We had to make tough decisions.’”

Hopefully, as Huckabee continues to barely get 35% of the evangelical vote and hardly any of the non-evangelical vote, somebody will tap him on the shoulder and tell him the truth. In my opinion though, Huckabee’s ego, greatly enlarged by his Iowa evangelical win, will not allow him to quit the race.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

This is the kind of stuff that lost it for Romney in South Carolina. Basically, in my honest to goodness opinion Romney got “McCained”. Like McCain in 2000, the whisper campaign and the out and out bigotry is what lost it for him this go round. I heard in an interview on MSNBC or CNN weeks ago from an evangelical leader who point blank said, “If it were not for Romney’s Mormon faith he’d be a shoo in for the Republican Nomination”. (I’ll look for that video again so I can play it). But, I don’t see how it could be anything else. Keeping in mind that the two most important issues to SC voters according to exit polling was the economy and illegal immigration, now think long and hard to yourself…How on earth is John McCain the strongest candidate on either of those two issues.

Share on Facebook

Share This

HT: Phil Kenny

From: Vanderbilt University.

Bias against Mitt Romney’s religion is one of the reasons that the tag “flip-flopper” sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist John Geer. “There is no question that Romney has changed his positions on some issues, but so have some of the other candidates,” Geer said. “Why does the label stick to Romney but not his opponents? At least some of the answer lies in Romney’s Mormon beliefs.”

Geer and colleagues Brett Benson of Vanderbilt and Jennifer Merolla of Claremont Graduate University designed an Internet survey to assess bias against Mormons, how best to combat it and its potential impact on the nomination process and general election campaign.

“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.

The poll, which was conducted by Polimetrix, included an oversample of Southern Evangelicals that Geer said measured bias with far more precision than previous efforts. The survey shows that 50 percent of conservative Evangelicals evaluate a moderate Christian candidate more positively than a conservative Mormon candidate.

The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.

“As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee,” Geer said.

Media Contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens, (615) 322-NEWS
annmarie.owens@vanderbilt.edu

Share on Facebook

Share This

Congratulations to Governor Romney and his campaign team on a great win in Michigan tonight! As they say down South, he gave the competition a “thumpin’.”

It will be fascinating to analyze the exit polls to see just what the dynamics of the voting indicates. One thing that jumped out of the stats I saw was that among Catholics who go to church weekly, 41% voted for Gov. Romney. So much for Pastor Mike’s attempt to divide and conquer.

Here is the updated delegate count. MSM pundits, pay very close attention to these numbers. Try to keep them in mind as you sit down at your desk and place your fingers on your computer’s keyboard.

These numbers should be the reason why you should exercise a healthy discipline with yourself if you are tempted to write another column or blog calling on Gov. Romney to withdraw from the race.

The reason that Gov. Romney has not taken your advise is because HE IS WINNING!!

Romney…………42

Hunter……………1

~~John Cronin~~

“For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, we will be measured by the answer to four questions: First, were we truly men of courage…..Second, were we truly men of judgment…..Third, were we truly men of integrity…..Finally, were we truly men of dedication?

We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom, symbolizing an end as well as a beginning, signifying renewal as well as change.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961

Share on Facebook

Share This

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE AND THAT YOU PURCHASE THE DVD THAT IS NOW FOR SALE.

Tonight (1/14), with my wife and several family members and friends, we drove to Newport Beach to watch the screening of the new film ARTICLE VI. Atlanta also had a screening of the film tonight at a packed house. The theater at Lido Isle holds about 500 people and it looked like there were about 450.   At the end, Hugh Hewitt, Executive Producer of the film and Reed Dickens, Producer answered questions. Hugh asked the audience by raise of hands how many members of the LDS, Protestant, and Catholic faiths were present. Roughly, the mix was 30%, 50%, and 20% respectively. [see brief review below the film's poster]

Click here to go to the film’s online site ——-> http://www.article6themovie.com/index.php

I highly recommend this documentary to everyone — It is outstanding in every way!

Brief Review:

This film is a documentary. Though I found it very interesting, informative, and even entertaining, it is a documentary. As I listened to conversations around me and with the creators of the movie, people were most enthusiastic.

The movie combines a wonderful mix of music, interviews, video and film footage of historic and current events. Beloved patriotic music was arranged to different melodies and played by a single acoustic guitarist as background to footage of religious strife and intolerance across America. Interviews were primarily of evangelical leaders, including Richard Land, university religious and theology professors, and “woman-on-the-street” interviews among others. There were a large number of different individuals that were interviewed across the country and of many different Protestant faiths.

Some of those interviewed represented the hard-core evangelical point of view of, if-you-are-not-evangelical-you-will-go-to-hell, to the more tolerant, what-would-Jesus-do-if-he-were-here-today points of view, best articulated by David French (co-founder with wife Nancy of EvangelicalsForMitt.org) and Richard Land (at the end, I spoke briefly with Hewitt who said he thought David’s commentary was the best of all those interviewed — David is serving in Iraq as JAG for the Army near the Iranian border today). All in all, I thought the large number of people interviewed and the various points of view provided balance and were fair in presentation.

Fascinating to me, and to most people attending, were the outstanding commentaries by religious/American historians illustrating the many examples of religious bigotry and intolerance this nation has endured from the early days of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts where Quakers were hanged, to the presidential race involving Thomas Jefferson (deist) in which it was feared that the country would become less believing by electing a non-believer. In our nation’s history, various forms of religious intolerance played an important part in many presidential races including that of the JFK who eventually became the first non-Protestant (Catholic) President. In fact, several clips from Kennedy’s amazing and eloquent speech in 1960 to the Texas ministers in Houston were used liberally throughout the film.

Though Governor Romney’s name and photograph (from print articles) were shown a couple of times briefly and there were several examples of religious intolerance against members of the LDS Church (Haun’s Mill Massacre) as well as by LDS Church members (Mountain Meadows Massacre), the film was not about Romney or religious intolerance only involving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Examples of intolerance involving the LDS Church were simply the most frequent and recent examples of many examples provided in the film.

In the discussion we had with Executive Producer John Carosella, Kevin Anderson asked him why they made a decision to exclude clips of Governor Romney’s “Faith in America” speech from last month. He reiterated that the film was never intended to be strictly about politics or about a current presidential candidate. He said the film is intended to be a cultural statement that is intended to stir debate among people of diverse religions to encourage them to find the humanity and friendship in others of completely different faiths.

The narrator of the film (Bryan Hall, I think??) and the person conducting most, if not all, interviews is LDS. However, I believe all the other creators of the film are of different Christian faiths and political persuasions (John Carosella told us he is “a liberal” and with a great laugh said he will be voting for “someone on the other side!”), including Reed Dickens and Hugh Hewitt who are evangelicals.

After the screening, a question was asked as to distribution to political camps and candidates. Dickens said the movie either has been sent or will very soon be sent to every presidential candidate and many members of congress and other national leaders. So look for publicity eventually as candidates are asked for their opinions about the film. Incidentally, Hewitt responded to a question about whether America has matured to the point in which evangelicals can vote in large numbers for someone not of their faith like Governor Romney, as they have not (more than about 25%) in the first three contests. He said he thinks they can. However, he said he was most disappointed in the level of bigotry he has seen thus far in the race. He also said that he is very disappointed that Mike Huckabee has not publicly demanded the end to all religious intolerance that exists today; that he has the power to make a big difference in this way and he has not (not exact quotes, but my attempt to capture the spirit of what he said in a long answer).

Those present that I saw included Ann Romney’s brother, Jim Davies and John Schroeder of Article6Blog.

For all upcoming screenings, click here and scroll down. I highly recommend you purchase the movie and show it often, especially if you live in a future primary or caucus state! This movie is definitely one you will want in your film library.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

THANK YOU to reader NevadaGirl for pointing me to this article. The entire article is outstanding and rather than quote the whole thing in this post, I recommend you click through and read the article at the Townhall blog. This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time about the state of the presidential race today.  It does not address the whole whisper campaign that is preventing the evangelical lemmings from using their heads; it just tells them they better start using their minds or they will lose clout altogether; and the election.

Evangelicals thumbing their nose at the GOP — Friday, January 11, 2008 11:42 AM

Fortunately, I honestly believe that most Americans who identify as evangelicals, will use their minds and not just fall in line with Huckabee in the traditional Democrat “identity politics” way.    Evangelicals were burned for supporting Carter.     In my opinion, they will be severely impacted if they support Huckabee simply because they have the same religion.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hugh Hewitt is the Executive Producer of a new documentary, the trailer of which you may have seen a few weeks ago. The first time I saw the trailer was December 6th. Well, it is finally premiering nationwide (see other locations by clicking CONTINUE READING at the bottom of this post)

Want to attend the premiere? For free? This post is intended promote the film in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside metropolitan areas. See details and RSVP information below the poster of the film.

The date of the California premiere is Monday, January 14, 2008 — Newport Beach, CA

Check-in Begins at 6:00 p.m. — Show Time is 7:00 p.m.

— See trailer and RSVP details below —

Hugh Hewitt will be at this showing next Monday. I plan to attend with my wife (she knows I like a cheap date!). This afternoon (1/10), I was told the theater hold about 500 people and they have received 200 RSVPs.

Southern California Premiere:

Regency Lido Theatre
3459 Via Lido
Newport Beach, CA 92651

RSVP Required by telephone (M-F, 8-5): 949-296-1520 or via email: rsvpoc@outsideeyes.com

Information: Click here —–> ABOUT THE MOVIE

Watch the Trailer: Click here ——-> TRAILER

This one time viewing in California, next Monday, is free of charge (in fact, all premiere locations are free).

OTHER PREMIERE LOCATIONS: The film is also being shown in these cities on various dates: New York, Atlanta, Washington, DC, Shreveport, and Salt Lake City. For more information for these cities, click CONTINUE READING just below.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

TOWNHALL.COM here http://www.townhall.com/blog

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 6:59 PM

I know Ann Marie has a previous post on Mr. Monaghan’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, but I thought what Hugh Hewitt had to say was so important that it bore repeating.

One of the most important points Mr. Hewitt makes is that conservatives are not going to surrender their party without a fight. Their have been numerous calls for Mitt Romney to withdraw from the race. Interesting advise to the candidate who is leading in the delegate count!

I have some unsolicited advise for the ink-stained wretches who are calling for us to hand over the GOP to them on a silver platter……we will see you at the polls in November!

Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan endorsed Mitt Romney today. As one of Michigan’s highest profile business successes this would be news in itself, but it is far more important than just another keen observer of the economy recognizing Romney’s qualifications to serve as president.

Monaghan is a Catholic’s Catholic, the founder of Ave Maria University and Law School, and one of the forces behind Legatus, an organization of senior Catholic business leaders. He is an ardent pro-lifer, and a man deeply concerned with rescuing the culture.

Monaghan’s decision to announce today is a clear signal to social conservatives that it is time to chose and get in the game, first in Michigan and then South Carolina, Nevada and Florida in an effort to save the GOP from capture by the anti-conservative John McCain and the neopopulist Mike Huckabee.

Many leaders of the value voters have stayed on the sidelines, buffeted by conflicting pressures and a sometimes noisy anti-Mormon fringe. They may stay there, but if they do and the presidency is lost and with it the Surpreme Court, their inactivity in January 2008 will be a heavy burden to bear. Monaghan apparently knows this and is leading the way that social conservatives should follow.

There is no way Romney should retire from this race before Super Tuesday no matter how many Beltway-Manhattan pundits want him out. The conservatives are not going to surrender their party, and they want a chance to say so at the ballot box. As the upheaval on the Democratic side showed yesterday, there are many surprises in store for pollsters and pundits in the new media age of politics. By February 5, a thoroughly disgusted core of Republican activists from the center-right will be mobilized across the country to keep their party on the path established by the Reagan-Bush coalitions.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

By: Mary Jacoby

WALL STREET JOURNAL December 26, 2007

I am obviously playing catch-up with my print edition of the WSJ, but this story is very much relevant even though it’s a few days old.

The results are clear. In the battle of “significant” campaign speeches, Mitt Romney’s Dec.6 “Faith In America” address has crushed Rudy Giuliani’s Dec. 15 “closing argument” campaign speech in one key barometer of buzz: YouTube.

As of Monday, a clip of Mr. Romney’s much anticipated address, in which he defended his Mormonism and explained the need for expressions of faith in public life, garnered 46,437 views and some 1,500 comments on the popular video-sharing website.

Mr. Giuliani, speaking to about 200 supporters in Tampa, stressed his leadership qualities and unveiled his new slogan: “Tested. Ready. Now.” His campaign had billed it as the former prosecutor’s “closing argument” for the Republican presidential nomination. The jury appears unconvinced, however. As of Monday, a clip of the speech had been viewed only 1,106 times and it drew no comments.

To me, it is very ironic, that Mike Huckabee’s shameless playing of the religion card, which had the effect of re-introducing an issue that many felt had been taken out of American presidential politics by John F. Kennedy’s speech in Houston, Texas back in 1960, has produced one of the best moments of the campaign thus far and has generated the “buzz” that all politicians hope for, but few attain. It is also ironic that the Romney campaign was at first reluctant to give the speech, understandably and justifiably so. Gov. Romney has run his campaign on the theme of the “three legged stool” of a strong economy, a strong military and strong families. He did not intend to run a campaign based on religion or he would have incorporated it into the original theme.

However, former Gov. Huckabee had a different idea and chose to emphasize religion as a major plank in his platform. I wonder if Mr. Huckabee is having any second thoughts about opening the door on an issue that has now turned into a major gift in disguise.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

I am so sick of Huckabee thinking he “OWNS” God. It’s absolutely sickening to hear some of the things that spew out of his mouth.

From —>This Conference that he addressed while Governor of Arkansas (in which I might add he was representing Mormons thankyouverymuch).

Huckabee, governor since 1996, is a former president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention. He has authored one other book, Character is the Issue: How People with Integrity Can Revolutionize America, which was first publicly announced at the 1997 Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas a year ago and released last September.

Other books given to reporters at the convention Sunday included a how-to boycott book aimed at the Walt Disney Co. by Richard D. Land titled Sending a Message to Mickey: The ABC’s of Making Your Voice Heard at Disney. The back cover features an outline of the famous mouse’s round ears and the words: “He who has ears, let him hear.”

The other book was Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts, who examines the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There have been other comments as well, but this one just irritated me to no end tonight…from —>Huckabee drops “R-bombs” in Iowa.

“Look, John McCain is a rival in the presidential race,” Huckabee said, “but John McCain is an honorable, decent, true-to-heaven America.”

“True-to-Heaven”? Who gave him the right to determine who is “True-to-Heaven”? So, what he means by this is that Mitt Romney isn’t “True-to-Heaven”. But he and John McCain certainly are. The only reason he’s propping up John McCain so much is because it’s convenient for him to do so. Well, Mr. Huckabee. You give a bad name to Christianity, and I’m sick of your so holier than thou attitude and I for one am going to stand up for what’s right and stand up for the candidate who’s honorable, has integrity, and ethics. Who is that you might ask? Mitt Romney.

Share on Facebook

Share This