Mitt Romney for President, MyManMitt.com
About Us
Contact Us
Donate to Mitt Romney Campaign

Mitt Romney on the Issues
Videos Mitt Romney
Help Mitt Romney




Saturday, August 4, 2007
posted by Myclob | 7:36 AM | permalink


From the YouTube Comments:

theaustinpeay says:

Romney is very impressive. Even when he doesn't know he's being taped. He's very classy.

darthmills says:
wow, first time i have seen mitt get upset. refreshing. Go get em mitt! President Romney 08!!

5M1L3 says:
I wonder if all the people who complained that Mitt Romney's clips were to short will appreciate the length of this video? I do like the candid, off the air part, at the end.

SCOTTMSTER says:
I feel Jan Mickelson had a pre-planned agenda for Mitt Romney to explain his views on his LDS religion and make his religion an issue in his run for the presidency. It however turned into a GREAT off air and genuine perspective of how Mitt views his moral and religious convictions, how those morals and views intertwine to make him what he is and yet separate as a President.
Mitt wins again, what a classy Presidential candidate.
Scott Rasmussen
Gilbert. Az.

Labels: ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • DiggGov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • Fark:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • Furl:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • Ma.gnolia:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • Netscape:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • NewsVine:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • Reddit:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • Slashdot:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • StumbleUpon:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • TailRank:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • Technorati:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson
  • YahooMyWeb:Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson

Technorati Tags: |
 
6 Comments:


This is a strange link...

http://barackobama.inthenewstonight.com/2007/08/04/mitt-romneys-mormonism/

Is this from Barak Obama's site?



This is why there is no positive reason to give "the speech". People feel that reading one blurb about an issue they believe is Church doctrine trumps a person who has been a lifelong member, a bishop,and stake president. Anything he says is not going to change the mind of people like this because they are under the false assumption that we are all mindless sheep who never question, never think for ourselves. Let me tell you, sitting in Church meetings for three hours every Sunday, studying for an hour every day you go to high school, and taking several religion classes during college do give you countless hours to question, observe, and aply the principles our Church espouses. So for those out there who want to tell Members of the Church of Latterday Saints what we do and don't believe, remember, don't ask the question if you do not want to hear the answer.



Well said Kim. With few exceptions (scholars who devote years to the study of a particular religion), those who are convinced they better understand a religion than those who participate in that religion are delusional. It is a sign of an uneducated and egotistical mind.



Mickelson is a jerk. Romney did a great job in containing himself with this idiot. If I were Mitt I would not meet with this guy again. He's more interested in having the public hear him than having them hear Romney. Showing the off the air conversation was very smart on your part. Mitt handled himself superbly.
Jeff Bookman

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 5, 2007 at 9:20 AM  


Romney has a clear understanding of his religion, and the separation of church and state. Mickelson reads a paragraph on the Mormon church and thinks he's an expert. Once again, Romney handles himself with reasonableness and class. He is always on -- sharp as a tack.



The very simple truth of the matter is if the method by which Mitt worshiped Jesus Christ where different, he would be the clear front runner. -----
God help us all.
--- How is this any better than the Sunnis and the Shias?????

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 9:18 AM  



posted by jason | 7:14 AM | permalink
Illinois is having a state wide Straw Poll a the Illinois Fair. If you are interested in supporting Romney, and Illinois Resident, send me an email at:

jasonpbonham@gmail.com
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Illinois Straw Poll
  • DiggIllinois Straw Poll
  • Fark:Illinois Straw Poll
  • Furl:Illinois Straw Poll
  • Ma.gnolia:Illinois Straw Poll
  • Netscape:Illinois Straw Poll
  • NewsVine:Illinois Straw Poll
  • Reddit:Illinois Straw Poll
  • Slashdot:Illinois Straw Poll
  • StumbleUpon:Illinois Straw Poll
  • TailRank:Illinois Straw Poll
  • Technorati:Illinois Straw Poll
  • YahooMyWeb:Illinois Straw Poll

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Friday, August 3, 2007
posted by Jon | 7:57 PM | permalink
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present to you Ms. Michelle Griffin. As reported by the Washington Post’s Michael Shear, Ms. Griffin got her 3.5 minutes of fame today as she heckled Mitt into a conversation about healthcare as he visited Manchester’s Red Arrow diner.



There is much debate in this country about the state of the nation’s healthcare system. Ms. Griffin brought up several points that most Americans have to deal with every day. Health Insurance premiums, doctor visit and prescription co-pay amounts, and the various other minutia all add up. Some health plans are better than others. Some aren’t worth the amount of ink it takes to print their forms. Everybody thinks the health care system can be made better.

Most politicians, including every single one of the presidential candidates (both Democratic and Republican) have some plan or grandiose idea on how to effect change in the health care system. Its not a small system. It only makes up 1/7th of the US economy. Some of these politicians – especially Hillary Clinton – have been on the heath care warpath for many years.

That said, only one politician has actually done something to improve the health care system of the people he was elected to serve. That politician is Mitt Romney – former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you’ve clicked on the video above you know that Mitt tried to explain this system to Ms. Griffin – several times.

Ms. Griffin wasn’t interested in the health care plan Mitt put in place in the Bay State. What she wanted was someone to come in and tell her all her medical bills would be taken care of by the government – and she wouldn’t have to pay a cent.

Well, as one of the tax-payers who would have to foot the bill to make Ms. Griffin happy, this kinda irks me. So I have a memo for Ms. Griffin:

Stop Whining. Now would be a good time. I feel for the pain caused by your family’s medical situation. Really. I do. How can I say this? Because I have a family of my own with our own medical bills to pay. I work hard for my money and, with all due respect, I’m not sure I can afford to pay for your health care in addition to my own. That is, after all, what you are asking. Government money doesn’t come from some magical printing press in Washington, DC. It comes from guys like me who think we send far too much of our hard earned cash to that city.

You don’t like your health care plan? Do something about it. Yes, I know that might involve doing something other than waiting tables at the Red Arrow. Stop expecting government to solve your problems. Do you really want an organization that pays $700 for a toilet seat deciding what health care benefits you qualify for? Every politician coming through that door is trying to sell you something. You just might want to put more stock in the guy who’s already done something about the issue rather than putting your faith in the nebulous idea of socialized medicine. Socialized Medicine is just Canadian for “Colossal Failure”.
So, Michelle, you’ve got a lot to think about. You can either stop your whining and do something for yourself (and your family), or you can wait for someone like Hillary Clinton to do something to you. Either way, please stop whining. End Memo.

As for Mr. Shear, I don’t think his reporting could have been more slanted if he had actually tried – which I’m sure he did. Memo to Michael Shear: Its August. I’m sure you don’t get out of your air-conditioned DC office very much, but I’m pretty sure you know that August in New Hampshire is anything but cool. I’ve watched the video you put up, and forgive me for being so blunt (its what I do), but the one thing I didn’t see Mitt do was sweat. At all. This is a guy who has put together billion-dollar deals using only his wits, intelligence, and guts. He knows his stuff. No diner waitress is going to find a chink in his armor – despite all your wishes to the contrary. End Memo.

The MSM silliness factor is increasing exponentially. This is a race for the Oval Office. When are they going to get serious? Are they capable of being serious? Methinks not.

Labels: , , ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Mitt And The Waitress
  • DiggMitt And The Waitress
  • Fark:Mitt And The Waitress
  • Furl:Mitt And The Waitress
  • Ma.gnolia:Mitt And The Waitress
  • Netscape:Mitt And The Waitress
  • NewsVine:Mitt And The Waitress
  • Reddit:Mitt And The Waitress
  • Slashdot:Mitt And The Waitress
  • StumbleUpon:Mitt And The Waitress
  • TailRank:Mitt And The Waitress
  • Technorati:Mitt And The Waitress
  • YahooMyWeb:Mitt And The Waitress

Technorati Tags: |
 
4 Comments:


Over at www.evangelicalsformitt.com there is a great post comparing the Washington Post's hit piece and a piece by a New Hampshire paper describing the same incident, but with additional info about how Romney sought out the waitress afterwards to talk personally with her.



She was heckling. She wanted to try and make a point. She wasn't interested in discussing what health care approach might be better. Romney conducted himself very cordially, considering her antagonism.



Poor gal needs a hug and some therapy, Mr. Romney's not in that business I guess.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 5, 2007 at 7:28 PM  


Mitt Romney handled that situation very well. When I clicked on the story I expected some kind of "gotcha" moment. Far from it. He answered her question. I have compassion for her, but you are correct, anything less than a full government ride would not do. What really annoys me about this video/article is that the WAPO is just using this woman to try and make a dent against Mitt Romney. Nice try. As Reagan said, you can't socialize medicine without socializing the country. This is a tremendously big issue. Once you get socialized medicine, it is hard to get back. Other than introducing competition and kicking the government fully out of medicine, Mitt has the best plan.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 2:06 AM  



posted by Anonymous | 5:20 PM | permalink
Stumbled on a great interview with Romney done by M.E. Sprengelmeyer of Rocky Mountain News here. One of the best parts was Romney articulating how a President should respond to public opinion:

SPRENGELMEYER: On the Iraq war, sometimes you see polls -- and it all depends how the question is phrased -- sometimes you see polls where the public is very dispirited, and that might lead a majority of the public to take an opinion that goes against what you might feel in your heart is the right strategy. How are you going to confront public opinion sometimes, when public opinion might say, 'Let's withdraw every troop immediately' but you might think something different? Are you afraid of the pressures of public opinion -- not just media, not just your opposing party, but public opinion. Do you sometimes have to go against popular opinion?

ROMNEY: You know, if I had grown up in politics and my whole life were politics and all I cared about was winning elections, then in that setting I could see how an individual might be very concerned about public opinion. I'm not in this for politics. I've only spent four years in political office. My life has been in the private sector, and the love of my life is my wife and my family. I'm in this to make a difference for America. And if I find that the American people significantly disagree with me, that means there are two things I have to do. Number one, understand why they think the way they do, and see if there's something that I may be missing. But number two, if I'm convinced that I'm right and they're not right, then I need to do the job of educating and communicating why I believe what I believe. I believe that the job of the president is not just commander in chief but also educator in chief. And in some cases, the president knows a lot that the American public doesn't know. And if that's the case and if that's the reason for a difference in opinion, then the president is going to have to do a great job of educating and communicating what it is he knows that would shape the public's mood and perception on a particular issue.

Gives you a good sense of how the Presidency could be ran. Also check out the following regarding differences of opinion in an administration:

SPRENGELMEYER: If you were president today... I'm going to have the power of the hypothetical and declare you president today...

ROMNEY: You know I won't respond to hypotheticals, but that one I might respond to.

SPRENGELMEYER: So, Mr. President, how is your Iraq policy, immediately, going to look any different than President Bush's current, today, Iraq policy?

ROMNEY: Well, as you know, my policy would have looked very different over the last three to four years following the collapse of Saddam Hussein. Today, the troop surge policy is in my opinion the best course we have available to us. And I can't predict exactly how that's going to develop. I do not believe it's a certainty that it'll be successful. I am encouraged by the report that we saw from Brookings over the weekend -- a nonpartisan group that weighed in and said that their perception was that the surge is working. I certainly hope that's the case. But I can tell you that I
will make decisions based on thorough analysis of data. Not just opinion but cold, hard facts, and based upon the input of people who disagree with me. I like debate and disagreement. I want to have people who have very different views sit at the table...

SPRENGELMEYER: Is that a problem in the current administration?

ROMNEY: ...promote their positions with the benefit of data and use those views and that data to make decisions. I'm not inside the current administration, so I can't make an assessment of how decisions are made, but in my own life I have been one who has benefited from what Doris Kearns Goodwin has called the 'team of rivals.' I like having people of differing viewpoints. I love having debate. I remember early on in this administration, there were stories about how certain members of the administration disagreed. And there was a great deal of surprise and dismay that there was disagreement. I love disagreement. If I'm president there will be many stories about people in my administration disagreeing with each other, because I hope they do. I need disagreement to make good decisions.

"If I'm president, there will be many stories about people in my administration disagreeing with each other, because I hope they do. I need disagreements to make good decisions."
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Public and Private Opinion
  • DiggPublic and Private Opinion
  • Fark:Public and Private Opinion
  • Furl:Public and Private Opinion
  • Ma.gnolia:Public and Private Opinion
  • Netscape:Public and Private Opinion
  • NewsVine:Public and Private Opinion
  • Reddit:Public and Private Opinion
  • Slashdot:Public and Private Opinion
  • StumbleUpon:Public and Private Opinion
  • TailRank:Public and Private Opinion
  • Technorati:Public and Private Opinion
  • YahooMyWeb:Public and Private Opinion

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 11:57 AM | permalink
There are a few things out there today:

First, countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 8 days

Second, Michael Gerson has an op-ed in the Washington Post today discussing whether Romney should make a Kennedy-like speech. His conclusion:

Romney, however, should not make Kennedy's mistake and assert that all religious beliefs are unrelated to politics. What Mormonism shares with other religious traditions is a strong commitment to the value and dignity of human beings, ncluding the unborn, the disabled and the poor. This conviction is unavoidably political, because it leads men and women to act in the cause of justice, not in order to impose their religion, but to protect the weak.
I tend to agree with Gerson. I wrote back in March over at Law Students for Romney:

I believe, however, that Romney is better off not making a speech about the role of religion in his candidacy. While Wilson makes the point that religion is central to character and should therefore be explored, I think that character is inferred from the way that a candidate speaks and acts. The religious principles that underlie that behavior and speech are less important than the result. By injecting religion into character, Romney runs the significant risk of having the LDS standards of behavior (as much as I believe in them) become more important than Romney’s actual behavior. No, I think that emphasizing the commonalities that Romney has with people of other faiths is the right direction. It gives voters the more palatable choice of accepting Romney alone without having to swallow the entire LDS Church as a whole. I think that making a Kennedy-like speech forces voters to make a much bigger leap than Romney alone presents.
Third, there was some debate over at the Corner about Romney’s comments about Hezbollah’s tactics in gaining political legitimacy. Lisa Schiffren had this to say:

So it is really horrifying to think that a man of Mr. Romney's intelligence would make the a serious diplomatic mistake of citing a radical terrorist group as a model for U.S. policy. This is where being a techno-guy, without any real foreign policy experience, (or ear) begins to matter.
KJL posted the Romney campaign’s response. Then Andrew Stuttaford gave this rebuttal to Schiffren:

Lisa, Romney was not (of course) praising or in any way endorsing Hamas or Hezbollah. All he was saying is that, judging by their experience, the provision of some form of social services is not a bad way to win support. He's right (of course it's not a particularly novel insight: I believe there's something called the Peace Corps that was founded on pretty much the same idea), and it's an encouraging sign that he is taking a serious look at what has worked politically in a region where US policy has not, recently, been marked by a great deal of success. There's such a thing as learning from the enemy (in fact it's a hallmark of many successful counter-insurgencies). Romney has just given a sign that he is smart enough to do that. Good for him.

UPDATE: Schiffren's mea culpa:
Thanks to the Romney campaign for their quick response to my earlier post — and to Andrew for explaining it for those who didn’t read the whole Romney response. I am relieved to learn that the Governor did not misspeak. I am afraid that I responded too quickly to an email forwarded by a usually reliable source on Middle-East and GOP matters.

Indeed, now having read the original speech I can only say that the partisan news organization which distorted it did so with total abandon. If you follow the link below, the entire Romney speech is available. It's a good speech on a number of subjects, well worth reading.

Fourth, there will be a televised debate on Sunday on ABC.

Fifth, Brownback and Huckabee are having a little exchange over religion. After Jason’s nice summation of the Brownback campaign, it’s nice to know that others are seeing the same. Huckabee’s campaign manager Chip Saltsman said the following:

It’s time for Sam Brownback to stop whining and start showing some of the Christian character he seems to always find lacking in others.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:News Round-up
  • DiggNews Round-up
  • Fark:News Round-up
  • Furl:News Round-up
  • Ma.gnolia:News Round-up
  • Netscape:News Round-up
  • NewsVine:News Round-up
  • Reddit:News Round-up
  • Slashdot:News Round-up
  • StumbleUpon:News Round-up
  • TailRank:News Round-up
  • Technorati:News Round-up
  • YahooMyWeb:News Round-up

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Thursday, August 2, 2007
posted by Anonymous | 3:44 PM | permalink
I thought it was pretty amusing that this Ron Paul supporter thinks you should lie in order to take advantage of Mitt's offer to bus you to the straw poll. Think its a joke? Okay, why the 888 number then?
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • DiggRon Paul Freeloaders
  • Fark:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • Furl:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • Ma.gnolia:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • Netscape:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • NewsVine:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • Reddit:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • Slashdot:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • StumbleUpon:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • TailRank:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • Technorati:Ron Paul Freeloaders
  • YahooMyWeb:Ron Paul Freeloaders

Technorati Tags: |
 
8 Comments:


Ron Paul is a gnat.
Mitt Romney could fly all the Paul supporters to Iowa and Paul would still not get more than one or two percent of the vote.
There is no spamming in the Ames Straw Poll.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 2, 2007 at 5:33 PM  


From what I can see, there is nothing that legally binds anyone to actually vote for Romney.
It would appear we have a one time Prisoners' Dilemma. Romney has done the irrational thing, acted first and chose "cooperate".
It is the duty of all rational people to act second and play "defect".

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 2, 2007 at 5:45 PM  


I found it more amusing that the pro Ron Paul website had a McCain banner at the bottom.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 2, 2007 at 6:06 PM  


Comical. The rationalizations from the RP guys about lying to steal a ride & meal from Romney are incredible. Ends justify the means is their basic argument, though they say it in several different ways.

In the end, few will do so and if they do it will back-fire to hurt their guy.



I loved the idea. Ames is supposed to be a measure of a candidate’s ability to organize supporters. If Mitt’s doing Ron Paul’s organizing for him, then it only shows Mitt’s strength.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 3, 2007 at 1:00 AM  


Hopefully after Mitt wins we can double Guantanamo and send all of these Ron Paul supporters there.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 3, 2007 at 9:23 AM  


"From what I can see, there is nothing that legally binds anyone to actually vote for Romney."

Actually there is. To receive the benefits you have to check a box that explicitly states you are going to Ames to vote for Romney. This forms a binding contract.

Certainly, you can get away with it--no one will watch who you vote for and Romney's folks won't sue you over it. However, it does violate contract law and it is clearly unethical.



Ok, folks.

To say that it is illegal to bus transport someone to a poll and feed them shows simple ignorance. It is simply not illegal.

People transport other people around and feed them for all sorts of reasons. Churches do it. Are they buying converts? Sports teams do it. Are they buying fans? And yes, polititians do it, have done it, and will continue doing it. Are they buying votes?

Well, if you’re the type of person that could concieve of sitting on a crowded bus for hours just to get some bar-b-que as a bribe sufficent to garner a vote, then I guess so.
Personally, and I think it’s obvious that most people agree with this, unless you’re homeless you’re not going to be all that excited to take advantage of a free ride and a free meal just for the sake of casting your vote for someone you don’t really care about.

Romney is not paying for your vote, he is making it easier for you to cast the vote you already have chosen to make.

The reason this is not a bribe is because the only people who are going to take advantage of this type of offer are people who are already sold on the candidate… so their vote has already been secured.

That is, of course, with the exception of the free-loading folks only showing Ron Paul’s true colors.

I say do it. Hop on those Romney busses. If you actually have the guts to get away from your computer / TV for more than an hour and get on a bus, that is.
But be warned: After you’re subjected to hours of mingling with real truth-loving Romney supporters who actually use FACTS to support their convictions, your original intention to “lie for the sake of the truth” will be swallowed up by logic, and you’ll end up voting for Romney anyway.




posted by jason | 3:40 PM | permalink
***This is Not an Official Romney Campaign Site- For Those Who Can't Tell*****

If I was to sum up who I think is the candidate who really has the worse chance for winning, I would say Brownback. If you were to ask me who is running the dirtiest campaign, again my answer would be Brownback. If you were to ask me a month ago who has worse chance of winning the '08 nomination, I would have said McCain. If you were to also ask me who at the time was running the dirtiest campaign, again the answer would be McCain. It's no small coincidence.

Brownback has a serious problems. The least of which is the guy having no credentials beyond his pro-life work and his ongoing work with poor countries. Both very laudable, yet neither presidential worthy on their own. I think we all know the need for executive, intellectual, and diplomatic skills. His most serious problems is the ongoing systemic problem in his campaign of attacking all the other Republican candidates, really it's unmatched in 2008.

I call it systemic, because frankly, that's what it is. It ranges from top to bottom. From the Big Cheese himself down to his summer staffers in Iowa.

For instance:

  • Brownback actually had the piece of mind to call Romney a liar in a press release where he himself was shading the facts (dare I say lie!?!).


  • I covered Brownback's manipulative bombs in this post.


  • Brownback has decided to make a weekly press release attacking Mitt Romney. Of course it shades the truth and takes things out of context in nearly every instance.


  • Brownback staffers have deliberatly attacked Romney's Religion.


  • Sam has taken to attacking other candidates family members. Brownback has now stooped to the level of attacking Ann Romney. While not only a gracious and inspiring women, but an amazing person of great integrity (and not the candidate)


  • Sam has now started attacking Tancredo (Twice so far)


  • Mention Romney to any Brownback staffer/volunteer/supporter and watch the animosity come to the surface- I guarantee you.



  • Now lets get to the quote that really matters:


    Sam Brownback campaign manager Rob Wasinger: "We are looking forward to running a strong issue-based, positive campaign." (The Associated Press, April 2, 2007)


    Now Sam. I am not your mommy (or your Daddy- more correctly), but do you think this how honest people deal with each other? Claim to run a positive campaign and instead spend your time executing the modern day political equivalent of Russian "Slash and Burn" warfare?

    C'mon Sam, for the sake of your party and the sake of your integrity...Clean Up Your Act!!
    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:The Pathetic Campaign
    • DiggThe Pathetic Campaign
    • Fark:The Pathetic Campaign
    • Furl:The Pathetic Campaign
    • Ma.gnolia:The Pathetic Campaign
    • Netscape:The Pathetic Campaign
    • NewsVine:The Pathetic Campaign
    • Reddit:The Pathetic Campaign
    • Slashdot:The Pathetic Campaign
    • StumbleUpon:The Pathetic Campaign
    • TailRank:The Pathetic Campaign
    • Technorati:The Pathetic Campaign
    • YahooMyWeb:The Pathetic Campaign

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    1 Comments:


    I really used to like Sam Brownback. Through his actions in this campaign, there is nothing he can ever do to regain my admiration or respect.
    Way to go Sam, way to go.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 2, 2007 at 5:38 PM  



    posted by Anonymous | 12:38 PM | permalink
    Barack Obama had some comments today to share about nuclear weapons that everyone in this country should be concerned about. I give you the whole article:

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

    The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf earlier this week that he would use U.S. military force in Pakistan even without Musharraf's permission if necessary to root out terrorists. However, when asked by The Associated Press after a breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Obama replied "There's been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss."

    When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is politically unstable, raising concerns that the current military leadership could be replaced by religious fanatics who would be less cautious in using the weapons. Obama, in a major foreign policy speech Wednesday, warned that terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan are planning another attack on the United States, after already killing 3,000 Americans in their 2001 attacks. "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005." he said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

    Obama may have just shown his true colors. Which, frankly, I am not too surprised about. What concerns me is that he said it. Whether or not you intend to use nuclear weapons or not is really beside the point. The issue is perception. We need our enemies to think that in an appropriate circumstance, we would use any force available to us. Why?

    Well, the questioner was getting close to this possibility. What happens if when Obama invades Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda, as he has suggested, the government falls under the outcry of the country's population and nuclear weapons fall into the hands of someone worse than President Musharraf? Wouldn't it be nice for whoever was controllig those missiles to be absolutely convinced that if they dared launch one, they would be obliterated from the map?

    Now, I must confess a bit of skepticism about deterrence and concepts of mutual assured destruction working effectively against whoever would take control in a chaotic takeover in that country. It may work against the Soviets, but it is less clear when you are dealing with an unstable country. Nevertheless, they have the nukes. They aren't giving them up and hoping to stem the tide of proliferation isn't going to help this situation. As a result, we need to make sure everyone understands that our full arsenal is at our disposal if needed.

    I have written previously about how Romney clearly understands the value of a flexible deterrent. He will work on the problem from all angles and leave open his options so that he has the big stick if we really need it. Consider this exchange between him and Hugh Hewitt some time back:

    HH: "Now Governor Romney, China's been pretty helpful with North Korea. They've done some good things. But with Iran, they have not been helpful at all, and now Iran announced yesterday 3,000 more centrifuges towards uranium enrichment. They're on a path towards nukes. And the question I hope gets asked of every presidential candidate is if George Bush comes before the people of the United States in the next two years and says absent military action, Iran is going to go critical and acquire nukes, and therefore, I'm going to take that action. If he made that statement, would you support him in that, Governor Romney?"

    MR: "Well, you know, the challenge with threatening a military strike is that that becomes a headline in and of itself. I think America has to maintain the option of military action, any time its interests are threatened. And certainly, having a nuclear weapon in Iran would threaten not only our interests, but the interests of our friends, and would threaten the entire world. It's a setting which would justify military action. The only time one could ever consider such an action is if every other reasonable option had been exercised to keep from having to use that option, and we're a long way from there at this point. You point out, one of the key ways of influencing and putting pressure Iran, and that is through China. China really is the
    key, both to the nuclear armament of North Korea, as well as to Iran. They're a huge trading partner with both. And China, of course, wants the oil very badly to keep their economy going, and therefore, they don't want to iritate the Iranians. But we're going to have to build our own type of pressure, to make sure that we get from them the kind of support that we need from someone who we want to become more of a friend in the world, and that is by them putting in place very tough restrictions, and
    supporting our tough acts against the Iranians, our sanctions against the Iranians, as they develop nuclear weaponry."

    After listening to Obama for the past week, I am not sure if he is going to be able to control the military bureaucracy. He is hawkish on going after Al Qaeda, but then slips up on nukes? Compared to Romney's cool headedness and problem solving mentality, I know who I want as Comander-in-Chief.

    Related: Make sure you check out the reaction from Pakistan over Obama's threat to launch unauthorized attacks in their country. Hillary Clinton is also piling on.

    Response: For those of you who might say Obama corrected himself after he, misspoke, imagine a grand theft auto suspect being interviewed by the police. "Did you know the car was stolen?" Response, "Yeah, I knew. Wait not this car. Scratch that. No one has ever mentioned the car being stolen, that subject is off the table."

    Romney on the Subject: Gives Obama the benefit of the doubt.

    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:Nuclear Flexibility
    • DiggNuclear Flexibility
    • Fark:Nuclear Flexibility
    • Furl:Nuclear Flexibility
    • Ma.gnolia:Nuclear Flexibility
    • Netscape:Nuclear Flexibility
    • NewsVine:Nuclear Flexibility
    • Reddit:Nuclear Flexibility
    • Slashdot:Nuclear Flexibility
    • StumbleUpon:Nuclear Flexibility
    • TailRank:Nuclear Flexibility
    • Technorati:Nuclear Flexibility
    • YahooMyWeb:Nuclear Flexibility

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    0 Comments:



    Wednesday, August 1, 2007
    posted by jason | 9:36 PM | permalink
    Is growing...or maybe not.


    n recent weeks, Rudy's camp has been sending out frequent releases touting their growing Iowa organization.

    Or so it seemed.

    Many of the endorsements have already been rolled out. I first noticed the trend in writing up their "Southeast Iowa Leadership Team" last week.

    But the pattern became especially egregious today in a release titled "Giuliani Campaign Unveils Central Iowa Leadership."

    “Rudy’s organization throughout the state continues to grow with experienced veterans of Iowa politics,” crowed Paul Pate, Rudy's Iowa chair, in the release.

    And that's true.

    Technically.

    Of the 19 names on the list of central Iowa backers, all but one had already been released back on June 11th when the campaign unveiled their statewide "Iowa Leadership Team." And Giuliani's camp didn't every try to mask their recycling. All the names announced in June have the same title in the release today -- regional chair, county chair or county co-chair. They're simply breaking down old endorsements into regional subsets.

    Asked about the rehash, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella demurred. "We’re going to take every opportunity to highlight the mayor’s increasing momentum in the state," she said. They include previous endorsers when rolling out new names in other states, too, she pointed out.


    This is funny. I love the spokeswomen line "We’re going to take every opportunity to highlight the mayor’s increasing momentum in the state." Here is the problem, using the word "increasing" means it's currently growing. But using endorsements from the past means those are past increases. Maybe Team Giuliani is not too knowledgeable about the use of past and present tenses?

    It's kind of like when people see me and they say I look skinnier. Only I haven't lost any weight. I think it's just because they remember me being fatter than I actually am. I think Team Giuliani is hoping they get that kind of "lucky" break.
    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • DiggRudy's Iowa Team
    • Fark:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • Furl:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • Ma.gnolia:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • Netscape:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • NewsVine:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • Reddit:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • Slashdot:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • StumbleUpon:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • TailRank:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • Technorati:Rudy's Iowa Team
    • YahooMyWeb:Rudy's Iowa Team

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    3 Comments:


    Perhaps the Giuliani folks just figured out what most of us already know.
    The Press ain't too bright.
    If Team Rudi releases something there is a very good chance the press will report it without bothering to check the facts.



    polls have shown romney holding consistent sizeable leads in iowa and new hampshire.. yet all of the sudden 2 ARG polls show giuliani instantaneously leading by 1 point in both states. what kind of funny business is this?

    and have you read the nyt's report on giuliani's very close long time friendship with the head of fox news?

    *sigh*



    American Research Group is not a reliable polling company. They are polling a very high number of INDEPENDENTS with regards to the primaries.
    No other polling company does that and for good reason -- the results are inaccurate.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 2, 2007 at 2:38 PM  



    posted by Anonymous | 1:22 PM | permalink

    We have read recently that the surge in Iraq, while not solving all of the problems, is netting some results. Now, Romney is inviting us to participate in a surge of support for our troops bravely trying to serve the Iraqis.
    "When I was recently in Colorado Springs, I spoke with a man whose son is serving in Iraq. He said the criticism at home of the war effort was demoralizing. He made the point that as our fighting men and women are defending our liberties overseas, we as Americans need to stand by them. Afterwards, my nephew suggested there should be a "surge of support" to go along with the troop surge. I told him that I couldn’t agree more."
    The Romney site has a list off suggested organizations to utilize in order to show your support:
    These sites offer opportunities to donate frequent flyer miles, adopt a troop, send get well cards, sew a cooling necktie, and fulfill a wish among other things. Check them out and do something today for the people risking their lives for you.
    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:Surge of Support
    • DiggSurge of Support
    • Fark:Surge of Support
    • Furl:Surge of Support
    • Ma.gnolia:Surge of Support
    • Netscape:Surge of Support
    • NewsVine:Surge of Support
    • Reddit:Surge of Support
    • Slashdot:Surge of Support
    • StumbleUpon:Surge of Support
    • TailRank:Surge of Support
    • Technorati:Surge of Support
    • YahooMyWeb:Surge of Support

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    0 Comments:



    posted by Myclob | 7:34 AM | permalink






    It's Competence, Stupid!
    Managerial excellence, not ideological purity, is what the GOP primary is all about.


    By Jim Geraghty

    New York Times columnist David Brooks was wowed by Mitt Romney Friday, offering a rave review of the candidate "talking about his success in business and in running the Olympics. He was talking about how you assemble a team of people with complimentary skills. How you use data and analysis to replace opinion. How you set benchmarks and how often you should perform self-evaluation… It opened up a vista of how government might operate."

    This brought an unimpressed reaction from a closeted conservative editor at a Washington publication, who thought he heard an echo of another former governor of Massachusetts:
    Now, come on. Doesn't that sound, more than anything, like a Republican version of Mike Dukakis? "I can make government work. It's not about ideology. It's about competence." Now, granted, competence might be a saleable message right about now. But it's also one that is easy to parody, difficult to sustain in the face of hole-poking criticism, and, as far as I can remember, has never been very successful among a Republican electorate. We simply assume our candidates are more or less competent, I think, and move quickly on to other things. Romney is going to have a tough sell if he relies on competence as his major selling point. 'Managerial excellence' is not going to persuade me, and I am, right now, completely open to persuasion, a position I have not been in at this point in a presidential election cycle since I have been voting.
    Allow me to play devil's advocate and offer the argument that, at this moment, for conservatives seeking to choose their nominee in 2008, it really is competence, not ideology.

    [Pause to dodge tomatoes hurled by readers who interpret this as a de facto defense of Michael Dukakis.]


    For starters, let me offer the even more controversial argument that, ideologically, there's not a huge difference among the four leading Republican candidates:

    [Pause as all four campaigns indignantly shout "WHAT? HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?!?", and hurl another barrage of tomatoes.]


    As it has been well-documented, all of them have their issues where they disagree with conservative orthodoxy:

    Giuliani: As mayor, liberal on guns, abortion, and gay rights; insists he would be a federalist on these issues as president.

    Romney: Running in 1994 and 2002, sounded as un-conservative as necessary to win in the state of Massachusetts. Wife donated to Planned Parenthood.

    Thompson: A federalist on tort reform; supported McCain-Feingold; did the 17 hours of lobbying work for the family-planning group 16 years back.

    McCain: Campaign finance; Gang of 14 deal on judges; immigration-reform deal.

    In the end, if you're a down-the-line conservative, it's pick your poison: Figure out on which issues you're least upset by dissent from the conservative orthodoxy, and vote for the guy who toes the line on your top issues. Or vote for some second-tier candidate whose chances of winning are slim to none (and Slim just left town, as Dan Rather would say).

    But before conservatives start denouncing the field as a herd of RINOs, let's observe that on most of the other issues — particularly economic and foreign policy, and some legal-social ones — there's a conservative consensus.

    Does anyone think that a President Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or McCain would not pick Supreme Court justices in the mold of John Roberts or Samuel Alito? Does anyone think they would try to fight their own base on public financing of abortions? Does anyone think they would raise taxes, or try to enact Hillary-style socialized medicine, or agree to meet with the world's rogue state dictators in their first year in office? (And does anyone doubt that any of the Democratic candidates would do the opposite?)

    At the end of the day, on a conservatism scale of one to ten — one being Lincoln Chafee and ten being Rush Limbaugh — all of these guys score about a seven or an eight. None of them are the second coming of Reagan, but all of them would be fairly conservative, and perhaps would be a breath of fresh air.

    In fact, the contrast with our current president is illuminating. For as much as President Bush's policy differences with his base (especially on immigration and spending) have hurt him, I would suspect what is truly driving conservatives batty is what is now incontrovertible evidence that Bush is a poor manager.

    A couple of vividly illustrative examples:

    Rumsfeld's Departure:
    One week before the election, Bush repeated to wire-service reporters an oft-declared pledge that he intended to keep Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon until he leaves office in 2009. The day after the election, Bush announced Rumsfeld's departure and named Gates his successor. Entirely separate from the merits of whether Rumsfeld should stay or go, can anyone argue that it was wise to explicitly and repeatedly promise that he would stay, only to drop him right after the election? If Rumsfeld was already on his way out (as the readiness of Gates suggested), announce it before the election so that GOP candidates didn't have to defend an unpopular Pentagon chief and could talk up Gates. The timing resulted in the worst of all worlds — GOP candidates having to defend Rumsfeld, the widespread perception that Bush lied, and the perception that the Democratic victory had instantly forced changes.

    Alberto Gonzales:
    Having seen contradictory, confused, or incoherent answers to inquiries from the beginning of the U.S. attorney mess, Republicans don't want to defend Gonzales, National Review wants him to resign, and conservative bloggers want the " Fredo" of the Bush White House to be taken out fishing. But he stays, despite one appalling appearance before Congressional panels after another, ensuring a continuing controversy. Fair or not, Bush creates the perception that he values personal friendship and loyalty over competence and good judgment. And on that note…

    Harriet Miers:
    'Nuff said.

    The timing and manner of the immigration fight:
    By early this year, Bush's approval rating had dropped below 40 percent, down to his base of solid conservatives. And then he decided to advocate, loudly and repeatedly, for legislation passionately despised by that base. Whether or not Bush's view was right, it was the wrong fight at the wrong time. It's not unprecedented for a president to oppose his base — Clinton did so on welfare reform and NAFTA — but fighting for those idiosyncratic priorities has to be done carefully and respectfully. Throughout the immigration debate, Bush and his allies demonstrated the opposite — after its first defeat, Bush brushed off the vote and dismissed the opposition arguments, declaring, "I'll see you at the bill signing." His secretary of homeland security contended that the opposition wanted the death penalty for illegal immigrants, and Senate ally Lindsey Graham lamented to the New York Times about the "racism" in the debate — all of which alienated and infuriated conservatives at a time when the White House needed all the friends it could get.

    Finally surging in Iraq:
    Reports that the surge has triggered tangible benefits in Iraq is great. But there's a nagging question in the minds of those of us who want to see success in Iraq — why did the surge concept only get tried at the beginning of 2007? By the end of 2003 it was clear that Iraq would have a persistent, violent insurgency. Where were these additional troops and more aggressive tactics in 2004, 2005 and 2006? In retrospect, didn't the administration waste three years' worth of American patience with policies and military leaders who essentially treaded water? Or could these tactics and reinforcements and General Petraeus's leadership have only worked in this moment? If we're seeing positive results with 155,000 troops that we didn't see with 120,000 troops, didn't the "send more troops" crowd deserve more attention from the White House in retrospect?

    Some of these pratfalls have ideological elements, but all of them were at least exacerbated by bad management — bad communications, bad judgment, bad analysis, bad self-evaluation. A future Republican president who is marginally less conservative, but a better manager, may actually achieve a great deal more for the Right than President Bush has.

    Jim Geraghty blogs at campaignspot.nationalreview.com.

    Jim Geraghty is a regular contributor to National Review Online and National Review . In addition to writing columns for National Review, Geraghty also has a weblog on the site named TKS and is a former reporter for States News Service.

    During the 2004 US Presidential election, Geraghty was often critical of Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry. At the time his weblog used the name "The Kerry Spot". Geraghty reported on the Killian documents and Rathergate stories on a daily basis on behalf of National Review and was critical of CBS and Dan Rather. Geraghty was one of the self described Pajamahadeen.

    Starting in March 2005, Geraghty has been posting to TKS from Turkey, where he is living as an expatriate.

    External links

    Labels:

    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • DiggIt's Competence, Stupid!
    • Fark:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • Furl:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • Ma.gnolia:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • Netscape:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • NewsVine:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • Reddit:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • Slashdot:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • StumbleUpon:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • TailRank:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • Technorati:It's Competence, Stupid!
    • YahooMyWeb:It's Competence, Stupid!

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    4 Comments:


    Since Mitt Romney's not going to, I feel that it's time for me to take a hard right cross at Rudy Guiliani. He can take it. Especially from a nobody like me. Wait a minute...I have some friends and family that vote and I can speak my mind here so I'm sure it won't hurt him.

    I'm a Conservative in the truest sense. I have a growing family. I love my wife. I have an 8 to 5 job and soon will be taking on a second full time job for a while to build our reserve and supplement for the loss of my wife's income so that she (who had an equal part in this decision) could stay home and take on the toughest job, which is to mold future upstanding citizens and people. Better hopefully than we ever could be.

    I go to Church every Sunday and believe very much in an Almighty being that loves and cares for me and my welfare and the welfare of my family and for you and your loved ones. I believe in freedom and strength in morality and I believe that only in this country can we achieve these things.

    With all of this said Rudy Guiliani is the WORST that we as conservatives can choose to represent us for President of the United States because in 2008 two things in the Republican Party are at odds with each other...

    Electability vs. Ideology (in our case Conservatism).

    I'm afraid that with the way the polls are going, Ideology is going to lose unless we do more.

    Republicans, mainly the mainstream GOP media elites (I touched on their bias before) are only talking about Electability barely skimming over Ideology. They provide cover for Guiliani and Thompson for that matter regarding suspect things about their IDEOLOGY and their willingness to say "yeah and what about it" and "no that's not me" only to find out it was!

    These people (GOP elites) are truly scared of "losing". Something they accused Democrats of being when the Republican Party had their unsuccessful stint in Congress. More and more people in the Republican Party are willing to move farther left (which we all agree is the wrong direction) because they want to "win". Who truly wins with a Rudy Guiliani as President? The left and liberals do! Why? Because according to Rudy Guiliani we're the unreasonable ones because we believe in life. We're the unreasonable ones because we believe that homosexuality is essentially wrong. We're the unreasonable ones because we believe in fidelity and strong families. We are the unreasonable ones because we socially are "out of touch" and now we need to be more "inclusive". How many liberals believe what you or I believe? What does the left capitulate to with their ideology (which we know is wrong on so many levels) with Hillary or Obabma as their candidate? NOTHING!!! The left is still the left.

    Essentially with Rudy Guiliani we are watering down Social Conservatism. I know that Guiliani is strong militarily but what good does that do for me and my children if they live in a socially liberal society? Where things I don't believe in and teach them are wrong are seen by others as acceptable? This is a fight that I as a parent don't want!

    I don't even believe that Guiliani will be as effective militarily as any of the other candidates. He may even be less effective. I believe that against Romney he is. He's too emotional when it comes to making pragmatic decisions. It's not hard to lead when the colors are clearly black and white but I know what he's like when it's gray. He's using a lot of Romney's strategies now not because this was their plan but because he knows what's winning on the ground. He's just now starting to campaign like he should because he has to look at what the stronger organizational and competent candidate is doing all the while trying to steer clear of his social liberalism.

    I don't care if middle of the road people vote for my candidate if they can't see logically ahead of them and they themseklves are willing to compromise what they believe or don't believe in. People in the middle are not only indecisive, they pick and choose what they want for themselves much of the time. It's not about right or wrong for them, it's what fits. For them Rudy Guiliani is what fits! I'm not going to vote for someone just because of 9/11 or because he was competent on TV. I will vote for the true conservative who is going to fight for Conservatism in every form--family and values, economy, and military. Conservatism wins everytime it's tried right? Then why are we wasting time with Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson?

    Conservative Gladiator

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 1, 2007 at 9:16 AM  


    I do agree with much of the above comment.

    Rudy is not a true conservative, and yes, he is simply riding the waves of popularity and publicity that he recieved from being in the midst of one of the greatest tragedies in our history.

    Rudy is good at at least three things, however:

    1) He knows how to copy a working strategy. His words are sounding more and more like Mitt's every day.

    2) He knows how to highlight and take credit for the good he's been fortunate to be present for and to minimize and hide the bad. And yes, I say "the good he's been fortunate to be present for"... He was present when the abortion rate went down and adoption rate went up in New York City. He was also present when the violent crime rate went way down in New York City. Good Job Rudy! Or is it? Actually, the abortion and adoption rates as well as the violent crime rates were VERY CLOSELY tied to national trends, especially when compared to other major cities.

    Rudy's successes have more to do with demographics and luck than with his managerial or executive genious.

    Was he a bad mayor? Probably not. Unpopular, but there definately could have been worse mayors for New York City. But he is better at taking credit and sweeping things under the rug than he is at actually producing.

    and #3) He has a nice smile.

    Personally, I like Rudy. I like to hear him talk. I like to see him take jabs at people even more liberal than himself. But I think there's much more on the surface than there is substance.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 1, 2007 at 1:10 PM  


    The Rudy drum needs to be beat by those of us who vote and are conservative.

    We need to take to task Republicans that are willing to compromise Ideology for Electability. This includes the GOP media elites who are supposed to be conservative but are not. They haven't beat the drum for all aspects of conservatism in a long time and the reason for that is that many of them are as inept socially as Rudy is. This is why they feel Rudy works best for the country. As a consertive this needs to be brought to the surface and dealt with otherwise we're going to face a setback and with Hillary or Rudy it won't matter.

    We need true conservative representation in the GOP in addition to competence.

    One thing that we forget about Guiliani is that if not for 9/11 he would've ended his legacy as a Mayor of a big city who did much but it wouldn't have been as much as what he didn't do for his family and that whole scandal with him and Judy Guiliani. Not to mention the other unsavory things that were circulated at that time including his lackluster performance against Clinton while "testing" the waters for a US Senate run.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 1, 2007 at 3:07 PM  


    Well said, Anonymous.
    PS. Check out http://nyformitt.blogspot.com/ for more on this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM  



    posted by jason | 7:24 AM | permalink
    I just got back from Vacation a few days ago. Spent some time in California visiting my family and Southern Utah visiting my wifes family. I quickly realized that my family is in fact better. Just Kidding. But it did give my mind the much needed break from hounding the Google pages and looking for anything about 2008. No matter how hard the first couple days were.

    When I came back it was hard to get myself back to blogging, because the freedom from the computer, bought with a price, was a special prize. But I am back, and ready to shove Romney down your throats.

    Now on with my post...

    Since I left things seem to have taken a dramatic turn for Fred. Is he done? Not even close. Is he wounded? Yes. But it's no real surprise. There are two reasons in my book why the Fred Thompson's campaign seems to be suffering right now, and frankly it will continue:

    1. His supporters have made Fred the God of all things conservative2008, and he gladly accepts it.

    2. His lack of an official campaign gives some credence to the laziness charge, but more importantly it has turned him into a paper tiger.

    I will address the first, first.

  • 1. It is not unusual to go to Free Republican or Redstate.com and hear the constant streams of Run! Fred! Run! The constant theme from these supporters is that Fred is invincible. "He will slay the Dems with a glance of his eye." The ironic "His southern charm is a breath of fresh of air no one else can compete with." and the most precious one of all "Fred will suck all he air out of the room." It's really unfortunate, because face it, no one can live up to these expectations. When the Editor of Redstate tells everyone Fred will make all the other candidates look small and swallow up all the money, it doesn't leave much room for error in his first month Fundraising. When we are told every one will jump ship to Fred! and instead he has people leaving him, it's even worse.

    Fred hasn't helped himself. Fred likes the compliments. How do I know? Just listen to his interview on Redstate.com where he thanks Chief Editor Erick for really covering the Fred story right. In other words, he likes the shilling, he likes the flattery, his ego is happy. If he wants to say that in a private note, or conversation fine, but to do it publicly said a lot in my mind.

    Fred's multi-use metaphor of gnats swatting at a horse is really a killer: He is positioning himself as a the dark horse, or the white horse or something equestrian- candidate and everyone else as bugs. That is setting up a situation where everything now expected out of him is huge and the others can't compete. He will squash us when he wakes up.



  • 2. Fred's lack of campaigning has it's positives and his negatives. He doesn't have to debate, or earn a lot of money, or spend a lot of money but then again he cannot offer substantive specifics since he is not a candidate. And how is he going to raise money to compete with Hillary or Obama in 3 months? Every choice comes with a sacrifice, and Fred has made his sacrifice. He is not a candidate, but everyone knows he his. Therefore, the expectation of him is that of a candidate when it comes to policy, probing his past, etc. but he hides behind a lack of candidacy as an excuse for every deficit, yet trumps it for every victory. Do you think 3 million was his goal for June? It wasn't.

    It's very disingenuous for his supporters to say he's getting knocked before he is out of the gate. He is out of the gate. He has been since April. The guy has put himself all over the net, he is running a campaign and he has no other job. Is busy dealing with Boss Hog and the Duke boys? No, he's running a campaign that does/does not exist.

    Equally so, Fred supporters have a paradoxical claim when they tell people he is not lazy, but the reason for small results is because oh yeah, he's not doing anything. That's like saying I am not fat, but hey guess what I can't ride the rides at Disneyland because I am so spectacular in waist size.


  • Now, I know I am a Romney supporter, and Fred is bottom of my list, (well not bottom- a step above Brownback.) But believe me, when I say it, if Fred should win I will support him just a strongly as I have Romney. But he has got some serious problems/dichotomies in his campaign - many of which are self imposed. I am not writing him off, but part of Fred's credibility as a candidate has certainly been diminished, and only time will tell if he can rebuild it.
    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:The Heart of the Problem
    • DiggThe Heart of the Problem
    • Fark:The Heart of the Problem
    • Furl:The Heart of the Problem
    • Ma.gnolia:The Heart of the Problem
    • Netscape:The Heart of the Problem
    • NewsVine:The Heart of the Problem
    • Reddit:The Heart of the Problem
    • Slashdot:The Heart of the Problem
    • StumbleUpon:The Heart of the Problem
    • TailRank:The Heart of the Problem
    • Technorati:The Heart of the Problem
    • YahooMyWeb:The Heart of the Problem

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    4 Comments:


    The Republicans who support Thompson are standing at the edge of a cliff trying hard to throw Fred and themselves over the edge in one fantastic gush of dribbling blindness. Fred is fast approaching the time when he will have no hope of defeating anyone in a general election. Not Obama, Not Clinton, not even Richardson. Why? Because he has developed no organization that can possibly do the work needed to overcome the prejudice that so many Americans who do not want a Bush clone in the White House have. If he is nominated, I would bet money on the democrats winning. In fact, I think there is slim chance now of Republicans winning in 2008, but if anyone is going to pull it off, it is Romney.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 1, 2007 at 1:20 PM  


    At the bottom? I'm a Romney guy but I could be happy about Thompson if he's the one. Giuliani is a partial birth abortion advocate and McCain thinks borders is the name of a bookstore.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 1, 2007 at 1:37 PM  


    Thompson is definately near the bottom of my list. The man is an empty suit w/a great southern drawl. He has accomplished little relevant to the office he seeks. Seems lazy. Looks very old (compare him to Mitt--4 years his junior). Surprisingly bad speaker (especially w/o a script).

    The Dems would wipe the floor w/him. He's much more Bob Dole than Ronald Reagan, but ideologically he isn't even on par w/Dole. Put him on the stage w/Hillary, Obama or Edwards and he will come off looking old, tired, incompetent and unknowledgeable.



    All that said, I concur w/Jason. If he is the candidate I will work very hard to get him elected. I do, in fact, think he would make a decent president -- a less driven/more pragmatic version of Bush probably. But I don't think he is at all electable in the upcomming cycle. Voting for him in the primaries will pretty much ensure a Republican loss in my opinion.




    Tuesday, July 31, 2007
    posted by Myclob | 8:07 PM | permalink



    Labels:

    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:
    • Digg
    • Fark:
    • Furl:
    • Ma.gnolia:
    • Netscape:
    • NewsVine:
    • Reddit:
    • Slashdot:
    • StumbleUpon:
    • TailRank:
    • Technorati:
    • YahooMyWeb:

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    1 Comments:


    OK where's the visual on this video clip? That would've added some.




    posted by jason | 9:46 AM | permalink
    From the Press Release:
    Announcing his endorsement of Governor Romney today, Lieutenant Governor Bolling said, "I have carefully considered all of the Republican candidates for President in 2008. While they are all good men, I believe that Mitt Romney is the best candidate to carry the Republican banner in the 2008 presidential campaign."

    "Mitt Romney also has the right vision for the future of our country. We can trust him to keep America safe at home by defeating the Jihadists abroad; and keep America strong by reigning in government spending, keeping taxes low, protecting the values we believe in, and confronting head on the new generation of challenges currently facing our nation," Bolling continued.

    Background On Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling:

    In 2005, Bill Bolling Was Elected To Serve As The 40th Lieutenant Governor Of Virginia. In a year that favored Democrats, Bolling received more votes that any other Republican candidate for statewide office. He is widely recognized as one of Virginia's most effective conservative leaders. Prior to his election as Lieutenant Governor, Bolling served for ten years in the Virginia State Senate. He also has experience in local government, serving as Chairman of the Hanover County Board of Supervisors prior to his election to the Senate. Nationally, Bolling serves as Chairman of the Republican Lieutenant Governors Association. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the National Lieutenant Governors Association.



    From Wapo we have this:

    It was not two months ago that Fred Thompson tantalized a crowd of more than 400 Virginia Republicans at a state GOP party fundraiser in Richmond, laying out his conservative principles for the first time after making his first official filing toward a presidential campaign. "Folks, we're a bit down politically right now, but I think we're on the comeback trail, and it's going to start right here," rumbled the actor and former Tennessee senator, to loud applause. For good measure, he threw in some Southern quips and references, to remind the crowd that he, unlike the other leading GOP candidates, hailed from Dixie. At that moment, the support of Virginia Republicans seemed his for the taking.

    It hasn't exactly worked out that way for Thompson in the state, a letdown that could be seen as emblematic of Thompson's troubles in taking flight nationally. This morning, the state's top ranking Republican elected official, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, will endorse Mitt Romney at a press conference in Richmond The endorsement is a coup for the former Massachusetts governor, who is eager to show that he is viable in the South despite languishing in the polls in South Carolina, where the first Southern primary votes will be cast. Tonight, Romney heads over to Virginia Beach for a fundraising dinner. As notable as the endorsement, perhaps, is that Romney's fundraising in Virginia did not fall off a cliff with Thompson's entrance onto the stage -- Romney collected $308,000 in the state in the quarter ending June 30, compared with about $466,000 in the first quarter, a dropoff more or less in line with Romney's fundraising pace nationally over the first half of the year. Likewise, Rudy Giuliani collected $300,000 in the state in the second quarter, on top of about $438,000 in the first quarter.
    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • DiggVA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • Fark:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • Furl:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • Ma.gnolia:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • Netscape:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • NewsVine:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • Reddit:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • Slashdot:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • StumbleUpon:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • TailRank:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • Technorati:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney
    • YahooMyWeb:VA Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollling Endorses Mitt Romney

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    0 Comments:



    posted by jason | 9:35 AM | permalink
    From the MSNBC blog:


    *** You Know You’re A Front-Runner When…: Speaking of Romney, the news that he might participate in the CNN/YouTube debate after all -- if the date is moved -- just shows us that the former governor is dictating the terms of the, umm, debate. If that isn’t a sign that Romney is a front-runner (emphasis on a, not the), we don’t know what else is.


    I guess that is the real lesson to take out of this whole thing.
    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:Sign of Strength
    • DiggSign of Strength
    • Fark:Sign of Strength
    • Furl:Sign of Strength
    • Ma.gnolia:Sign of Strength
    • Netscape:Sign of Strength
    • NewsVine:Sign of Strength
    • Reddit:Sign of Strength
    • Slashdot:Sign of Strength
    • StumbleUpon:Sign of Strength
    • TailRank:Sign of Strength
    • Technorati:Sign of Strength
    • YahooMyWeb:Sign of Strength

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    0 Comments:



    posted by Justin Hart | 7:28 AM | permalink
    Reports that Fred's money machine may not be firing on all cylinders leads me to share what I’ve learned about fundraising in the last three years: it is very hard work.

    But if you have the right model you can accomplish amazing things. As a comparison note that Romney raised about $3 million before lunch was over at his fundraising kickoff. The contrast is stark.

    Here are some quick thoughts on what it takes to raise money.

    First and foremost, understand some of the underlying rules of fundraising:

    1. “People give to people to help people” – I’ve been working with non-profit organizations for over a decade. Without fail, a general clarion-call for money will fail compared to a plea for a specific cause, especially when it’s linked with a picture and a story. You need to have a compelling story with a person who can conjure up a compelling reason to get people to open their wallets.

    2. “People give relative to their means” – No matter what the cause, the amount of donations from the 35-60 crowd will far outweigh the 20-30 crowd for one simple reason. They have $ to spend.

    3. “Those closest must set the pace” – When Romney kicked off the exploratory committee with a national call day January 8th the 5 Romney boys set the example for the other 400 fundraisers by sticking at their tables for the entire duration of the event. When Meg Whitman, CEO of Ebay take 9 hours out of her day to sit at another table and ask people for money it makes an impact on everyone around her.

    Next we need to take a look at the trends in fundraisings:

    1. Growing use of the Internet for fundraising – “Growing” is the operative word. By most accounts donations raised via the Internet is pithy and underwhelming. Only a handful of non-profit organizations have shown more than 6 figures in online fundraising. The trend is obviously with the Internet but it has not been the harbinger of $$$ that many expected.

    2. Innovation and adopting new practices and models – The key to fundraising is innovation. I wager that any one of us receives half-a-dozen letters a week soliciting donations. Standout out above the noise is the key to successful fundraising. Take for instance Romney’s “Students for Mitt” program where college students can receive 10% back on everything they raise for the campaign.

    3. Involve everyone in fundraising – I know some professional fundraisers who were very upset at the Romney campaign for opening the fundraising floodgates to anyone and everyone. But it’s paid off. For example, as a “Patriot” level fundraiser I have the ability to create “associate fundraisers”. I get credit for whatever money they bring in and they in turn get credit for being part of a successful team of fundraisers.

    4. Contemporary corporate marketing practices – Like any aged market, the political sphere has its own consultants, approaches, and software packages. Most every political campaign uses Aristotle Publishing for voter lists and most every 501(c)4 uses Capitol Advantage for online advocacy. Romney broke the mold by utilizing a contact management system called SalesForce.com typically utilized by large and dispersed sales and business development groups.

    5. MOST IMPORTANT: FOCUS ON DONORS: When you give $2300 dollars to a campaign you are the man (or at least you should be treated like “the man”.) Next to your unpaid fundraisers you must focus like a laser beam on your high end contributors. By creating incentives and time factors into your efforts you create an energetic need to get involved and “max out”. Romney has held numerous incentive-bases time-sensitive fundraising efforts to meet this challenge

    Lastly, you need to understand WHY people give:

    • Believe we are making a difference in a cause they care about.
    • They value your work
    • They see it as an investment
    • Get something in return
    • Feel good about themselves
    • Return a favor
    • Solve a problem
    • Send a message
    • Received quality information
    • Align with peers
    • Bring justice to the world

    If you cater your message to these efforts your fundraising effort might just work. But note this: by my calculations 60-70% of the money that Romney has raised has been at in-person events.

    I’ve said this before but I believe that Fred is one election too early to concentrate on the virtual handshake. Romney has attended approximately 150 in-person fundraising events since January. The average take at these events is probably $150,000+. You do the math. Better yet, Fred better do it.

    Labels: ,

    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • DiggFundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • Fark:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • Furl:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • Ma.gnolia:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • Netscape:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • NewsVine:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • Reddit:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • Slashdot:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • StumbleUpon:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • TailRank:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • Technorati:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson
    • YahooMyWeb:Fundraising 101: Pay attention Freddy Thompson

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    1 Comments:


    Fred Thompson needs to learn that the best way to fund your campaign is by putting in your own money. Especially if you don't have very many supporters.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 3, 2007 at 9:26 AM  



    Monday, July 30, 2007
    posted by Kyle Hampton | 2:30 PM | permalink
    Mike Allen over at the Politico says that Fred's fundraising has left something to be desired by supporters:
    But many Republicans have turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September.

    Some are already saying a prospective Thompson run is a flop. “I just don’t see it anymore,” said a key Republican who had been extremely enthusiastic about a Thompson candidacy.

    "That number is really underwhelming. There were indications it could be double that. They've been saying that people were waiting for Fred, and the money was going to pour in. He looks like he's already losing momentum."

    Allen also quotes Fred's defense:
    “There has been some criticism that the testing-the-waters committee is not such a testing-the-waters committee and that he’s running some sort of campaign,” said a Thompson adviser.

    “He’s raising enough to test the waters, not run a full-fledged presidential campaign. He’s not a candidate.”

    I could be wrong for using an old adage to rebut these things, but if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Also, as Jennifer Rubin notes, Romney was up to $3M between 1 and 2 pm on his first fundraising telethon day which netted $6.5M.

    Labels: ,

    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:Fred Failing?
    • DiggFred Failing?
    • Fark:Fred Failing?
    • Furl:Fred Failing?
    • Ma.gnolia:Fred Failing?
    • Netscape:Fred Failing?
    • NewsVine:Fred Failing?
    • Reddit:Fred Failing?
    • Slashdot:Fred Failing?
    • StumbleUpon:Fred Failing?
    • TailRank:Fred Failing?
    • Technorati:Fred Failing?
    • YahooMyWeb:Fred Failing?

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    0 Comments:



    posted by Kyle Hampton | 1:07 PM | permalink
    Here's what Romney said about Iraq back in June at the CNN debate. Most of the question is the ever-present handwringing about "if you knew then, what you know now...". However, during his answer Romney says that, looking forward, the right thing to do is to stabilize Iraq.


    Then comes today's op-ed in the NY Times from former critics of the handling of the war saying that the troop surge is working and that Iraq is stabilizing. Score one for Romney.

    Labels:

    These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • del.icio.us:Romney and the surge
    • DiggRomney and the surge
    • Fark:Romney and the surge
    • Furl:Romney and the surge
    • Ma.gnolia:Romney and the surge
    • Netscape:Romney and the surge
    • NewsVine:Romney and the surge
    • Reddit:Romney and the surge
    • Slashdot:Romney and the surge
    • StumbleUpon:Romney and the surge
    • TailRank:Romney and the surge
    • Technorati:Romney and the surge
    • YahooMyWeb:Romney and the surge

    Technorati Tags: |
     
    11 Comments:


    i think it's important to point out here that romney didnt even have a position on the surge in all of 2006. "I'm not going to weigh in, I'm a governor" i believe were his words.



    To The Dud,
    How many Governors did weigh in on the surge in the Summer of 2006?
    Why would they?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 31, 2007 at 10:45 AM  


    what governors?

    Governors that were planning on running for Commander In Chief just *days* later.

    Perhaps even governors who were NOT planning on running. Say, Tom Ridge for example.



    Dude,
    And just "days" later, when he had officially started his exploritory commitee, he immediately started endorsing the troop surge. There are many things that Governors decide are not prudent to comment on, as they concern national interests, not states What exactly is your point?



    "Days later"?

    Was that before or after he declared himself a lifelong hunter?

    My point: Romney has a terrible time going on record.



    Dude-

    I can appreciate your need to find someone to criticize considering McCain's already-imploded campaign. However, your disconnected, incoherent arguments are unpersuasive.


    Paraphrasing:
    You: Mitt did "A".
    Response: "A" is reasonable.
    You: Deflection. Mitt did "B".


    Do you not see how silly your approach is? Once your initial argument is discredited you act as though you didn't notice and you skip to something entirely unrelated. Tell McCain hi for me by the way. I'm sure he'll have time to see you personally considering how few followers are still hanging around. :)



    ok, slick-willy i'll try again.

    People don't trust Romny to handle Iraq. Less than half of REPIBLICANS do. He goes around the country saying he's not going to weigh in one day, then he supports the troops the next, then he's flexible a few months after that. Is that a formula to garner trust? Maybe in the Romney camp, but nowhere else.

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28252

    +8% more Republicans trust Thompson
    +18% more Republicans trust McCain
    +26+ more Republicans trust Giuliani

    McCain and Giuliani have a net gain of more than 20% of independants. Why don't independants trust Romney? How can he possibly hope to win when 1) his own party doesn't trust him, and 2) swing voters don't trust him.

    Explain that. You can't. Nor do i expect you to even try.

    Nice of you to throw out the red herring on McCain when you accuse me of the same. But I'll respond to that one. Unlike what you did to me:

    McCain's campaign hasn't imploded. The latest poll out (NBC/WSJ) has McCain in a statistical tie with Thompson for second. Romney (again) can barely break single digits. He's had that problem for quite some time now right?

    Lets find out how legit people feel Romney is after he's forced to double funding of the campaign to a whopping 20 million this next quarter.

    One last question, where is Romney on embryonic stem cell research?
    In 2005 he was in favor of the US House bill which federally funded embryo's. But in the MSNBC debate he said he would NOT fund them. Then the Palm Beach Post says this:
    On embryonic stem cell research, Romney said the place where he draws a bright line and says no is when there is an embryo created solely for the purpose of research and destruction.

    3 positions on stem cells, all of which are after his so-called pro-life conversion. ouch.



    one more thing.

    Don't revel in your delusion of a McCain implosion. All the polls show that McCain's supporters' second choice is Giuliani and then Thompson. About 1 in 8 McCain voters seem to be willing to vote for Mitt as a second choice. A strong McCain HELPS Romney.

    Just let that sink in....



    Dud, Why are you here? Nobody thinks you have a reasonable or valid point.
    In fact, you come across as something entirely different.
    You will lure none of us away from Mitt, you will make no friends and you will gain no admirers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 2, 2007 at 7:17 AM  


    Dude-

    My comments about McCain were no red herring. The point of your posts (Romney's position on Iraq)had already been defeated. I was merely pointing out your poor argumentation. My comments about McCain were for kicks. Plus, they were true.
    (1) He has no $ and he will gain less in the future since most analysts think a McCain nomination is impossible now.
    (2) The polls you mention are almost irrelevant. Literally half of America doesn't even know who Mitt Romney is yet. They will before the primaries begin though--thus, national polls at this point have little importance. McCain's numbers are not due to real support--name recognition is king in the summer & of little value in January where national polls are concerned. McCain has imploded. Analysts know it. Informed bloggers know it. McCain will wake up soon.
    (3) In Iowa, NH, Nevada, Michigan (where people know who Mitt is) he polls very well. In IA & NH, he's gone from a distant 3rd to a strong 1st position.
    (4) Hardcore McCain supporters hate Mitt because he is the enemy--the guy who owned McCain at his own strategy, sucking up the O2 from Iowa & NH & the $ from everywhere else. These people (very few indeed) will never vote for Mitt out of resentment. Other McCain supporters go for him because they know his name best & liked him in 2000. These uninformed types naturally will then choose other names they know (Rudy, Fred) as their 2nd preference. Again, they don't know Mitt yet.
    (5) The flip-flop tag is oh so old. Yes, Mitt flipped on abortion & has been very direct about it. Otherwise he has not.
    Stem Cell: Was told the embryonic stem cell research would involve using frozen, about to be thrown away, embryos & he thought it was good to use them. They then wanted to create new embryos in a lab to test on. He said no. He's had one position only--embryonic stem cell research is ok in and of itself, but creating embryos to that end is not.
    Gays: For rights, against re-defining marriage.
    Guns: For 2nd Amendment, against weapons that outmatch police (assault rifles, automatics)
    Twist it as you like, rational people see through your weak argumentation.
    (6) Mitt's approach is usually data driven. He supports the surge because it looks like a good strategy, but his future commitment is smartly based on the data they bring back in September & December. This is an intelligent approach. If Bush had done the same we may have done the surge 3 years ago instead of hanging w/the bad strategy we've had. McCain's "last man standing" approach is naive and unreasonable.
    (7) All people change their mind. Rudy's current positions compared to his actions as mayor are amazing. Astronomical changes compared to Mitt. McCain has changed his mind less, but he's FLAT OUT WRONG: immigration, campaign finance, gang of 14, etc.



    Okay, thedude...

    You say, "All the polls show that McCain's supporters' second choice is Giuliani and then Thompson."...

    Well, first of all, just how many polls are there that poll what peoples second choice AFTER McCain is? You say "ALL" of them say a certain thing, but I can't imagine there being too many asking that question... in fact, I've never seen ONE.

    Obviously, your other poll references are referring to the national polls where, true, Romney is technically in 4th place... or 3rd if you consider one of the options isn't even running.

    Of course pragmatically, no one has come close to considering that Mitt Romney is out of the race or that he is even in the second tier even based on his "barely double digit" score in the polls. Why? Trajectory, my friend, trajectory.

    Rudy is in first place. Rudy also started the race as a celebrity who's grin the entire world recognized. The fact that he is leading at the start shouldn't surprise people. What should surprise people is that Republicans consider him a viable candidate even though compared to any of the Democratic front runners, he has a poor showing, and that he couldn't even concieve of beating a hated outsider like Hillary for his home state's Senate seat.

    John McCain came from a similar position. While I wouldn't call him a celebrity, it is clear that he has been a popular choice for republicans for a long time. Not popular enough in the past to get too far, but certainly well known. So to start near the top of the heap for him should also come as no surprise.

    Freddy, once again, is enjoying the recognition his celebrity status brings him. As Bob Novak said, most Thompson supporters believe that he is qualified for a presidential bid based on his fine work as DA of New York. In other words, he is not known for what he's done, like Rudy, he is known because he's been on TV. So, again, his quick rise to consideration by republican voters should come as no surprise.

    But what does come as a surprise to many with an eye on this campaign is Romneys meteoric rise to the top tier of republican candidates. Romney effectively came from zero to being a major contender. That is a higher percentage gain by far than any other candidate. That is what is impressive. What is also impressive is that anyone who spends any time with Mitt is no longer suprised at his success.

    A year ago, if you would have asked your friends who Mitt Romney was, I would assume that very few if any would have been able to give you an answer. I know that was true in my case.

    A year ago if you were to ask who Fred Thompson was, again, no one would know UNTIL you said, "You know, the Law and Order guy"... then recognition would come.

    A year ago if asked about McCain, virtually anyone connected to politics would have been able to tell you almost everything relevant about him.

    And with Rudy Guiliani, you could have asked folks in Mongolia who he was, and they could have told you.

    So here we are a year later, and the fact that Romney is a clear contender for the republican nomination and one of the very few that anyone believes could beat the democrats this time around (including many that aren't his supporters) is an amazing thing.

    That is what polls are really saying, thedude.

    And when you say, "ALL THE POLLS"... you obviously missed the polls in the first few primary states who all have Romney as the clear leader... so who cares who is behind McCain?

    It's obvious that most of the Republican Party and the country nationally is still polling based on name recognition alone.

    But the folks that are going to be voting first, and who pay attention soonest have realized that Romney is the best man for the job.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 2, 2007 at 1:56 PM  



    Sign up for MyManMitt
    Enter your email address:

    RSS Feed MyManMitt.com
    Mitt Romney Facebook MyManMitt
    Mitt Romney YouTube






    Copyright 2007 MyManMitt.com