|
|||||
     |
 Saturday, May 12, 2007
Whatcha doing this Tuesday, May 15th. Why on come over to our house for Sign-up America. I'd love to see you here.
For more information click here: http://signup.mittromney.com/edit/rsvp/127 Labels: event, signup america  At 7:00pm ET/PT on Sunday night, Governor Romney and the Romney family will be featured on CBS' "60 Minutes with Mike Wallace." Make sure to watch Mitt on Sunday!While some of the forward information about the interview seems to suggest that it will get distracted by tertiary questions at times, it should be good. Friday, May 11, 2007
Romney is worth millions? I knew I wanted that guy to run the national economy for a reason.
In the wake of Romney's speech to MA Citizens for Life, some have been questioning anew Romney's moral convictions on life. William F. Buckley takes the opportunity to reflect. Some clips:
"There is pretty outspoken derision, on the hustings, on the matter of Mitt Romney and his evolved stand on abortion. In Iowa, which Romney recently visited, a county chairman accosted a skeptic. What he said was that Romney's opposition to abortion was the result of a 'thoughtful moral process.' People on the other side, whether of Romney, or of abortion, are expressing their skepticism." "What I have found most arresting is the refusal of so many in the pro-choice army to submit the question to 'thoughtful moral process,' as we have been told Mitt Romney did. One can choose to ignore the moral question, but one cannot easily decline to acknowledge that there is a moral question underlying the dispute." "The movement to eliminate thought on abortion has failed. Failed, because there is an assertive human point at issue, which cannot be denied consideration, any more than the question of slavery could forever be denied consideration." "Mitt Romney is hardly entitled to the Republican nomination just because he has confessed his doubts on the subject of abortion. But moral history is likely to bow its head to remark this sign of life of the moral conscience. " I think Buckley is hitting upon something significant here, which is, much of the skepticism regarding Romney's reasoning for becoming more pro-life is largely rooted in an aversion to moral contemplation and discourse. Romney's "conversion" experience strike sincere to those who believe in coming to an understanding through learning and seeking to become better. I suspect that many of those who view it as pandering would prefer moral thought be driven from the res publica. Significant moral problems are ignored in the guise of abstract notions of precedent and penumbras. What is lost is the limitation on human understanding that should inform even those who do not have faith in the sanctity of unborn life. A moral inquiry might proceed like this... Hopefully, everyone can agree that it would be wrong to kill a person for no good reason. The best science can do in determining when a developing baby becomes a person is to say "I don't know." Consciousness is difficult to discern. In light of the fact that we do not know when a developing baby becomes a "person" it would be very reckless indeed to destroy that life for no good reason because it could be a person. As such, abortion on demand in the first trimester is very reckless. You could be killing a person. Society's basic function should be to protect people, especially those who cannot protect themselves. Hence, it would be fair for society to legislate restrictions on abortion pursuant to that duty. When Mitt Romney says, he thinks state's should be able to legislate on the issue of abortion, he is essentially saying that state's should be allowed to have a moral discourse about life. Simply put, "The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people [see] human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed." Romney gave an excellent speech to Massachusetts Citizens For Life yesterday. Some Highlights...
The Goodridge decision in MA: "I believe that the Court erred because it focused on adults and adult rights. They should have focused on the rights of children. The ideal setting for the raising of a child is a home with a loving mother and father." Cloning: "What some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity." Judicial Temperment: "I think Chief Justice John Roberts put it best at his confirmation hearing, when he described the role of a judge. Chief Justice Roberts said, 'Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them...and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.' Now that's the type of Justice that I would appoint to the court. " The American People: "We are a decent people who have a commitment to the worth and dignity of every person, ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose."  Tim Magazine has two articles on Mitt for its upcoming issue. One political, one religious. We'll discuss the later for the momentNancy Gibbs writes in "Romney's Mormon Question". Here are some excerpts and some comments. The piece is generally fair. But there are two troubling aspects that I can summarize in two questions:
The Mormon question has settled in right next to the issue of whether a twice-divorced man has credibility discussing family values or whether changing one's mind on an issue like abortion is a sign of moral growth or cynical retreat. Unlike in 1960, today the argument is less about the role of religion in public life than in private. It is about what our faith says about our judgment and how our traditions shape our instincts--and about what we have the right to ask those who run for the highest office in the land.This is a fair assessment of the general problem before us. I should point out - there's nothing new here - there were similar questions in 2000 and 2004. What's changed? A Mormon has entered the race. [Referring to Romney's explanation of a "person of faith"] But he can hardly suggest to the devout voters of the G.O.P. base that religious views don't matter, don't warrant discussion or don't affect one's conduct in office. These are voters inclined to think the wall of church-state separation is too high; it is certainly not one any candidate can hide behind. So his challenge is to draw the lines about what's relevant and what's not.Of course religious views matter and I love discussing them. Here's where I raise my first question from above: Can someone point me to one religious view that Mormons hold that directly disqualifies someone from a political office? But when it comes to religiously conservative voters, the more people learn, the greater Romney's problem may become. And he will have to decide whether he's willing to provide the kind of public theology lesson that no other candidate has been asked to deliver.I've found quite the opposite. Everyone I speak to who gets to know Romney is quite taken with him. Take this instance cited in today's New York Times (h/t HH) Even among evangelicals who say they are at least willing to consider Mr. Romney, support in many cases appears to be shaky. Larry Gordon, senior pastor of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, said his initial instinct was to rule out Mr. Romney because of his faith. But after his son, who is also a pastor at the church, came away impressed by Mr. Romney after an event, he began to examine him more closely.Back to Nancy. One error (minor or not): A separate ceremony was held for "gentiles," as non- Mormons are called.We don't call them "gentiles". Michael Medved makes a joke about that sometimes. But we refer to non-mormons internally as non-Mormons. I've never heard anyone refer to non-Mormons as gentiles. This is a quibble... but any Mormon proofing the article could have told her that - which indicates that probably no Mormon did review this. Not a big deal... moving on... "Someone who believes, seriously believes, in a modern hoax is someone we should think hard about," Weisberg argues, "whether they have the skepticism and intellectual seriousness to take on this job."Here's where our second question comes up: should the "Weisberg Principle of Nuttiness" apply only to people running for President? How about Speaker of the House? How about Congressman? Councilman? Dog catcher? What is the level of importance in public life where the religious ceiling is hit? The other aspect has already been asked... what level of nuttiness is needed? What do you qualify as nutty? Lastly, it would be great if someone acknowledged or wrote about the thaw happening between Evangelicals and Mormons. In short, Nancy piece is all around pretty fair. Kudos. Labels: Mormon, mormonism, nancy gibbs, Time magazine, weisberg Charlie Cook says early primary states all important still. Would put his money on Romney!  On May 15th... the Romney campaign is encouraging people to take action and sign up 24,000 new supporters. To help jump start this effort they have invited fans across the country to host "Sign-up America" parties on the night of the South Carolina debates (May 15th.) MMM will be hosting events at various homes. For those of you in the DC/VA/MD area here's our local event: http://signup.mittromney.com/edit/rsvp/127 Labels: debate, event, signup america, south carolina Thursday, May 10, 2007
UPDATED
(Matthews then goes off trying to blame Romney and projecting future political calculation to his camp - whatever?!) The real question is... when will Sharpton come on our Podcast to discuss the issue and apologize (ala Imus) :) Labels: al sharpton After getting in hot water for his comments on "true" believers defeating the "one Mormon" in the race, Sharpton gets out his shovel and keeps digging. The logic runs thus: OH.. and it was Hitchens fault too! Labels: al sharpton, hitchens, Mormon, video  The cover of Time Magazine! Tagg R. posts the covers of Time where Mitt's father donned the front page:   Labels: press  So after offending Mormons, conservatives and lefties... Sharpton goes on CNN with Paula Z to explain.It turns out... it's all my fault! You see, before 1978, black males were not allowed to hold the priesthood (for a deeper discussion see here). So Mormons are bigots and don't deserve to run for President. I can't cite the quote yet (I'll look for the transcript somewhere shortly here) but essentially Al's logic is thus: 1) The Mormon church didn't allow blacks to hold the Priesthood until 1978 2) The Mormon church was therefore racist and bigoted 3) If you belonged to the Mormon church before 1978 that made you a racist and a bigot 4) Therefore he can decry any Mormon running for public office and wave them off because "true" believers in God will defeat them. Did I get that right? Can I take that shovel from you Reverend? You will seriously not believe what you hear when the YouTube is posted. UPDATE: Hitchens digs in now as well This really isn't that hard to understand. Labels: al sharpton, hitchens I had the great opportunity to hear John Stossel yesterday at the Heritage Foundation talk on the challenges of Healthcare in our modern society. Wednesday, May 9, 2007
American Thinker, one of our favorite websites, picked up our reaction to Al's Mormon slam.
We think the traction is deserved to call out the glaring bigotry Our initial reaction here Anger builds to a climax here Kyle calms me down here The Romney camp explains here Jason posts the actual video after Sharpton denies the comments: Labels: al sharpton David Frum does some party soul searching and some hand wringing over the candidates. Yet in his brief post he manages to continue to peddle a falsity about Mitt Romney: that Mitt has somehow abandoned his healthcare program from Massachusetts. Apparently Frum did not see the debate:
Labels: David Frum, healthcare Here:
Michigan (last month) Romney - 24% (8) McCain - 22% (35) Giuliani - 19% (30) F Thompson - 8% (-) Gingrich - 7% (9) T Thompson - 2% (1) Huckabee - 2% (1) Everyone else - 1% or less California Giuliani - 27% (33) McCain - 24% (18) F Thompson - 12% (-) Romney - 11% (3) Gingrich - 5% (19) Everyone else - 1% or less Florida Giuliani - 31% (28) McCain - 18% (38) F Thompson - 13% (-) Romney - 11% (7) Gingrich - 8% (8) Everyone else - 1% or less Romney gains in all states covered. Up 4 in Florida, 8 in CA and a whopping 16 points in MI. Go Mitt!!!! Not! Come get the details behind one of the more bigoted comments to grace this campaign
MP3 File SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST CLICK BELOW:   OR use our feed: XML Podcast Feed Labels: al sharpton, mittcast, rudy Here's a brief schedule:
Wednesday, May 9, 2007: 10:00 a.m. Governor Romney Hosts a Caucus Coffee in Clear Lake, IA 12:40 p.m. Governor Romney Hosts Luncheon in Webster County Ft. Dodge, IA 4:50 p.m. Governor Romney Holds a Media Availability Ames, IA 5:15 p.m. Governor Romney Holds an "Ask Mitt Anything" Town Hall Hickory Hall 300 South 17th Street Ames, IA Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Justin, I think you ARE missing the point. I've seen and heard Sharpton do this type of thing before. Sharpton's comment has to be interpreted for its intent and not its language or logic.
Sharpton's comment is a purely partisan comment. Sharpton has largely been a political, and not a religious, operative for many years in the Democratic Party. In his statement he makes an invidious slight of hand(in the verbal sense) by replacing the word Democrat with believers in God. It's not that Sharpton believes that evangelicals will not vote for Romney because of disagreement with his faith, but that eventually a Democrat will win the presidency. Sharpton's thoughts about Mormonism are probably the same as other religious leaders (a general distrust), but he doesn't share the values and purpose that Mitt, as a Republican nominee, has with other religious leaders. Thus, Sharpton feels free to disparage Mitt by using religious terminology to advance a partisan political point. Sharpton regularly pulls this trick be making a faith argument when he really is making a partisan argument. This type of casual interchange of political and religious motives is especially harmful. It encourages stereotypes about both Mormons and Christians. Mormons in that they are still some sort of outcast or outlier of society. Christians in that they are an unwelcoming and biased group, who know better than to vote for a Mormon because of religious differences. Both of these are patently false. That a person of Sharpton's profile continues to maintain legitimacy in the face of statements that are false and bigoted on so many levels is sad to say the least. Labels: al sharpton In case you missed it. Al Sharpton threw some more verbal spears (his forte really) -- this time at the Mormons and Mitt Romney.
Now that the initial shock of Al's jab has worn off -- I have to revisit his quote again and try to decipher the logic therein. There is none. Here's the offending sentence: "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” It's almost a throw away insult from Sharpton which makes the insult even worse. With 25 words Sharpton insinuates a boat load of raw bigoted crap: 1) Romney is a Mormon and therefore not a serious candidate. In Al's mind, Romney's denomination is as much a disqualifying characteristic as it is a defining one. The "one Mormon running for office" - he can only bring himself to refer to Romney by his abhorrent faith and not by name. In Al's world, Romney's faith makes him irrelevant. It also layers his bigoted cake with a twinge of removal and flippancy, something Al is adept at using when confronted with, say, Tawana Brawley. 2) Romney is a Mormon and thus disqualified. In Al's mind, no right-thinking Christian could ever vote for the "one Mormon". According to Al, Romney is as much a throw away as his one-liner. No need to worry of course: "those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway." Who is he referring to here? Will McCain and Rudy be hailed as the Mormon-eating Christian warriors for Al? Will Obama defeat Romney next November with Sharpton whistling "Onward Christian Soldiers" as they unlatch the door on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Why did he need to make this statement in the first place? Is there "worry" out there about the "one Mormon" might actually win this election? 3) Mormons have no place in the American politics. What!? A Jew is on the ship? No worries, those right thinking Christians will toss him overboard. That's offensive... but it's essentially what he said. How about we lower the race a bit... say School Superinendent of Fairfax County, Virginia. Let's do a bit of editing and roll tape... "As for the one Mormon running for [School Superintendent], those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” Yikes! That sounds almost as bad as our semitic replacement. Use anything... how about Student Body President, PTA Board member, paper boy... where does it stop? Or... is it only for important jobs. 4) Real believers in God will rise up and defeat all non-believers in God. The subsequent deed following the cry of "Allah Ho Akbar!" is thankfully absent from Al's quick diatribe... but the sentiment is striking similar. Al - Let's leave the religious political poisonous infighting to the Shiia and Sunii. There's no place for it here. You see Mormons don't really believe in God. Al may question (indeed many of my readers may question) the God I believe in but don't tell me I don't believe in God. And don't tell me that someone who doesn't even believe in God can't participate in American politics. And what does "temporary situation" really mean? I can picture Marlon Brando, cotton balls in mouth, reciting that quick diddy... but I expect more from a supposed religious leader. Perhaps I'm missing the context. Here's the quote again in the context of the NY Times writer: Noting that Dr. King had established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he said, “There’s no question that he himself saw that the basis of the movement was God-based.” He added, “To try and secularize the civil-rights movement is just totally inaccurate. It was a church-based, faith-based movement; there’s just no question about that. … Let’s not reinvent Dr. King any more than we try to reduce God to some denomination or convention.”Well, that didn't help his case any. So Sharpton declares that Dr. King's movement was a faith-based movement, a God-based movement. But apparently, Al's interpretation of the movement has no room for Mormons even though Mormons made room for him 30 years ago. This exclusionary faith-based mantra would come as a surprise to my 9th Great Grandfather, Jean Pierre Bondurant, a devout Huguenot, who fled to America from France in 1700 to avoid persecution and help found the area of Manakin, Virginia. This is upsetting on so many levels. I guess I shouldn't be shocked. Al Sharpton has a history of this type of divisive nonsense. One last word... watch out Harry Reid, Al is coming after you with his legions of true God-fearing challengers. They will defeat you... and all of us if we don't call Al on his bigoted comment. Labels: al sharpton, Mormon, mormonism UPDATED ANALYSIS - SEE HERE -
 Yesterday Al Sharpton said: “As for the one Jew running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.”Are you kidding me! Oh, wait... I got that quote wrong.... here's the actual quote: “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” Does that sound any better? As Hugh Hewitt points out... if Al said: If Al had declared that a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim or candidate would be defeated by those "who really believe in God," how great would the outcry be?I'm speechless?! For all his banter and vile against Imus (some of it justified) -- how does he justify these comments? Any ideas on how to counter this? I'll have more later. Labels: al sharpton, Mormon, mormonism Take a minute and vote on this poll at IowaVotes2008.com... if only to make sure that Joseph Biden doesn't end up on the TV. The Senator can thank us later for ensuring he doesn't step in it again?
I'm not sure what Tommy Thompson is doing there? http://www.iowavotes2008.com 76&Itemid=58 Monday, May 7, 2007
 Well, I figured it was never too late to signup to have friends over for the debate May 15th on Fox News. You can sign up to host a private event or a public event. I opted for the private event at my house. After you sign up, you simply blast out invitation emails to all of your friends and family. The campaign promises to send you materials to make it successful. Or, you can even search for a public event in your area. There are several within reasonable driving distance of my Southern California location. You can sign up as well, here.NOTE FROM JUSTIN: Virginia Party at Justin's house here Labels: event  As we implied in our HughTube entry last month, Rudy's closet still requires a good deal of sweeping.Today, Jonathan Martin of Politico notes: Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country's leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.Governor Romney took some grief for giving a $250 donation to a Democrat... but I would say this is just a bit worse for the wear for Rudy. Hmmm... Deroy, any thoughts on this? Here's one of my favorite ads from Planned Parenthood.  This is the kind of stuff I abhor. I hope the mayor does as well. Someone should ask if, like Gov. Romney, he regrets his previous positions. Someone should ask if he regrets these contributions? Labels: abortion, donations, planned parenthood, rudy UPDATE: Matt Lewis of Townhall.com and others have some legitimate qualms with the NH poll. That's fine. But the % error in the poll to show anything but movement upward for Mitt is convincing enough to me to tout it.
So the latest poll out of New Hampshire shows Romney with his first significant lead over McCain and Rudy. Even John Podhoretz had to concede that Romney helped himself in the debate. So what's happening here? How is a small no-name Governor making a name for himself in a state that borders Massachusetts but prides itself on being very different than it's southern neighbor? Two words: ground game. Fred Thompson advocates are all excited about running a virtual campaign that has few boots but lots of national pizazz. "National pizazz" should be part of every campaign (Romney has the national fundraising snazzy programs for example) but you NEED BOOTS ON THE GROUND to make a difference. Dick Morris loves to talk about the Internet making a big difference.... he's right about that... but he has misguided expectations if he things it will make ALL the difference. It won't. But I like the Internet a lot.... so on the inaugural day of TechRepublican.com I give you the interactive New Hampshire Google Map. Never mind the Mitt Roots... let's demonstrate the Mitt "Boots".  If you like Google Earth... here's the download link for the KML file! Labels: interactive, maps, New Hampshire That was quick!
A New Hampshire poll has Romney leading in New Hampshire: According to a SurveyUSA poll of 551 likely Republican Primary voters, Mitt Romney gathered 32%, followed by Rudy Guiliani at 23% and John McCain with 22%. Fred Thompson finished fourth with 11%. Labels: poll Over the past few weeks I've been working with David All and other bloggers to launch TechRepublican.com – a site dedicated to filling the online fundraising gap between the DEMs and GOP. Here's my first post. Please visit TechRepublican.com for more! Facts are facts: the GOP is falling behind online. Before we approach anything resembling an autopsy let's get hip to the "scholarship" preceding this conversation. Read these pieces first:
OK, scalpel in hand… Let's proceed: I'm of the mindset that there are numerous issues at play holding us back from full online GOP potential:
So, what's to do? FIRST: Know your customer. Let's take advantage of point #5 and plug into Right Wing bloggers desire for recognition. The Victory Caucus pledge against the NRSC (which garnered almost 40,000 sigs) was great. Imagine how many more sigs they could have gotten if they had a recognition policy for "referrals" to the petition! Let's harness our Randian desires! SECOND: Experiment. The best ad agencies in the world run ads that they think will fail just to test them out. Let's set our expectations that we are not going to get this right the first time out. But we need to try and test different ways to approach this. THIRD: Deliver the Primal Code. Some people tout Seth Godin, others are big Bezos fans... I like Patrick Hanlon. In his book: Primal Branding<http://www.amazon.com/Primalbranding-Create-Zealots-Company-Future/dp...>, Hanlon defines the seven aspects of a good brand: "the creation story"; "the creed"; "the icons"; "the rituals"; "the pagans"; "the sacred words"; and "the leader". The GOP is seriously deficient on many of these. (More on this later) If we can steel ourselves to face the brutal facts, curb our egos enough to foster genuine momentum, and prep our troops for the General election without dividing the base in the Primaries… we have a real chance to turn this around. Labels: gop, online fundraising |
    12/31/06 - 1/7/07 1/7/07 - 1/14/07 1/14/07 - 1/21/07 1/21/07 - 1/28/07 1/28/07 - 2/4/07 2/4/07 - 2/11/07 2/11/07 - 2/18/07 2/18/07 - 2/25/07 2/25/07 - 3/4/07 3/4/07 - 3/11/07 3/11/07 - 3/18/07 3/18/07 - 3/25/07 3/25/07 - 4/1/07 4/1/07 - 4/8/07 4/8/07 - 4/15/07 4/15/07 - 4/22/07 4/22/07 - 4/29/07 4/29/07 - 5/6/07 5/6/07 - 5/13/07 5/13/07 - 5/20/07 5/20/07 - 5/27/07 5/27/07 - 6/3/07 6/3/07 - 6/10/07 6/10/07 - 6/17/07 6/17/07 - 6/24/07 6/24/07 - 7/1/07 7/1/07 - 7/8/07 7/8/07 - 7/15/07 7/15/07 - 7/22/07 7/22/07 - 7/29/07 7/29/07 - 8/5/07 8/5/07 - 8/12/07 8/12/07 - 8/19/07 8/19/07 - 8/26/07 8/26/07 - 9/2/07 9/2/07 - 9/9/07 9/9/07 - 9/16/07 9/16/07 - 9/23/07 9/23/07 - 9/30/07 9/30/07 - 10/7/07 10/7/07 - 10/14/07 10/14/07 - 10/21/07 10/21/07 - 10/28/07 10/28/07 - 11/4/07 11/4/07 - 11/11/07 11/11/07 - 11/18/07 11/18/07 - 11/25/07 11/25/07 - 12/2/07 12/2/07 - 12/9/07 12/9/07 - 12/16/07 12/16/07 - 12/23/07 12/23/07 - 12/30/07 12/30/07 - 1/6/08 1/6/08 - 1/13/08 1/13/08 - 1/20/08 1/20/08 - 1/27/08 1/27/08 - 2/3/08 2/3/08 - 2/10/08 2/10/08 - 2/17/08 2/17/08 - 2/24/08 2/24/08 - 3/2/08 3/2/08 - 3/9/08 3/9/08 - 3/16/08 3/16/08 - 3/23/08 3/23/08 - 3/30/08 3/30/08 - 4/6/08 4/6/08 - 4/13/08 4/13/08 - 4/20/08 4/20/08 - 4/27/08 4/27/08 - 5/4/08 5/4/08 - 5/11/08 5/11/08 - 5/18/08 5/18/08 - 5/25/08 5/25/08 - 6/1/08 6/1/08 - 6/8/08 6/8/08 - 6/15/08 6/15/08 - 6/22/08 6/29/08 - 7/6/08 7/6/08 - 7/13/08 7/13/08 - 7/20/08 7/20/08 - 7/27/08 7/27/08 - 8/3/08 8/3/08 - 8/10/08 8/10/08 - 8/17/08 8/17/08 - 8/24/08 8/24/08 - 8/31/08 8/31/08 - 9/7/08 9/7/08 - 9/14/08 9/14/08 - 9/21/08 9/21/08 - 9/28/08 9/28/08 - 10/5/08 10/12/08 - 10/19/08 10/19/08 - 10/26/08 10/26/08 - 11/2/08 11/2/08 - 11/9/08 11/9/08 - 11/16/08 11/16/08 - 11/23/08 11/23/08 - 11/30/08 11/30/08 - 12/7/08 12/7/08 - 12/14/08 12/21/08 - 12/28/08 1/11/09 - 1/18/09 1/18/09 - 1/25/09 1/25/09 - 2/1/09 2/1/09 - 2/8/09 2/22/09 - 3/1/09 4/12/09 - 4/19/09 4/19/09 - 4/26/09 4/26/09 - 5/3/09 5/10/09 - 5/17/09 5/17/09 - 5/24/09 5/24/09 - 5/31/09 5/31/09 - 6/7/09 6/14/09 - 6/21/09 6/21/09 - 6/28/09 6/28/09 - 7/5/09 7/5/09 - 7/12/09 7/26/09 - 8/2/09 8/2/09 - 8/9/09 8/9/09 - 8/16/09 8/30/09 - 9/6/09 9/6/09 - 9/13/09 9/18/11 - 9/25/11 What People are Saying about MyManMitt: "A proactive voice in the wilderness, always on-message and fighting the fight, for Mitt." - David All |
|||
|
|||||
Show/Hide 0 Comments | Post a Comment