comMITTed to Romney!

Although I think Karl Rove’s pushing for the illegal immigration amnesty bill last year was a colossal mistake, generally I find him to be a very bright and very informed man.

This Washington Post article is interesting from the standpoint that Rove has so ruffled the Left’s feathers, they continue to pursue him in the hope of getting a belated payback.

~~John Cronin~~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2008/06/22/AR2008062201863.html

By Michael Abramowitz

Monday, June 23, 2008; Page A13

He’s been gone from the White House for nearly a year, but Karl Rove continues to provoke liberal ire and present a big bull’s-eye on his back for congressional Democrats.

Rove has moved from full-time politics to punditry, with high-profile perches as a commentator and opinion writer at Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek magazine. He’s writing a book about his experiences in the White House. He’s also said to be involved in trying to line up conservative money for independent expenditures in this fall’s presidential campaign.

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

…60% of the caucus voters were LDS, and Mitt only got 34% of the vote, what would the media story be?

A commenter on one of the Washington Post blogs made this point and I thought it was quite brilliant.

Turn Rich Lowry’s numbers around and you’d see something very interesting - if Utah was the first caucus and 60% of caucusers were Mormons and Mitt only got 1/3 of the vote and only won by 9 points, you’d say he lost. You’d say that even if his opponent had spent millions more. I hate to sound like a sore loser, but the media response doesn’t make sense to me. Given the favorable circumstances, I think Huckabee lost and Mitt won.

It doesn’t change the outcome, but it really brings out the media bias we are up against. (if you have the stomach for it, there’s many heated (and revealing) comments down the thread which make it eminently clear what else we are up against)

Share on Facebook

Share This

From —–>The Washington Post

“Huckabee said the ad which attacks Romney for being too dishonest to be president — was sent to television and radio stations yesterday but will not be broadcast. He said he had made the decision 10 minutes before his [12:00pm CST] news conference, surprising even his top staff. ‘I pulled the ad. I do not want it to be run at all,’ he said.”

More from —–>The Politico

“[Senior aide Charmaine] Yoest, who set up the staging of the press conference, just came back out to the hallway and said she was told about five minutes before the event started that he would not air the ad. By then, she said, it was too late to remove the signs.”

The Cedar Rapid Gazette tells a different story and says the ad was pulled from KCRG-TV9 TV9 in Cedar Rapids at precisely 10:01am CST:

More—–>Cedar Rapids Gazette

“An official at KCRG-TV9 TV9 in Cedar Rapids confirmed that the station received the 30-second spot from the Huckabee campaign shortly after 6 a.m. today but was told at 10:01 a.m. not to air the commercial and the station did not show the paid advertisement.”

Looks like we have a Drama King on our hands Ladies and Gentlemen.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Campaign Chairman Says Reagan Legacy “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot”
“All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” – Townhall’s Matt Lewis (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chairman Declared The Reagan Coalition Dead:
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chair Ed Rollins: The Reagan Coalition Of Social, Fiscal, And Defense Conservatives “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot To People Anymore.” Huckabee Campaign Chairman Ed Rollins: “The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, anti-tax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins On The Reagan Coalition:
“It’s Gone.” “[Huckabee's] success is setting off a debate in his party over whether his success marks the fading of the old Reaganite conservative coalition — social conservatives, anti-tax activists and advocates of a muscular defense — or, rather, offers a chance for its rejuvenation. ‘It’s gone,’ said Ed Rollins, who once worked as President Reagan’s political director and recently became Mr. Huckabee’s national campaign chairman.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins:
Some Parts Of Reagan Coalition May “Go By The Wayside.” “‘It is a time for a whole new coalition — that is the key,’ he said, adding that some part of the original triad might ‘go by the wayside.’” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Gov. Romney Aims To Keep The Reagan Coalition United:
Townhall’s Matt Lewis: “Rollins’ Pronouncement Is Almost An Argument To Vote For Mitt Romney.” “All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
National Review:
“Romney Is A Full-Spectrum Conservative.” “Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Gov. Mitt Romney:
We Need To Unite “Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives And Defense Conservatives.”
GOV. ROMNEY: “I believe that to win the White House that our candidate has to be somebody who can represent and speak for all three legs of the conservative stool or conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan put together – social conservatives, economic conservatives and defense conservatives.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, Press Availability, Grand Rapids, MI, 10/13/07)
Gov. Huckabee Alienates Fiscal And Foreign Policy Conservatives:
National Review:
Gov. Huckabee Would Pull Apart The Conservative Coalition By Alienating Economic And Foreign Policy Conservatives. “Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Club For Growth’s Pat Toomey:
Gov. Huckabee Is “A Big-Government Liberal.” “In order to earn back the public’s trust on economic issues, not to mention offer a compelling contrast with a Hillary Clinton-led Democratic ticket, Republicans must present a consistent message. A big-government liberal like Mike Huckabee, who takes pleasure in attacking the Republican party as the ‘party of Wall Street,’ will only reinforce the image of Republicans as ‘the big spenders that they used to oppose.’ A Huckabee nomination, even as vice president, will make it impossible for the Republican party to reclaim its brand of fiscal conservatism and limited government, without which it cannot be a majority party again.” (Pat Toomey, “Dump The Huck,” National Review, 10/26/07)
Columnist Robert Novak:
Gov. Huckabee “Is A High-Tax, Protectionist Advocate Of Big Government.” “Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.” (Robert Novak, “The False Conservative,” The Washington Post, 11/26/07)
CNBC’s Larry Kudlow:
Gov. Huckabee Naïve “On Dealing In International Affairs With Iran And Others.” CNBC’s LARRY KUDLOW: ” Condi Rice came out of the State Department … and attacked him because of his naïveté on dealing in international affairs with Iran and others. He doesn’t seem to understand power politics, and that we are in a jihadist global war.” (Hugh Hewitt Radio show, YouTube, 12/21/07)
Columnist Charles Krauthammer Said Gov. Huckabee’s “Naïve And Unconvincing” Views On Foreign Policy Are Disqualifications To Be President. “Huckabee is funny, well spoken and gave a preacher’s stemwinder that wowed the religious right gathering in Washington last Saturday. But whatever foreign policy he has is naive and unconvincing. In wartime, that is a disqualification for commander in chief.” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Fine Field Of 4½,” The Washington Post, 10/26/07)

Share on Facebook

Share This

McCain and Hillary share a “love-in” moment.

Sen. McCain Cannot Explain His Positions, And So He Launches Negative Personal Attacks:

• Sen. McCain Can’t Address Criticism Of His Tax And Immigration Policies Because He “Has No Good Response.” “Both responses by McCain have this in common — they fail entirely to address the substance of Romney’s criticism. The reason, of course, is that McCain has no good response. He did oppose tax cuts, support for which does lie at the essence of Reagan conservatism. Similarly, he did support comprehensive immigration reform and his line on that support now is a grudging acknowledgement that the American people (though not necessarily McCain) want border security first.” (Paul Mirengoff, “Romney’s Point,” Power Line Blog, Posted 12/27/07)
• Sen. McCain Complains That Discussing Policy Positions Is “Attacking.” SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: “If there’s any doubt that we’re doing well, it’s when Mitt Romney starts attacking.” (National Review Online, Posted 12/28/07)
• And Now, Sen. McCain Has Launched A Negative Personal Attack On Gov. Romney. “‘I begin the ad by indicating he’s an honorable man,’ Mr. Romney said. ‘I believe he is a good person. I make no attacks on his character, no attacks of a personal nature whatsoever. I’ve just seen the text of his ad. It’s obviously of a very different nature. It’s an attack ad. It attacks me personally. It’s nasty. It’s mean-spirited. Frankly, it tells you more about Senator McCain than it does about me that he’d run an ad like that.’” (Marc Santora, “McCain Ad: Right Back At Ya, Mitt,” The New York Times’ Caucus Blog, Posted 12/28/07)
  

Launching Negative Personal Attacks Is The McCain Way – As Seen In The 2000 Campaign:

• In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. Bush To Bill Clinton. SEN. MCCAIN: “I guess it was bound to happen. Governor Bush’s campaign is getting desperate, with a negative ad about me. The fact is, I’ll use the surplus money to fix Social Security, cut your taxes and pay down the debt. Governor Bush uses all of the surplus for tax cuts, with not one new penny for Social Security or the debt. His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We’re all pretty tired of that. As president, I’ll be conservative and always tell you the truth. No matter what.” (McCain 2000, Campaign Ad, 2/9/00)

To watch the 2000 campaign ad, click here:

• Gov. Romney: McCain’s Latest Attack Is Reminiscent Of The 2000 Campaign. “‘It’s reminiscent of what he did against George W. Bush in 2000, which as you recall, he accused President Bush of twisting the truth like Bill Clinton,’ he said. ‘Again, this is the kind of nasty, personal attack, which really doesn’t have a place in this process.’” (Marc Santora, “McCain Ad: Right Back At Ya, Mitt,” The New York Times’ Caucus Blog, Posted 12/28/07)

These, On The Other Hand, Are Substantive Facts – Not Negative Personal Attacks:

• FACT: In 2001, McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Vote Against The $1.35 Trillion Bush Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay)
• FACT: In 2003, McCain Was One Of Only Three Republicans To Twice Vote Against The $350 Billion Bush Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay)
• FACT: In 2002, McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Twice Vote Against Permanent Repeal Of The Death Tax. (S. 1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay, H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay)
• FACT: McCain Sponsored An Immigration Plan To Allow 11 Million Illegals To Remain In The U.S. “The McCain plan — which is being put forward in the U.S. House by Arizona GOP Congressmen Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe — allows the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. to stay in the country if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine.” (Mike Sunnucks, “Napolitano, Hayworth Criticize Bush On Illegal Immigration,”The Phoenix Business Journal, 2/1/06)

• Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Called The McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill “Amnesty.” “[McCain] has also teamed up with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), a liberal Democrat, on an immigration bill that many conservatives despise. ‘It would have legalized and provided a path for citizenship, which is amnesty, for 66.1 million people,’ said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has called Kennedy and McCain ‘amnesty mercenaries.’” (Michael D. Shear, “McCain Fighting To Recapture Maverick Spirit Of 2000 Bid,” The Washington Post, 3/15/07)
• Manchester Union Leader Editorial: McCain-Kennedy Proposal “Would Encourage Border Jumping.” “Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy have a bill that, surprise, includes a generous guest worker program that would encourage border jumping. Illegals who register would have to pay a fine and taxes, but they would get to stay here and apply for permanent residency. That sure beats waiting at the border and hoping to be let in.” (Editorial, “Turnstile Security,” The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 3/27/06)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Dana Milbank of the WASHINGTON POST has just posted a video on a recent Christmas party that the Romney campaign put together for 1,200 volunteers in Iowa.

To hear Mr. Milbank tell it, Romney has virtually conceded Iowa. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth! As anyone who follows the polls can tell you, Romney is surging both in Iowa and nationally. It is really sad to see, not a journalist, but a propagandist, ply his trade.

Milbank talks about MR being “off his game” at the party. As I was watching MR address the crowd, I came to no such conclusion. It also struck me that the number of people attending that party, 1,200, is more hard working volunteers than some candidates have as the total number of supporters in the state.

Mr. Milbank’s video showed campaign workers taking down the signing from the room, again with the implication that somehow meant the Romney campaign was wrapping things up in the state. As anyone knows who has ever been a part of a similar event, the local volunteers take down their signs from walls and entry doors as part of the cleanup. The signs can be used again at the next event. Another example of Gov. Romney’s fiscal conservatism!

My point is that Dana Milbank has concocted an amateurish attempt to portray what was a fun and upbeat party to reward a large group of volunteers for all their hard work as something far different from what actually happened. I think it is important to continue to hold the MSM’s feet to the fire on these attempts to manipulate voters with shoddy hit pieces.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Just yesterday I posted a brief article titled: “Heads to Roll at Hillary’s Campaign?” As of today I had to change the title of this post from a question to a declarative statement!

Hillary’s campaign has just “accepted the resignation” of Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman for Clinton’s campaign.

In a Wednesday interview with the WASHINGTON POST, Mr. Shaheen talked about Barack Obama’s admitted drug use as a young man. In order to get the most mileage out of the statement, he expressed concern that Republican dirty tricksters would have a field day digging dirt on Obama.

Did you notice how altruistic and noble his purpose was? He didn’t bring the subject up in order to do anything to sabotage Obama’s campaign, he was just really concerned that if Obama won the Democratic nomination, he would be vulnerable to the “Republican Attack Machine.” With the strong implication that in order to take back the White House, the Democrats needed someone like, oh, Hillary, who could stay on her feet and successfully resist the coming onslaught!

If anyone out there believes that one, please contact me regarding a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy a bridge in Brooklyn.

~~John Cronin~~

“Give me a newspaper and a bowl of chili and I’m happy.” Will Rodgers, American humorist

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Remembering that a vote for Mike, Fred, John, or Rudy…is a vote for Rudy, here is a glimpse of what we are setting ourselves up for with a Rudy candidacy (and ultimately Presidency).

First, here is a sobering story of Giuliani’s history of cronyism, elevating corrupt and incompetent loyalists to positions of power over his time as NYC mayor.

Second, here is an eye opening account of how Giuliani exploited the court system and activist judges to attack the 2nd amendment, defend sanctuary cities, keep taxes in place, and fight the line item veto.

Finally, here is the link to a couple videos which detail the sordid story of Alan Placa. Alan is a former priest and known child molester who also happens to be one of Giuliani’s best friends. Giuliani has protected Alan along the way and has even employed him at his firm Giuliani Partners.

If you are a Romney supporter, now is the time to act! there are only about two weeks before the first absentee ballots are potentially cast in New Hampshire, and the Iowa Caucuses will be upon us in less than six weeks! Donate, volunteer, talk with your family, friends, and co-workers. If we all get involved and work toward Mitt’s election it will definitely happen! (If you would like to help out but don’t know how to get involved, leave a comment and we’ll try to point you in the right direction).

If you are supporting anyone beside Romney, recognize that is de-facto support for Rudy. This primary is going to be won by either Rudy or Romney. If you have problems with Rudy’s liberal views on abortion, marriage, immigration, 2nd amendment, and taxation, please take another look at Mitt Romney and consider giving him your support. Any questions? Leave a comment and we’ll do our best to address it!

Articles and videos after the jump.

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

George Will this week printed a great article. Click here —–> Front-Runners Who Can Still Be Tackled (if you don’t get through, just click on Continue Reading at the bottom of this post for the entire article by George Will).

Will’s opinion here is very interesting and insightful. Though I am biased, I do think that of all the pundits I have read lately, George Will’s analysis seems to hit several points spot on. These first two paragraphs are the opening lines from the article; see my emphasis in bold:

Americans say they are weary of political polarization and pugnacity. If so, the current situation in presidential politics is unstable: The leading Democratic and Republican candidates, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, are the most polarizing and pugnacious candidates, respectively. Hence Barack Obama and Mitt Romney might be stronger than national polls suggest.

James Carville, political consultant and aphorist, says: Nothing validates a candidate to voters as much as other voters. If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire — no Republican has ever won both — and then Michigan, where his father was governor, he will reach South Carolina very validated indeed.

Of course, we have all believed that Gov. Romney’s 10-12% national poll numbers simply reflect his lack of name recognition, Americans’ general lack of understanding of his faith, and the notion that he must be liberal because he was governor of Mass. And to the Carville quote, there is no question that if Gov. Romney wins those states, he will in fact be validated and will have the wind to his back going into February.

With all the naysayers counting Romney out because of his national (lack of name-recognition) poll numbers, Will states:

Romney’s campaign serenely notes that in 2004, when John Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, he shot from about 9 percent to 52 percent among Democrats. That is validation.

The best part of this article for me is the following paragraph. I think Will correctly identifies why Senator Clinton’s negative polling numbers are so high:

For conservatives, who think gridlocked government is wonderful, that is a second reason to hope Clinton is nominated. The first is that she would be easier to beat than Obama, for reasons highlighted in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll: She is judged negatively by pluralities on sharing their positions on the issues and, even more important, on likeability and honesty.

So, her negatives are based of course on positions (those who disagree with her) and her general “likeability” and “honesty” issues. He nailed it for me.

These sentences are two of the most insightful of the entire article and emphasize one big reason I hope that Senator Clinton wins the Democrat ticket:

In 2008, Obama is more likely than Clinton to win an impressive electoral vote total that will look like a mandate. Conservatives should think: Although Republicans have much to fear in 2008, they might have less to fear from her as a candidate and, if she wins, as a president than they would from Obama.

~ Vic

“It is with the heart that one sees rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

— Antoine de Saint-Exupery, French aviator and author (1900-1944), from The Little Prince

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “Gregg – whose father was governor and whose last name retains considerable cache – is the prize get in New Hampshire for any GOP presidential hopeful.” (Jonathan Martin, “Gregg To Endorse Romney,” The Politico, 10/29/07)

The New York Times’ Michael Luo: “Mitt Romney has landed a big endorsement in the Granite State. … So this was a big ‘get’ for Mr. Romney, who is leading in the polls in this early primary state.” (Michael Luo, “Gregg To Endorse Romney In N.H.,” The New York Times’ “The Caucus,” 10/29/07)

The Hill’s Klaus Marre: “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) scored a major win Monday with the endorsement of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). The backing of New Hampshire’s senior senator should provide a boost to Romney, who already leads in the key early primary state.” (Klaus Marre, “Romney Scores Big Win With Gregg Endorsement,” The Hill, 10/29/07)

The Boston Globe’s Foon Rhee: “Mitt Romney will have a big name by his side today at a rally before he officially files for the New Hampshire primary. US Senator Judd Gregg, who is in his third term representing the Granite State, is endorsing Romney, his campaign announced this morning.” (Foon Rhee, “Gregg Backs Romney,” The Boston Globe’s “Political Intelligence,” 10/29/07)

ABC News’ Matt Stuart: “The endorsement is a boost for Romney’s New Hampshire chances, as the state’s junior senator, Republican John Sununu, has said he will remain neutral through the primary season.” (Matt Stuart, “Romney Wins Key N.H. Endorsement,” ABC News, 10/29/07)

MSNBC’s Erin McPike: “On the morning of his filing in New Hampshire, Romney got a nice boost to his Granite State campaign. Senior Sen. Judd Gregg (R) endorsed Romney and will join him in Concord for his presidential filing.” (Erin McPike, “NH Senator Endorses Romney,” MSNBC’s First Read, 10/29/07)

Wall Street Journal’s Susan Davis: “This is good news for Romney and comes on the heels of the latest University of Iowa Hawkeye poll released this morning that shows Romney as the clear favorite in Iowa, with nearly three times as much support as any other Republican candidate in the field in the state among likely caucus goers.” (Susan Davis, “Judd To Endorse Romney,” Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire,” 10/29/07)

Townhall’s Hugh Hewitt: “This is a very big deal for the Romney campaign. … Senator Gregg’s endorsement is the most sought-after in the Granite State, and it adds to the sense of momentum that Romney has built there.” (Hugh Hewitt, “New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg Endorses Romney,” Townhall, 10/29/07)

CNN’s Mark Preston: “Gregg’s decision to back Romney is a major boost for the Massachusetts governor…” (Mark Preston, “Senior New Hampshire Senator To Back Romney,” CNN, 10/29/07)

The Washington Post’s Michael Shear: “Do endorsements matter? Mitt Romney is about to pick up a key vote of support that could help answer that question. Later today, Romney will receive the endorsement of New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg in Concord, according to the campaign.” (Michael Shear, “N.H.’s Gregg For Romney,” The Washington Post’s “The Trail,” 10/29/07)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: “It’s tough to say that any endorsement carries votes these days, but Gregg’s ability to validate Romney’s competence and economic message, as well as his freedom to act as a surrogate for Romney at events should not be underrated.” (Marc Ambinder, “Breaking: Sen. Judd Gregg To Endorse Romney,” The Atlantic, 10/29/07)

Real Clear Politics’ Reid Wilson: “Sen. Judd Gregg, dean of the New Hampshire congressional delegation, will endorse Mitt Romney today at the state capitol, the Union Leader reports this morning.” (Reid Wilson, “Gregg Endorses,” Real Clear Politics, 10/29/07)

Arizona Republic’s Dan Nowicki: “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney today announced the endorsement of one of New Hampshire’s Republican senators, Judd Gregg. As far as Granite State endorsements go, this one is pretty big.” (Dan Nowicki, “Romney Wins Key New Hampshire Endorsement,” Arizona Republic’s “McCain Central,” 10/29/07)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

From The Washington Post

What a horse race we have on the Democratic side!!

Hillary Clinton……….29%

Barack Obama………27%

John Edwards……….20%

If Obama wins Iowa by a nose and gives Hill a run for the money in New Hampshire, the dynamics on the Democratic side changes big time. I honestly don’t think Hillary can handle that kind of pressure. I would be looking for some sort of meltdown by HRC if she has lost momentum going into Tsunami Tuesday. Her aura of “inevitability” will be gone and she will be seen as just another politico, not some sort of legendary figure going where no woman as gone before.

When you have been preparing to run for the Presidency since your high school/college days, had to put up with a philandering husband for over 30 years in order to stay close to the levers of power and now it seems that there is a chance the brass ring may just elude your grasp, it’s just too much to bear for someone like HRC whose ambition knows no bounds.

On the Republican side, I see that Mitt Romney has almost triple the support that Giuliani does. Thank goodness nobody on Team Romney and none of the contributors on this site believed the the Giuliani/Thompson hype from a few months ago.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Immigration Plan Fails Senate Test Vote

By AP writer Jesse J. Holland WASHINGTON POST.COM

Washington–”Legislation to give some children of illegal immigrants a path toward legality failed a crucial Senate vote Wednesday, probably dooming any chance of major changes to the immigration system this year.

Supporters needed 60 votes to advance the proposal, but the tally was 52-44. The measure would have allowed illegal immigrants who plan to attend college or join the military, and who came to the United States with their families before they turned 16, to move toward legality.”

The measure was known by the acronym DREAM Act. (The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act)

Several things struck me about this proposal. The language in the bill that spoke about moving “toward LEGALITY.” Not citizenship, but mere legality. I have said it before, but I think it bears repeating, I do not think it should be the policy of this country to confer any legal benefits to illegal aliens or to their children, for what I hope is the obvious reason that this encourages more illegal immigration.

Even the Bush White House appears to have learned their lesson (although I’m not holding my breath on this one) by opposing the legislation, even though the President did not threaten to veto the bill. The article says that “While sympathetic to children brought into the country illegally by their parents, the White House said in a statement the bill falls short by “creating a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants…..including young people whose parents respected the nation’s immigration laws.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Ca., said by blocking the bill, “Senate Republicans prevented a critical first step to address our nation’s broken immigration system.”

My first reaction to Pelosi’s statement is that what is “broken” is our national security by allowing upward of 20,000,000 illegal aliens to have, in effect, invaded this country and who flout our laws every day that they are here.

I also noted that she said the bill is a “critical FIRST STEP.” Although we defeated the so called comprehensive immigration bill back in June of this year, these folks are relentless in pursuing a legislative agenda that is in defiance of the will of the American people.

This is one of many reasons why I support Mitt Romney for the office of President. He is on record as opposing a special path to citizenship for anyone who breaks the immigration laws of this country. Evidently, we are going to have to settle this issue, hopefully once and for all, not by continually batting down bill after bill that attempts to reward illegal activity, but by giving MR a mandate to proceed with the completion of the security fence, a federal data base to show who is eligible to work in this country and a biometric ID card to halt the sale of bogus documents.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This