comMITTed to Romney!

A conservative voice for Republicans, Tom Coburn, writes in the online edition of the WSJ what many of us are thinking: If Republicans want to start winning elections again…Start acting like Republicans!

~~John Cronin~~

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184690228421415.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

By TOM COBURN

May 27, 2008; Page A21

As congressional Republicans contemplate the prospect of an electoral disaster this November, much is being written about the supposed soul-searching in the Republican Party. A more accurate description of our state is paralysis and denial.

Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.

Share on Facebook

Share This

It is always so gratifying to see the very themes being played out here, on this site, being played out in the major media outlets as well. This time in no less a publication than the WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE. Please read this very interesting article and see Gerald Seib talking about the concerns of social conservatives this election cycle. Mr. Seib writes about the religious right reminding the Republican Party that “you can’t win this thing without us.”

~~John Cronin~~

http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/05/19/
disquiet-on-the-right-a-danger-for-mccain/

Gerald F. Seib, executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal, has been involved in covering every presidential election since 1980 and writes the weekly Capital Journal column for the Journal.

That sound you hear is rumbling among unhappy social conservatives on the Republican Party’s right wing; it spells trouble not just for President Bush, but for the party’s presumptive presidential candidate, John McCain.

At a time when Sen. McCain badly needs to consolidate the support of the Republican base before the general-election campaign begins in earnest, leaders of the party’s social conservatives are letting it be known—quietly, for now—that they aren’t happy with the way their desires are being met.

The immediate target of their grumbling is Mr. Bush, but the message to Sen. McCain is clear: “You need us in the fall, not just those independent voters everybody wants you to spend your time courting.”

Share on Facebook

Share This

This is an outstanding article from The Wall Street Journal today. It is just amazing to me that people and groups like these can essentially operate without impunity:

Stealthy Groups Shake Up Races — Independent Outfits Avoid Disclosing Donors; Phone Calls for Huckabee
By BRODY MULLINS — February 4, 2008; Page A12

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Election results from Florida were still rolling in last Tuesday evening when Patrick Davis began plotting to help his candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in tomorrow’s slate of Super Tuesday contests. He checked campaign finances, analyzed polls and edited phone-call scripts to solicit votes and bash opponents.

But Mr. Davis doesn’t work for the Huckabee campaign. In fact, Mr. Huckabee has called for Mr. Davis to halt his activities, which are funded by undisclosed donors.

Mr. Davis is the campaign manager for an outfit called Trust Huckabee, one of a new breed of sophisticated campaign organizations that have sprung up amid the many groups pumping money into the presidential primaries. Like independent groups in the past, they are unafraid to attack opponents and aren’t subject to limits on campaign contributions. Unlike the older groups, the new ones don’t identify their donors and can directly ask people to vote for and against candidates.

The groups are employing a legal loophole: Saying elections aren’t their “primary purpose,” they’ve interpreted a 22-year-old Supreme Court ruling to help them wage aggressive campaigns. That ruling originally applied to a small group of issue-advocacy organizations, but increasingly it is being used by

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

This article in today’s The Wall Street Journal is by Vin Weber, Policy Chairman of Governor Romney’s campaign.

COMMENTARY — A Call to Conservative Action — By VIN WEBER — February 1, 2008; Page A15

On each of the major challenges confronting our country, Washington has failed to act. Mr. Romney will not. Throughout his career in business and public service, he has never failed to meet a challenge. That is leadership we need today.

For far too long, Americans have watched as our borders remain unsecure, our tax burden grows, and long-term challenges are left unfixed. This is a call to action that Mr. Romney has spoken to throughout this campaign. He will build a stronger America and has laid out the conservative strategy to do so.

Mr. Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, is policy chairman of the Romney for President campaign.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

What do you think Mitt did the night after his 2nd place finish in Florida?  I know what I did - went to bed, intending the next day to take a short break, and try to re-energize and re-configure, re-focus for Super Tuesday.  It was a blow, I was mad at McCain, mad at Huckabee and mad that there weren’t more conservative voters in Florida.  I started to question if there are even enough conservatives left in the country to put their voices and hands behind Mitt and give and do and say all they could to get him to the White House.  I was worried, disheartened, frustrated.  Then the next morning, Rush Limbaugh started talking about how “the great thing about this country is that there’s always another election - 2012, 2016 - so maybe we’ll win next time around, blah, blah, blah.”  Thanks for another downer, Rush.

What was Mitt doing?  Hmm, let me think - tireless worker, eternal optimist, master strategist, turnaround expert…  - well, he probably wasn’t doing what I was doing! 

Elizabeth Holmes from the Wall Street Journal, who I believe is part of Mitt’s press entourage, confirmed my suspicions:

…Mr. Romney began sharpening his strategy early Wednesday as his campaign-chartered Boeing 737 flew over the Rocky Mountains. With most of the entourage asleep, the candidate sat at the front of the plane in the fold-down seat typically reserved for a flight attendant, surrounded by three of his aides, a notepad in hand.

Is this not the Mitt we know and believe in?  In the early morning hours after Florida, Mitt’s up strategizing (hopefully his aides are early-birds like him!) planning and preparing for the days and weeks ahead.  Sitting on the not-so-comfy flight attendant seat to boot.  I don’t know about you, but it’s those little details about Mitt that I really admire, and find so inspiring.  The types of actions that are characteristic of an honest, humble, hard-working leader, that are often so absent in Washington.  I find it interesting that the lie that is told the most by Mitt’s critics - that he lacks conviction and therefore personal integrity - is in reality the exact opposite - that he is a man, person, leader, husband, father, Governor, CEO and future President of extremely strong morals, standards and values, and who is willing to walk the walk, to do all and more of what he asks of those who follow him - this is what I have come to admire the most in Mitt.

Mitt’s in this for the long haul.   I think this is going to go beyond Super Tuesday, which is excellent for Mitt.  The more time he has, the better his chances are of exposing McCain, refuting the media’s lies (they haven’t really come up with a new one for a while now - that’s why McCain’s attempt over the weekend was so pathetic), and gaining the support of the conservatives of the party.  As Ann Romney said in the Florida speech, “This is just the beginning.”  It’s really exciting to watch and be a part of.  Mitt can and will take this all the way.  Let’s work hard to keep up with him!

Share on Facebook

Share This

From The Wall Street Journal

He Touts Expertise as Focus Shifts to Economy
By ELIZABETH HOLMES
January 26, 2008; Page A4

The bad economic outlook might be good news for Mitt Romney, the millionaire venture capitalist who is in a tight race here for the Republican presidential nomination.

As voters’ worries have shifted away from the war in Iraq and turned to the roiled markets, Mr. Romney, with his fixation on PowerPoint slides and fever lines, has come into his own on the stump just ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Armed with a stimulus plan that favors big business, a reputation for hard-line cuts and even a sign that boasts “Economic Turnaround,” Mr. Romney has shifted his campaign rhetoric back into his comfort zone.

The new focus has put his opponents on the defensive — but also helped them step up their jabs at the perpetually stiff and rehearsed Mr. Romney. “Gov. Romney is touting his qualifications and his experience and his résumé as a manager,” said Arizona Sen. John McCain. “I am telling the American people, and they know it, that I am a leader.”

His punches didn’t stop there. “You can hire managers all the time. People who do the mechanics, people who implement policies. People who are good with assets,” Mr. McCain told reporters Friday. “Leadership is people who have had the hands-on experience and patriotism in service to our country and the nation.”

Starting at the southern tip of the Sunshine State before flying north Friday to the Panhandle, Mr. Romney, a former head of Bain Capital, was every bit the confident executive. To a crowd standing in the parking lot outside a military-technology manufacturer, Mr. Romney heralded the focus on the economy. “I particularly like the fact that the other candidates are increasingly talking about the issues that you want to have talked about,” he said.

It is what he has wanted to talk about all along. Mr. Romney has served up the economy as part of his stump fare for months. At a debate in Iowa in August, he was asked about fixing roads and bridges following the Minneapolis bridge collapse. As part of his answer, he prescribed: “Invest in the future of the economy.” In December, the first slide of a PowerPoint presentation in Manchester, N.H., was titled, “What is the future of the U.S. economy?”

Now, with troubles from the housing sector spilling over into other markets, Mr. Romney’s financial background gets a warmer reception. “What you want is someone that’s competent,” said Luis Espino, a 38-year-old attorney from Miami and undecided Republican, “someone that’s able to engage with the people that make decisions about the economy.” He paused before adding: “Just like the president does when he’s talking to generals to make military decisions.”

Mr. Romney’s economy-heavy stump speech plays well in Florida, the state with the highest population — roughly 17% — of residents 65 years and older. Many are retirees who worry about their income. “I live on a fixed income, mostly from investments in the Wall Street,” said Mildred Klemp, an 80-year-old Republican living in Naples, who hasn’t decided between Messrs. Romney and McCain. “The bulk of my estate is in the stock market, and I don’t know about that,” she said of the turbulent markets last Tuesday. “Had me worried.”

It also doesn’t hurt that Mr. Romney, with his tanned face and slicked-back hair, looks the part of a successful investor. Mr. Romney also has plenty of experience asking people to trust him with their money. In Iowa and New Hampshire — two early contests he poured resources into only to place second — the 60-year-old regularly brought out PowerPoint presentations with bar charts and bullet points to delve deep into the wonky side of politics.

Mr. Romney touts himself as a turnaround artist, and is a staunch defender of big business. Earlier this month, he held an impromptu news conference outside a General Motors Corp. facility in Ypsilanti, Mich., to talk about the auto industry’s troubles, not to slam the corporate giant for job cuts. “General Motors is taking action to remain competitive, to remain profitable, and that’s essential for the survival of that company,” he said.

Those kinds of comments have opened him up to attacks from his rivals. Mike Huckabee, who came from behind to trounce Mr. Romney in the Iowa caucuses, has repeatedly said voters don’t want a White House run by the “guy who laid them off.” And Mr. McCain has said that running the Senate Commerce Committee, as he has done, is better experience than running an investment company.

Mr. Romney directly responded to those attacks Friday. At an outdoor rally in Pensacola, he ticked off several quotes from Mr. McCain’s past in which the Arizona senator admitted to knowing more about foreign policy than the economy, including when Mr. McCain told reporters in December, “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”

At a meeting of the Latin Builders Association in Miami Friday morning, Mr. Romney subtly addressed Mr. Huckabee’s critiques — without naming his opponent. Mr. Romney called layoffs “the hardest thing I’ve done in business” and said it was “awful, feels terrible.”

Mr. Romney, speaking to a crowd of executives, sought to turn around the critiques of his business record. “I hear people now and then say not every business that you invested in or managed was successful,” he said. “It’s like, yeah, of course — have you ever been in business before?” He continued: “They don’t all work. That’s the nature of risk and return.”

Mr. Romney’s handling of the touchy subject impressed Israel Velasco, a regional executive for Banco Popular and an undecided voter. “It’s bad times — the experience with those bad times — that help you grow a business,” said Mr. Velasco, a 43-year-old from Coral Gables, Fla. “He was dead on the money when he talked about that.”

Even Republican voters who support other candidates don’t doubt Mr. Romney’s capabilities when it comes to the economy. Daniel Diaz Leyva, a 28-year-old attorney from Coral Gables, said he has great respect for Mr. Romney’s economic expertise but plans to vote for Mr. Giuliani on Tuesday. “You can’t be one-track minded,” he said. “The economy obviously is a huge issue but…experience in foreign affairs, I think, is a big issue.” He’s still holding out hope for Mr. Romney elsewhere in the new administration.

“I hope they appoint him Secretary of the Treasury,” he said.

Write to Elizabeth Holmes at elizabeth.holmes@wsj.com

Share on Facebook

Share This

I am in wonderment as to why the MSM pays any attention to the Head to Head polls when we have not even finished the primaries. I know that it is fun for them to speculate and it makes news, but polls on this national level mean nothing. If I was to look at this logically why would we, as the republican party, want to send McCain up against Hillary. Politically it would be like a Brother and Sister running against each other for President of the U.S. Are we so blind that we cannot see that rotating chairs in Washington with people that have been their for so many years is not a good idea. Why do you think that the most successful coporations higher their CEO from outside unless they were groomed specicially for the role. This process would not take 30 years. OOOOOOOOh I forgot this is washington, not the real world…

Brent

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ve been wanting to post to this article for a few days now. When I read it in my print edition of The Wall Street Journal, I cut it out to post. However, when I got home, it was in the subscription part of the online version. I have not had the time to type it manually. Today, somehow it was freed up in the online version so, here it is.

After reading this, I seriously do not understand why any person would trust Mike Huckabee with the reigns of power to control America’s domestic policy, let alone our foreign policy. How can anybody actually believe that Mike Huckabee would be the best President to run America’s economy? Or even our third, fourth, or fifth choice?

Here is the link [if the link does not work, click on CONTINUE READING at the bottom of the post where I pasted the entire article]:

COMMENTARY — FairTax Flaws — By JERRY BOWYER — January 8, 2008; Page A20

The entire article is worth the time to read it.

Bowyer starts off this Op/Ed piece by giving examples of ideology that, if all worked like Huckabee portends, we would now be living in Utopia. He then points out the flaws of the so-called “Fair Tax”.

And look at this guy’s credentials: Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor. Do you think he knows what he is talking about?

[emphasis below is mine]

The problem is that none of this would happen. People would simply switch from cheating on income taxes to cheating on sales taxes.

Small vendors often fail to withhold sales taxes. Buyers cheat on sales taxes now. They often fail to pay taxes on interstate catalogue sales. They buy some goods in black markets.

This doesn’t happen much because sales taxes are much lower than income taxes, but if that were reversed, consumers would cheat more. Look at cigarettes. Organized crime sells smokes on the black market in jurisdictions that impose high cigarette taxes.

There is a large category of economic activity designed to avoid sales taxes — it’s called smuggling. We don’t hear that word much anymore, because we’re not a sales-tax or tariff-based system anymore. Increase sales taxes to a combined state and federal 30%, up from a state-based 6% now, and watch the dodging begin.

The immigrant stuff is nonsense on stilts. Let me ask you this: If they’re here illegally, why won’t they also buy and sell goods on the black market?

Then there’s the complexity argument. You don’t think the lobbyists and lawyers will get involved in this, looking for exemptions on houses, medical services and education? You’re going to put a 30% tax on my home purchase, and my doctor visits and my kids’ tuition? Yeah, great idea.

And what about business transactions? If you tax business-to-business transactions, then you’ll set off a wave of corporate consolidation. Instead of buying from a supplier at a 30% markup, I’ll just buy my supplier and be tax free. And what about financial firms like Goldman Sachs, which spend most of their money on payroll and investments, and very little on goods and services? Goldman will pay taxes on what? Paper clips?

If, on the other hand, we institute the most widely supported version of the national sales tax, then business transactions are to be exempted. In addition to the colossal job of selling America on a zero tax rate for business, a rigorous definition of the term “business transaction” would have to be provided. What is a business transaction, exactly? I write articles for publication. I consider it a hobby. Sometimes I get paid. Should I pay sales taxes on money I earn for writing this article?

What about the Internet connection I used to send it? Should readers pay taxes on the connection they use to read my article? What if a reader uses it for his job? If he is a financial adviser, then no, but otherwise it’s yes? Will I pay taxes on gas I used to drive to the studio to talk about this article? What if I stop to buy my son Jack a birthday present on the way home?

I’m a recovering tax accountant (and not a good one at that) and I’ve got 50 ways to avoid this tax swimming around in my head. What about the really smart guys?

And what about transition rules? There are millions of transactions that are, at any given moment, occurring over an extended time. The most obvious example is retirement. I defer taxes now, for retirement later. So I make a decision based on an income-tax regime that doesn’t make any sense in a sales-tax regime. Do I get my money back? What about Roth IRAs? I pay income taxes on the money now, and then pay again later when I spend it during retirement? Double taxation isn’t really a “fair” tax, is it?

These are the easy-to-see cases, but what about the incredible variety of tax questions raised by installment sales? Inventory accounting? Wholesale purchases? Ebay?

None of this matters anyway. We will never make this change. The 16th Amendment will not be repealed in favor of a tax vigorously opposed by an army of restaurants, pubs and retail stores. It’s hard to get good ideas through the ratification process; imagine how hard it would be to push this stinker. In point of fact, the FairTax serves one main purpose right now: It gives Mr. Huckabee the chance to sum up his economic plan in one line. And that just doesn’t seem, well, fair.

Any of you who are Huckabee supporters out there who want to give it a stab to explain to us less knowledgeable Romniacs why you think it is a good idea to hand over power to Mr. Huckabee, please leave your comments. I am very curious why you think this plan of Huckabee’s is not the perfect sign of his complete naivete.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Before I discuss this article, I have to get a few things off my chest. What is it about the MSM and even The Wall Street Journal? A few thoughts:

— How many times have I heard in the last couple of days that we have now had “one caucus state and one primary state out of the way…”? What about Wyoming? Oh yeah, that one doesn’t count because Romney came in first in that state.

— I have now read this exact statement six or seven times in the last month in several sources, including the WSJ ——> ” . . . in South Carolina, where that state’s large evangelical population is suspicious of Mormons.” What do they mean when they print, “Christians suspicious of Mormons”? Suspicious? Of what? That Romney, as a Mormon, is going to have every school begin teaching from the Book of Mormon? Or that a President Romney will force all White House staff to drink some special kool-aid? Why don’t they come out and say it? The media knows that many so-called “Christians” are simple religious bigots? Heck, I just learned today that the Klu Klux Klan was not only racist, but at one time would completely discriminate against Catholics. As if their “suspicion” is somehow the fault of Mormons! It is nothing more than good ole bigotry — pure and simple.

— Several of the news outlets were showing Romney with fewer delegates and behind Huckabee (CNN had it right from the beginning). Worse, very few news organizations or pundits even mention delegate count. Oh yeah, Romney is leading in the delegate count and has been for a long time now.

— How many times have I read that Huckabee has the momentum or that McCain has the momentum? Hyperbole! Tonight after the debate, after Thompson had 17 cups of coffee, Thompson looked a little energetic, therefore he now has the momentum. Great (by the way, did you see how he kept reading from notes? — great actor)

— The flip/flop brand — I read two articles Monday that both stated that Governor Romney was once pro gay marriage! As if this was some other example of a flip or flop. HOGWASH! Completely false. There have been misstatement after misstatement just like this every day in the media.

— Lastly, if Governor Romney had made 1/10 the gaffes that Huckabee has made (Satan/Jesus question, “I am Christian” statement [if a Jew were running, he would be toast; but a Mormon is okay], etc. and on and on), Governor Romney would have been finished long ago. So why is Huckabee still in it? I think it is because there is a double standard. For some reason, Governor Romney is held to a much higher standard. It is as if everybody knows that he is far more talented and has a far greater advantage than all the rest, that he must therefore prove himself at a much higher standard!

Another example. Take the name of this Journal article. “Clinton, McCain Rake In Cash…” What? McCain wins NH and gets a tiny fundraising boost and he is in the headline for it? Just below this link is a quote on this.

Clinton, McCain Rake In Cash As Race Gets Costlier — With Feb. 5 Ahead, Obama Has Funds, Huckabee’s Hurting — By CHRISTOPHER COOPER — January 10, 2008; Page A9

It is Romney whose name should be in the headline! It should read, “Clinton wins and gets cash boost; Romney comes in second and gets HUGE cash…” since he raised $5 million! IN ONE DAY this week. As you see here, McCain raised what, $1 million in a week? Big deal.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who also notched a win Tuesday, in a stunning financial reversal has raised $1 million since Jan. 1, his campaign says.

It is as if we just ended the spring training games of professional baseball; the easy games in which different strategies and tactics are tried. Games in which substitution of players and ideas is free and easy. Now though, we enter the real season. The big leagues. Consider this:

With the two early-voting contests over, both Republican and Democratic candidates have effectively seen the end of bargain-basement campaigning for this political season. With small populations and a traditional emphasis on candidate appearances and stump campaigning, Iowa and New Hampshire make it relatively easy for low-rolling politicians to stay afloat.

But an unprecedented and extremely costly day is looming: On Feb. 5, 22 states, including delegate-rich California, New York and Illinois, will hold nominating contests. At stake will be 2,075 delegates — enough to snuff the hopes of any front-runner or make any also-ran a king.

Try to imagine McCain, Thompson, or Huckabee competing in all of the Feb. 5th states with the money they don’t have today. Even Giuliani who has been struggling in his fundraising — the big leagues are going to be a real challenge for him as he attempts to bring his polling numbers back up in key states.

According to political media analyst Evan Tracey, television advertising alone for the Feb. 5 contest could easily soak up $25 million per candidate. In California, for example, gubernatorial candidates had no problem spending $4 million a week in 2006.

Check this quote. Does anybody really think Huckabee is going to get it together to raise real money fast? He got his nose bloodied tonight in the debate and actually appeared silly in some answers I thought (though he still got applause from the SC crowd — go figure). But where is Huckabee going to get serious big money fast?

Unlike almost every one of his rivals, Mr. Huckabee has no real national fund-raising organization in place.

Nor does Mr. Huckabee likely have any real cash cushion: Through Sept. 30 of last year, he had raised a mere $2.3 million and had only $650,000 on hand. In December, he set a $5 million fund-raising goal, which he met. He is currently trying to raise $1 million during the first 10 days of January.

Although Mr. Huckabee’s fund-raising rate has surely gained velocity, a distant third-place showing in New Hampshire probably didn’t do much for his momentum. The Huckabee campaign declined to comment about its fund-raising efforts.

Governor Romney’s pulling ads from South Carolina this week might have been genius. I was thinking during the debate tonight that there was a shift in the attacks. Right out of the chute Thompson comes out with both guns blazing at the naive Huckabee. And another time he was pounding McCain. I was literally cheering Fred on! Today, I caught part of the Hugh Hewitt show on my drive home from the office and he referred to McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson as about to begin “a knife fight in South Carolina.” Well, tonight the knife fight began and guess who is not in their fight? Governor Romney; for now. Let the three of them cut each other up in South Carolina. If Governor Romney can end up with a very strong showing in Michigan, he can ride into South Carolina as the only adult in the game.

“Huckabee can’t even begin thinking about February until he gets [another] win in January,” said Scott Reed, the former campaign manager for Bob Dole who isn’t affiliated with any candidate. “After Iowa and New Hampshire, silver rings don’t matter.”

Well, I will get off my soap-box tonight. The long and short of it is that Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee DO NOT have the cash, nor the ability to raise a lot of cash fast, to effectively and successfully (win) compete in the February 5th states. If and once McCain decides to take federal matching funds, he is done; I think he is on the verge of doing just that. And what is going to be the impetus in the next week or two for any of these three candidates to raise a lot of money fast? Nothing really. Heck, just tonight we saw Huckabee begging the audience for money (the passing the hat comment) — how sleezy was that? He should just stick to giving his “non-political” Sunday sermons for $25,000 each; he could probably work in three or four of those per Sunday. McCain and Thomson will get a million dollars here and there; but that’s it. Giuliani is going to have to start spending real money very soon if he does not want his name to be in the basement.

Which candidate is the most viable of the five? I will have to think long and hard on that one.

When is Governor Romney going to get a break from the MSM?  Never.   We are all going to have to keep working harder than we ever have worked before for anything to make up for the higher standard by which he is being judged.

~ Vic

SMALL DOLLARS COUNT BIG! — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GOVERNOR ROMNEY’S CAMPAIGN NOW

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

As always, this article by Peggy Noonan is excellent. Click here to read the entire article online:

PEGGY NOONAN — Out With the Old, In With the New — Obama and Huckabee rise; Mrs. Clinton falls — Friday, January 4, 2008

[emphasis below is mine]

But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know. Second, I’m sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it. Clever fellow. To me, the tipoff was “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

My sense is that Mr. Huckabee’s good supporters deserve a better leader.

His next problem may be not so much New Hampshire as Ed Rollins, the Reagan White House political aide who came in a week ago to manage his campaign. Mr. Rollins began his tenure announcing to respectful young reporters that he–”the grizzled veteran,” the “old battler”–would like to sink to his knees and “shoot Romney in the groin” and “punch his teeth out.” Such class is of course always welcome on the trail, but one senses the verbal ante will constantly be upped, and I’m not sure that will work well for Mr. Huckabee. Self inflated dirigibles, especially unmoored ones, can cast shadows on parades.

Am I the only person using the word “slimy” when discussing the Huckabee/Rollins ploys?

~ Vic

Governor Romney Needs YOUR Help to Win a National Campaign — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

Share on Facebook

Share This

Those who follow this blog know that I hold in high esteem the journalism of The Wall Street Journal. In fact, I believe it is the finest newspaper in America. But after reading two articles yesterday in the Op/Ed pages, I just about concluded that it belongs with the MSM!

I am disgusted with the media’s continued repeating of false information! Are they just lazy? What happened to honest, diligent research?

In these two articles in the Journal, they repeat as fact that Governor Romney somehow supported gay marriage. THAT IS TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, AND CATEGORICALLY FALSE! It is not some partial truth — it is altogether false! I am sick of their overall lazy writing.

Here are the two articles and cited excerpts (see truth at bottom of this post):

McCain’s Promise — It is cruel to compare the senator to most of his Republican competitors — Monday, January 7, 2008

Who can forget Mitt Romney listening in seeming amazement, a few weeks ago, as Tim Russert pressed him to explain certain extraordinary (if politically convenient) turnabout stands he’d taken on gay marriage . . .

POTOMAC WATCH — The New New Mitt — New Hampshire voters know Romney’s record better than most — That could spell trouble — BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL — Monday, January 7, 2008

They include people like Bonnie (who preferred not to use her last name), an accountant who turned out in frigid temperatures to support Rudy Giuliani at an event in Salem, N.H., and who demonstrated a critical knowledge of Mr. Romney’s record: “[He] allowed gay marriages in Mass[achusetts].”

FACTS SUMMARY: Fact #1: The State of Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution permits gay marriage. That ruling came when Governor Romney was governor. Governor Romney was against the Court making new law and has been against gay marriage his entire career.  Governor Romney did not sign this into law; the Court did!   Fact #2: Had Governor Romney not taken action, gay couples living outside Massachusetts could have traveled to Massachusetts to get married and their marriage contract would by law have to be accepted as legally valid in the other states. Governor Romney took action, with huge opposition and political capital, to enact laws to prevent Massachusetts becoming the “Las Vegas” of gay marriage. He succeeded!

Now, read this awesome post by David French, a lawyer and outstanding researcher (co-founder with his wife, Nancy French, of Evangelicals for Mitt) — [David was recently deployed to Iraq, 12 miles from Iran]. This post was written by David almost exactly one year ago. Click here and be sure to click through the links he provides:

TRUTH — David French — January 11, 2007

~ Vic

Governor Romney Needs YOUR Help to Win a National Campaign — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

Share on Facebook

Share This

This article is outstanding:

Today’s Featured Article — REVIEW & OUTLOOK — Democrats in Denial — The Presidential candidates won’t admit any Iraq surge success — Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Barack Obama is of a sudden the front-runner, so his view of the surge merits the closest look. His first assertion echoed what has become a standard line by the war’s opponents, that “we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence.” What can this possibly mean? In more than six years there hasn’t been one successful terrorist attack on the U.S., even as places elsewhere were hit or actively targeted.

Then Senator Obama placidly said that the Sunnis in Anbar Province began to help the U.S. “after the Democrats were elected in 2006.” What’s more, the Democrats’ victory showed them they were “going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias.” This obviously means the Democrats would abandon them.

The rest of the article provides analysis of each Democrat’s position on the war and the surge.

It is evident, though, that the opposition to Iraq after the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006 has put these candidates in a corner. For the past year, Democrats in both the Senate and House have enforced rock-solid party opposition to every jot and tittle of the Bush policy. They now have four candidates running for the U.S. Presidency who seem to believe it is to their political advantage to deny manifest reality.

I don’t know about you, but the prospect that any of the Democrat candidates could possibly be our next President is very, very scary to me.

~ Vic

Governor Romney Needs YOUR Help to Win a National Campaign — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

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

Great, brief analysis:

Share on Facebook

Share This

In this Op/Ed piece, that will first appear in print Saturday, Noonan covers all the candidates on both sides. Click here to read the entire online article:

PEGGY NOONAN — Be Reasonable — As Iowa sizes up the candidates, so do I — Friday, December 28, 2007

Ms. Noonan’s assessment of Mitt Romney as being a reasonable choice is simply not good enough for me. By the way, look at the words she uses to describe him by comparison to the others — I think she is biased to Romney. Of course, we all know Governor Romney to be an outstanding leader, even a statesman among the few executives. Huckabee is barely mentioned with “not reasonable” on “demerits.”

This is my 2008 slogan: Reasonable Person for President. That is my hope, what I ask Iowa to produce, and I claim here to speak for thousands, millions. We are grown-ups, we know our country needs greatness, but we do not expect it and will settle at the moment for good. We just want a reasonable person. We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We’d like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it.

Mitt Romney? Yes. Characterological cheerfulness, personal stability and a good brain would be handy to have around. He hasn’t made himself wealthy by seeing the world through a romantic mist. He has a sophisticated understanding of the challenges we face in the global economy. I personally am not made anxious by his flip-flopping on big issues because everyone in politics gets to change his mind once. That is, you can be pro-life and then pro-choice but you can’t go back to pro-life again, because if you do you’ll look like a flake. The positions Mr. Romney espouses now are the positions he will stick with. He has no choice.

To the points Noonan makes next, I completely agree. I agree in every way. But I just hope to no end that she is the Dem’s choice for their nomination. She is the one that well bring the Republicans together faster and in more numbers than any of the other Dems.

Hillary Clinton? No, not reasonable. I concede her sturdy mind, deep sophistication, and seriousness of intent. I see her as a triangulator like her husband, not a radical but a maneuverer in the direction of a vague, half-forgotten but always remembered, leftism. It is also true that she has a command-and-control mentality, an urgent, insistent and grating sense of destiny, and she appears to believe that any act that benefits Clintons is a virtuous act, because Clintons are good and deserve to be benefited.

But this is not, actually, my central problem with her candidacy. My central problem is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial–crucial–that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Bill Richardson are all reasonable–mature, accomplished, nonradical. Mike Huckabee gets enough demerits to fall into my not-reasonable column. John Edwards is not reasonable. All the Democrats would raise taxes as president, but Mr. Edwards’s populism is the worst of both worlds, both intemperate and insincere. Also we can’t have a president who spent two minutes on YouTube staring in a mirror and poofing his hair. Really, we just can’t.

I forgot Rudy Giuliani. That must say something. He is reasonable but not desirable. If he wins somewhere, I’ll explain.

Good luck, Iowa. The eyes of the nation are upon you.

I believe the good people of Iowa, including every evangelical, will use their minds to make this important decision and will listen to reason. I can’t imagine that thinking, intelligent Iowans would now vote for Huckabee when virtually every top conservative voice in America has opted against the man. With the way he has been speaking up on foreign affairs lately, even he does not really want to be President.

~ Vic

Help Governor Romney get his message out — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This