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…
Mike Huckabee is this cycle’s Pat Buchanan. A lot of Republicans wanted to believe that he was the answer to the flawed deck of frontrunners that the political gods have dealt us. I can’t honestly say I was ever rooting for Huckabee, but a month ago I expected him to win the nomination. All he had to do was come across as a credible commander-in-chief for the five weeks leading up to Iowa and he would have pulled it off.
But Huckabee went the Buchanan route. Rather than assure the Republican electorate that he was more than a one trick pony who could speak beautifully on social issues and spiritual concerns, he doubled down on his pastor side. Perhaps with good cause. When he ventured opinions about serious policy matters outside his comfort zone, especially regarding global affairs, he showed an ignorance that was quite frankly stunning for someone who had the audacity to seek the presidency at a time of war.
And there’s also Huckabee’s past. Every politician has a past–issues he flip-flopped on or positions he took that his party dislikes. But Huckabee’s past has caused Republicans to remember the Arkansas mores that drove us nuts during the Clinton years. Seemingly every day, another piece of, er, stuff, hits the fan. Over the weekend, it came out that Huckabee received $35,000 in honoraria in 2006 from a company that does stem cell research, the very same company that social conservatives blasted Mitt Romney over because his blind trust had invested in it. Huckabee’s take of $35,000 from the stem cell researchers was but a small sliver of the roughly $378,000 in outside fees that Huckabee raked in during his final year as Arkansas’ governor. Too bad he didn’t have Hillary Clinton’s facility with commodities trading–such a skill probably would have made things easier for Huckabee.
Barnett goes on to predict that Romney will win Iowa and that he will be able to seal the nomination if he can sieze the moment and deliver a serious, substantive speech that sets him above the rest of the field.
Barnett cites Ronald Regan’s famous 1976 “A Time for Choosing” speech as an example of the type of speech Mitt must follow. As I watched it (embedded below), I was struck at how relevant his words remain to our current geo-political situation.
I was also struck by how much it reminded me of a certain other Conservative Republican candidate for the Presidency…
Mitt’s speech at CPAC remains one of his best. It helped cement my support for Mitt Romney in the early days of the campaign. It feels like an eternity since he first delivered it back in March. If you haven’t seen it, please watch it. If you’ve seen it before, it is well worth watching again.
This is, indeed, a time for choosing. Choose Mitt!
Gov. Romney made the cover of the Weekly Standard this week with a piece from Fred Barnes. The premise of the piece was Gov. Romney’s business background and how the strengths and skills he learned building his small empire would have shaped his candidacy and will shape his presidency.
The Romney way is very simple. It consists of attacking a problem or considering an issue or policy through vigorous debate, with dissenting opinions encouraged and outside advice eagerly sought, and relying on as much hard data as possible. At the end of the process, the leader makes a decision that may or may not coincide with the “vision” or “concept” or “framework”–Romney’s words–that initiated the discussion in the first place.
Here’s how Romney describes the process:
You diagnose the problem. You put the right team together to solve the problem. You listen to alternative viewpoints. You insist on gathering data before you make decisions and analyze the data looking for trends. The result of this process is, you hope, that you make better decisions. You typically also have processes in place to see if it’s working or not working, and you make adjustments from time to time.
That’s it. Romney loves the give-and-take. “I have to see conflict,” he says. “The last thing you want is people coming in saying ‘We all agree. Here’s the recommendation.’ I know I don’t want to proceed on that basis.” As governor of Massachusetts, Romney balked at extending Boston’s mass transit system until he’d heard the case against it. Once he had, he decided to approve the extension.
**********
And he’s used it to fashion a blueprint for his presidential campaign. Romney weighed alternatives before adopting the early primary strategy of concentrating on the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire on the assumption that he must win one or both of them to spur his candidacy and win the nomination. He’s stuck to that strategy. Romney decided how much money his campaign needs to spend rather than how much it must raise. If there’s a gap (and there has been), it would be filled by Romney’s personal funds.
One more thing. Romney believes getting the right people on your team is crucial. “I like smart people,” he wrote in Turnaround, his chronicle of saving the Winter Olympics. “Bill Bain, my old boss, used to joke that most things can be fixed, but smart–or dumb–is forever.” Romney has a knack for persuading smart people to leave lucrative jobs to work for him for less pay.
