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 11, 2007
posted by Jeff Fuller | 9:05 PM | permalink
Gov Mitt Romney won the 2007 Ames straw poll!!

He did so handily and this is the largest "margin of victory" ever in the Ames Straw Poll (Bush beat Forbes by ~10% in '99 and Gramm and Dole tied in '95).

Results:

1. Mitt Romney 32%
2. Mike Huckabee 18%
3. Sam Brownback 15%
4. Tom Tancredo 14%
5. Ron Paul 9%
6. Tommy Thompson 7%

Then . . . the "also rans":
7. Fred Thompson 1%
8. Rudy Giuliani 1%

9. Duncan Hunter 1%
10. John McCain 0.7%
11. John Cox 0.5%

Now, this strong win for Romney was expected and was "spun" pre-emptively by rivals as Romney "buying this victory" or "paying for votes".

First off, no Romney supporters were paid to come to the straw poll (campaign staff excluded of course . . . but Romney has less than 100 Iowans on staff who could vote . . . so that doesn't explain where the votes came from.)

Also, what person would "jump at the great deal" of giving up an entire Saturday during peak vacation season, getting up before 7AM, waiting on a bus to take a 2-4 hr bus ride EACH WAY on a very hot and sweltering day (the heat index was far over 100 degrees), all for a T-shirt, a $35 entry ticket, some music, and a meal? You see, short of unknown $100 bills slipped into everyone else's pockets but mine, there is no way for Romney or any other candidate to "pay for votes" at the Ames Straw Poll. You have to have actual Iowans who are actually motivated enough for your candidacy to go through a long and difficult day.

The "Cry Babies" will keep cryin' but don't shed no tear for them.

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
9 Comments:


Expect to see lots of spin about why Romney should have done a lot better. For instance, look at Liz Mair's posts at www.andrewsullivan.com



It must have been hard to let Romney buy your tickets and meal with all that yummy money he got donated from all those companies making Huge profits from the war in Iraq.
Yeah that must have took all of motivated, lol.
He bought 10,000 tickets for everyone... so why did only 4,516 show? Lack of actually motivated?



Dear "Wondering," I'm wondering why you can't seem to form a cogent sentence, or a lucid line of reasoning. Hey, are you a Brownback supporter?



Sorry, but Liz Mair is an unsufferable fool who supported posterchild RINO Lincoln Chafee over a real conservative who could have actually kept the GOP in control of the senate. I have no use for her. That's funny that she's posting with Sullivan after her gopprogress blog died. They so deserve each other. A miserable pair.



mitt:
look mom, i just donated more the republican party than i've ever done in my life.

but i've made it very clear that support rocky anderson and his impeachment precedings against bush.

doh! i was supposed to save that last bit for the general election



THEDUDE... What the HELL are you smoking???



Those who try to downplay Romney's win (largest margin of victory in history) are fools. As Tancredo said, McCain and Rudy dropped because is was CLEAR that they were going to lose. Plus, McCain didn't even have the money to rent a bus. Romney cut back spending because the victory was certain.

When I see a guy like The Dude (still supporting McCain's imploded campaign) talk trash about Romney's campaign decisions, I have to chuckle.



I was at the Straw Poll yesterday, and it was incredible. I have a hard time believing there were only 4500 of us yellow-shirted supporters there--I wonder how many were turned away from voting? There were two of us in my bus (35 folks) who were turned away. One had a CA drivers license and one forgot to bring ID. Another friend of mine had a US passport (not IA issued, so it didn't count), and got turned away. I know my bus captain didn't call and remind to bring IDs, but that would have been really good to do. I was impressed that they used the bus rides as a chance to show Mitt videos--very good use of time, and got a lot of discussions going. I was amazed at how many "undecided" Mitt supporters were on my bus--I am pretty sure they voted for him, but on the way home we were still fielding and resolving concerns.

As to the Cry Babies about buying votes, ever since I have followed the straw poll, you have had front runners competing at a level that included a lot of spending, including paying for buses. If they want to pretend that that isn't the modern reality, that is fine. What I did see was a LOT of Ron Paul supporters going through the Mitt folks trying to sway votes. Excuse me, but if you (a) try to stop the voting with court action, (b) don't do the campaigning and fund-raising needed to get folks there for you, and then (c) try to poach someone else's bused-in supporters, then I would say you have a pretty hypocritical and poorly conceived campaign.

Mitt had it right when he made the comment a few weeks back that the Straw Poll is a test of organization. George Bush bused in supporters. Brownback and Huckabee only had to look at the past and know what to expect from a true front-runner. We can look at the results and say that it truly was a test of organization. Do you want someone who shows up looking for supporters, or someone running the country who knows how to get the job done, and doesn't underestimate the task at hand?

Last comment--I am really sad at the bridges Huckabee burnt when he started going negative on Mitt. I think he would have made a great vice presidential nominee.



Mitt Hits the Fan,

Your welcome to post here, but theological bashing of any candidate is not welcome. Sorry, I own the URL.




posted by Jeff Fuller | 6:10 PM | permalink
What a great event. I'll get a few pictures up but I'm predicting a pretty solid win by Romney.




Me with Derek Parra (Gold Medalist Speed Skater and Romney Friend)

More to Come Later . . . gotta run back to be around when the results are announced and the cameras come flocking to the Mitt Mobile!

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
8 Comments:


HOW EXCITING TO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN THERE!



It is great to see a Catholic priest with a Mitt Romney sign (right behind Jeff And Mitt)Go Romney!!!!



Great Win for Mitt tonight.
Hard work, strong organization and a POSITIVE message wins the day.



Were people even talking about Giuliani & McCain?



From Iowa to the Country.



could the 5 brothers serve the United States by forming a boy band?



If they did form a band, I suppose McCain would enact legislation requiring them to let anybody who snuck into their concert without paying stay for free, and everyone else could buy their refreshments.



Well said Bigmo! Can I get another Amen?!




posted by Kyle Hampton | 5:42 PM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Ames Speech
  • DiggAmes Speech
  • Fark:Ames Speech
  • Furl:Ames Speech
  • Ma.gnolia:Ames Speech
  • Netscape:Ames Speech
  • NewsVine:Ames Speech
  • Reddit:Ames Speech
  • Slashdot:Ames Speech
  • StumbleUpon:Ames Speech
  • TailRank:Ames Speech
  • Technorati:Ames Speech
  • YahooMyWeb:Ames Speech

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


Consider this: Mr. Mitt says his faith will not effect his decisions in the White House. What kind of man has his Faith but does not follow its teachings when making decisions?

Hypocrisy: The false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings



Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

Lets see if you are open enought to post my comment:

Consider this: Mr. Mitt says his faith will not effect his decisions in the White House. What kind of man has his Faith but does not follow its teachings when making decisions?




posted by Dave | 2:51 PM | permalink
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Many Mitt supporters, including Jason and Justin, are themselves Mormons. I am not. I am a Methodist, and a strong Mitt supporter. Which is why it is best that I do this post.

THIS MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH. It is wrong in every sense of the word. Standing there and proclaiming that you know what Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, would do is the highest form of blasphemy I can think of. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

From the Boston Globe:

An Iowa Christian group is circulating flyers at today's straw poll urging people not to vote for Mitt Romney, the strong favorite in today's straw poll, because he is a Mormon.

"we strongly believe that Jesus Christ, if he were alive in the flesh in this time and voted, would NEVER vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances," the flyer says. "Mitt Romney represents Mormonism which is counterfeit Christianity, a cult."

The flyer goes on to cite a list of reasons as to why Christians should not pick a Mormon for president.

On the flip side, it also advises Christian voters to stay away from Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and Fred Thompson because "they can NEVER make a strong case for strong families or for strong Christian values."

Richard Green, a retired pastor from Council Bluffs, Iowa, who was passing out the flyers in one of the convention center parking lots, identified himself as a member of U.S. Christians for Truth, which he said was a group of current and retired pastors in Council Bluffs. He said he was not affiliated with any of the candidates and had not yet decided who he would support in the straw poll.

The flyer is by far the most vitriolic anti-Mormon piece we've seen so far out here in Iowa; Romney aides said they had not seen anything like it.

"Negative attacks are commonplace in the political arena," said Peter Flaherty, Romney's point man for conservative outreach. "But there should be no place for religious bigotry."
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • DiggYou Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • Fark:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • Furl:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • Ma.gnolia:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • Netscape:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • NewsVine:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • Reddit:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • Slashdot:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • StumbleUpon:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • TailRank:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • Technorati:You Had To Know It Was Coming...
  • YahooMyWeb:You Had To Know It Was Coming...

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Sad, but not unprecedented. When Adam Smith accused of not being a Christian he responded by saying, “Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word."

In John F. Kennedy’s famous speech, he complained about people passing out religious tracks that misrepresented his religion in order to get people to not vote for him.

I believe it’s these kind of things that lead Jimmy Carter to say, "Too many leaders now, I think, in the Southern Baptist Convention and in other conventions, are trying to act as the Pharisees did, who were condemned by Christ, in trying to define who can and who cannot be considered an acceptable person in the eyes of God. In other words, they're making judgments on behalf of God. I think that's wrong."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz0T68JIHnc




posted by Kyle Hampton | 2:33 PM | permalink
My money is on Ron Paul.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • DiggWho gets second to Mitt????
  • Fark:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • Furl:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • Ma.gnolia:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • Netscape:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • NewsVine:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • Reddit:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • Slashdot:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • StumbleUpon:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • TailRank:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • Technorati:Who gets second to Mitt????
  • YahooMyWeb:Who gets second to Mitt????

Technorati Tags: |
 
4 Comments:


According to Roger Simon at the politico, most of the Ron Paul supporters are from out of state. No IOWA Drivers License.... no vote. Based on his organization, I think Brownback will come in 2nd.



Huckabee maybe Brownback.

Ron Paul's support is an illusion.



Ron Paul in second place? You've got to be kidding, right?

Not because I like him the least, but he just doesn't have the ground troops that the other campaigns have....he's NOT presidential...and opposes a major platform of the GOP party of keeping our troops in Iraq until the job is finished! If we pull out now - it will be more disastrous for the Mideast region and the United States!

I hope he finishes at or near last!



I wouldn't be surprised if it was Giuliani or Fred Thompson.




posted by jason | 8:29 AM | permalink
Sen. Dan Rutherford, Illinois State Chairman of the Romney campaign, in conjunction with the Committee to Elect Delegates has offered up free bus rides for anyone interested in attending the Illinois Straw Poll next Thursday, August 16th.

Busses are leaving from the following places:

Batavia

South Suburbs

Chicago

Lombard

Onarga/Paxton

Pontiac

Peoria

Edwardsville


Carbondale


Bloomington

If you don't live by a scheduled bus location, but are still interested in attending, go here.

If you are going, let me know: 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: |
 
1 Comments:


I'm going-see you all there!




Friday, August 10, 2007
posted by jason | 9:47 PM | permalink

I have commented before on the systemic animosity out of the Brownback camp.

Evidence #25467390011a:

I sent out an email to Romney supporters in Illinois about an event. In the process I inadvertently included someone on the list who is a Brownback supporter, here is there response:


TAKE ME OFF YOUR LIST..ROMNEY IS NOT MY MAN...BROWNBECK IS..


OK, just calm down and step away from the microphone.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • DiggBrownbackers Freak Out
  • Fark:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • Furl:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • Ma.gnolia:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • Netscape:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • NewsVine:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • Reddit:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • Slashdot:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • StumbleUpon:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • TailRank:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • Technorati:Brownbackers Freak Out
  • YahooMyWeb:Brownbackers Freak Out

Technorati Tags: |
 
5 Comments:


And learn to spell maybe?



Did the "supporter" really mispell Brownback's name? Brownspeck? Sounds more like it.



That's the exact spelling from the email.



From the NY Times' blog:

"One early prediction: Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator, told reporters that he expected to defeat Mr. Romney. “The less will be that Iowans don’t seem him as a consistent conservative,” said Mr. Brownback."

Is this guy for real? Does he not understand anything about the expectations game?



BROWNBECK?!? Makes you wonder if he was thinking of Brownback, or Beck's beer?




posted by jason | 4:29 PM | permalink
Eric Dondero at Mainstream Libertarian has an interesting article about a Libertarian site encouraging people to vote for Romney.


In 1994, Senatorial candidate Mitt Romney was endorsed and heavily backed by the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus in his race against Ted Kennedy. More recently Romney made a very libertarian statement to the AP on pornography:

"I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity."

Now at least one Web Blog is urging Libertarians to consider supporting Romney. The site Independent Libertarian Spirit is appropriately Christian libertarian.


For certain Mitt has one thing libertarian Ron Paul does not have: A chance.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Libertarians for Romney
  • DiggLibertarians for Romney
  • Fark:Libertarians for Romney
  • Furl:Libertarians for Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:Libertarians for Romney
  • Netscape:Libertarians for Romney
  • NewsVine:Libertarians for Romney
  • Reddit:Libertarians for Romney
  • Slashdot:Libertarians for Romney
  • StumbleUpon:Libertarians for Romney
  • TailRank:Libertarians for Romney
  • Technorati:Libertarians for Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:Libertarians for Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 12:42 PM | permalink
24 Hours - parts 1 and 2


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

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 11:55 AM | permalink
On the eve of the Ames Straw Poll, I wanted to take a look back at where the Romney campaign has been and how it got to this place as the favorite to win the straw poll. RCP provides a nice graphical display of Romney’s rise.




Six months ago it would have seemed almost unthinkable for Romney to have attained front-runner status. Indeed many people were arguing that he should have been lumped into the group of second-tier candidates. That time seems like a distant memory now.

Now as front-runner, we need to help Mitt meet and exceed his expectations. As Mitt says, changing America always starts in Iowa.

For anyone that can, get over to Ames and vote for Mitt.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Why included UNdeclared people in polls at this stage of the race?
And if they are going to included undeclared candidates, why not ME?




Thursday, August 9, 2007
posted by jason | 5:23 PM | permalink
Jim Geraghty took the time to respond to my post, and in the process offered up some rather compelling arguments. To sum it up:

My definition of “supporting our nation” is larger than his.

Not that I could change his mind, but I have a few quibbles relating to how he comes to his definition.

I'd rather define "the national interest" a bit more narrowly, by limiting it to circumstances where the benefit (or at least potential benefit) to everyone is clear. Serving the country in uniform, or even working as a fireman, or cop, or first responder, or even most volunteer work, or even donating blood - that I would contend all fits the definition of national service, because you're giving something of yourself for a cause that benefits everyone. Even though the "not in my name" crowd might insist that they don't want the U.S. military to do anything, their denial doesn't refute the fact that we're all safer, and our lives are better, because of their efforts and their sacrifice. (And their families, for that matter.) Ditto for all the other groups I've mentioned, and the ones that I'll inevitably be reminded of - our intelligence agencies, our diplomats, the CDC, our doctors. Think of where we'd be if the sanitation guys didn't pick up the garbage twice a week.


Jim makes the case that the term “supporting your nation” should be limited to, “circumstances where the benefit (or at least potential benefit) to everyone is clear.” The argument is now statistical. Everybody means 100%

Do any of the mentioned jobs Geraghty mentions fail to meet the 100% standard Geraghty now sets? Can we knock any of them down to 99% or lower?

Let’s try Doctors. Ask the homeopath, religious zealot who does not believe in medical care or even those who can't afford there bills if doctors are supporting our nation. Policemen? Ask the residents of Signal Hill California in the 1960's or the libertarian pulled over for a seatbelt ticket. Trash Man? Ask the prosecutor who is fighting the mob and exposing the shell operations of landfills. CDC? Ask the medical conspiracy theorist/ John Birchers. Intelligence Officers? Ask those who think the CIA oversteps there bounds. The list could go on. Geraghty agrees that even serving in the military as “service to our nation” is disputable to a certain segment of the population.

None of these vocations enjoy a 100% approval rating, yet I would say they all support our nation.

Where do we draw the line? When a certain job meets 95% approval is it now worthy of the category of supporting our nationn? 75%? 50%? Where is the cut off? I think you get my point.




Jason Bonham makes the case that supporting conservative causes is in the best interest of the country - and I agree with him. But I also recognize that a big chunk of the country disagrees, and that that chunk's ideas of "the national interest" would make me recoil. So I'm a little wary of defining supporting a particular candidate as a form of serving your country for a couple of reaons. Would that make voting for the other guy a form of opposing your country? Is voting for the other candidate a mild form of treason?


He is right, and I thought of that while writing my original article. But remember our world survives on adversity and opposites. All things partisan need polar opposites. It's the Yin and the Yang. Or nation's government was set up on the notion there would be opposing views, and that colliding opposing views -in the end- would serve our national interest. Our system of government has three distinct branches, but through the system of checks and balances we arrive at a point of pragmatism that allows us to move forward. If we all had the same agenda and philosophy, we would have no need of separation of powers, or a representative legislature. We would be surrounded by “yes” men and soon be in trouble. These opposing views challenge us to think and work harder, thus serving our nations interest.

Now some views represented area diametrically opposed to the good of the nation, such as an anarchist or infanticide. Yet it is no more reasonable to say all in the political process are now no longer supporting our nation because of a few bad eggs. It would be like saying cops don’t support our nation because some are rogue.


In conclusion it's all subjective. For Romney and those who agree with his stances it is perfectly acceptable to say by supporting him you are supporting the nation as it would be for any candidate. Many may not agree, but it certainly was not out of the realm of possibility.


I should just add, I don't disagree that this statement was politically unwise, it obviously was, I just disagree that the statement on it's own holds no basis.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Geraghty Responds
  • DiggGeraghty Responds
  • Fark:Geraghty Responds
  • Furl:Geraghty Responds
  • Ma.gnolia:Geraghty Responds
  • Netscape:Geraghty Responds
  • NewsVine:Geraghty Responds
  • Reddit:Geraghty Responds
  • Slashdot:Geraghty Responds
  • StumbleUpon:Geraghty Responds
  • TailRank:Geraghty Responds
  • Technorati:Geraghty Responds
  • YahooMyWeb:Geraghty Responds

Technorati Tags: |
 
3 Comments:


Hopefully this ends the semantic squabble over the use of "supporting our nation".

I don't think I'm alone in saying "Nobody really cares!!!"

Can anyone really justify this as significant?



As silly as this whole argument is, I think Mitt's answer as to why his sons don't serve in the military was ill-conceived. The correct answer would have been that we have a volunteer military and none of his sons chose to serve the country in that way. Instead, they chose to serve as a doctor, a corporate officer, a real estate developer, etc. Are any of those less essential than soldiers? (In no way to I mean to degrade the high esteem in which we should hold our soldiers.)



Brigham-


I agree generally, but if i were Mitt I would not even mention alternative types of service. Just explain the concept of the volunteer army, say he respects his sons decision and is proud of them for leading good lives. Then move on to the next topic.


Playing the comparison game will never be effective, no matter how reasonable the comparison is.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 3:33 PM | permalink
Browsing the internet today, as I normally do to bring you all the riveting content and commentary that spews forth from my humble laptop, I came upon this article in the New York Sun. In it, John McWhorter describes the conflict and angst of two Mormons that he knew were gay, but who decided to follow Church doctrines rather than their sexual orientation. He then goes on to describe LDS doctrines against homosexuality. McWhorter makes his point:
What I cannot abide is Mormonism's starkly official revulsion at the simple fact that some humans are sexually attracted to other humans of the same gender.
He then continues by tying Romney to this discussion in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” way:
How could someone proposing himself as the steward of our great nation concur, in 2007, with views on homosexuality which in the future will look as blinkered as witch hunting does now?

If Mr. Romney does not concur with this primitivism but lets it pass, I see this as thoroughly ugly as well.
I bring this up not just because McWhorter’s stance is incredibly silly, but to educate supposedly educated people, like McWhorter, about the mental necessity of separating Church and State in the presidential politics of the day. Hugh Hewitt and others have tried to do the same, to little avail, and so I don’t expect much in the way of success in convincing others.

The United States government is a secular instrument. Its nature and function are secular. Its origins are secular. The executive of that government, the President, performs secular duties. His responsibilities include such things as providing for the common defense, promoting general welfare, and defending the Constitution. None of these things require a theology. They can be performed ably by someone without religious beliefs or by a deeply religious person. Because the duties are secular, the Constitution is indifferent as to the religion of the person performing them.

There is, however, a tension in our presidential politics. The electorate wants a person of faith. This is not so because we wish them to believe in a particular theology. Such a proposition would make it impossible to elect a President with any sort of majority of Americans. The multiplicity of religions in America would fracture the vote. Not only would it make a national election difficult once the candidate’s religion was known and the specific tenants examined, but it is the kind of thing that our pluralistic founding fathers sought to avoid. No, America understands that it is not a religion that is desired in our elected officials, but faith.

We desire faith because it is a desirable quality in and of itself. Despite the advance of science and the scientific method, which has certainly been a benefit for society, there still comes a point of the unknown or unknowable. It is at that point that science and logic alone are deficient. Faith provides direction and understanding where science and logic cannot. Indeed, it would seem unreasonable for someone to rely purely on logic and science where those cannot provide the answers. Thus, as voters, we desire a leader who has faith when reason alone does not provide guidance.

Faith should not be confused for religion in electoral politics. Many people make the mistake of using the two words interchangeably when they really mean one or the other. Indeed, it has become common usage to call religion faith and faith religion. In presidential politics, the two should not be confused. To do so is to cynically confuse the hearer or reader.

Despite this, the prevailing way to look at Romney (and it has been especially apparent of late) has been to look at his religion, not his faith. This is an invidious way to present Romney. McWhorter is especially explicit about it. He notes that in spite of the glowing reports he hears about Romney, he doesn’t like him because of a policy of the church Romney belongs to. This makes the argument about the church policy and not about Romney. It is not Romney’s individual faith that is being discussed but the tenants of his religious affiliation. It is identity politics. No longer is it important who Romney is or what he believes, but what group we label him into. That’s why so many of the pundits of the day have come to the same conclusion as McWhorter “damned if he is, damned if he isn’t” because they’ve given him a label and they can’t get beyond it. That’s why in the radio interview, the host claimed better knowledge of Mitt’s beliefs than Mitt himself did. The host had labeled him and wouldn’t budge.

For those of us with more sense, we realize that it is faith, not a particular religion, that is the desireable quality in a president. Thus, the endless crowing about LDS doctrines serve not a bit to enlighten the hearers about Mitt Romney anymore than having LDS missionaries in your home would. The nation has gotten that message. Somehow it is the press that hasn't.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • DiggMcWhorter's Romney Problem
  • Fark:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • Furl:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • Ma.gnolia:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • Netscape:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • NewsVine:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • Reddit:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • Slashdot:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • StumbleUpon:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • TailRank:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • Technorati:McWhorter's Romney Problem
  • YahooMyWeb:McWhorter's Romney Problem

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


What about how Catholics view gays?
Baptists?
Church of Christ?
===
Gay people need to stop seeing the world through the gay prism if they want to be treated like everybody else.
Lots of people are revulsed by homosexuality and are perfectly respectable, kind and compassionate towards gay people.
=
Mitt Romney believes gay people should be treated like non-gay people.
No special treatment, no foul treatment.
Why is that so hard to folks to understand?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 9, 2007 at 7:45 PM  



Wednesday, August 8, 2007
posted by jason | 3:57 PM | permalink
In his opining on the topic of Romney's sons serving the country, Geraghty (who's blog I enjoy) takes an illogical turn:

Eh. I realize equating campaign work and military service wasn't necessarily Romney's intent, but he did describe his sons' work as "showing our support for our nation," and that statement, or at least its wording, leaves me a little cold. I don't think working for a political candidate or cause - no matter how great the candidate, no matter how noble the cause - is synonymous with support for the nation.


Geraghty is a smart guy, but I find this almost silly. No political cause is a service to our nation? The problem here is Geraghty disagrees with Mitt on gut instinct, but to rationalize it, you have to make the assertion that I doubt most would agree with. This holds very little truth when set to example.


The founding fathers are a great example. I am guessing that they saw their political cause (democracy) and it's founding as a service to the nation in which we live. I am positive that when Abraham Lincoln worked to fight the secessionist, not only was that a political cause (I'm positive the Civil War was a political battle first) but one that served our nation. I would argue those who fought for desegregation through the political system were not only fighting a political cause but serving those for whom they fought, and the generations that followed.

If offering help for a political cause is not supporting your nation, than what is supporting your nation? Only paying taxes and fighting in the army? The problem, and the one I think Geraghty is actually tacitly addressing, is that to say one political cause is supporting the nation means that you would either have to say all political causes serve the nation, or make a value judgment deciding which ones do and which ones don't.

That should be no problem.

After all, we put a value judgment on our political philosophy for the very reasons Geraghty says do not exist- our political philosophy supports our nation. I approve of Conservatism because in my estimation because it supports our nation's ideals and the Constitution. I don't support liberalism because I believes it harms the same.

It's fine if Geraghty disagrees that Mitt's sons are supporting our Nation. The reasoning should be though, because the cause they support does not support our nation (at least in his mind,) not because supporting a political cause could never support our nation, after all, our nation was founded on a political cause.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • DiggWhat's a Political Cause Worth?
  • Fark:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • Furl:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • Ma.gnolia:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • Netscape:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • NewsVine:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • Reddit:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • Slashdot:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • StumbleUpon:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • TailRank:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • Technorati:What's a Political Cause Worth?
  • YahooMyWeb:What's a Political Cause Worth?

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


oh yeah honey a lot of HATERS out there, pay no mind, Mitt's got the goods

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 9, 2007 at 4:19 PM  



posted by Jeff Fuller | 2:23 PM | permalink
Focus Groups, in my opinion, are the untold story of this campaign so far . . . and help explain the motives behind the early, constant, and repeated attacks on Romney by rival campaigns and the mainstream media (MSM). I'll argue this claim below after presenting some of the focus group findings from the most recent debate.

Focus Group #1 run by Frank Luntz (results generally shared on various Fox News programs):



While the Luntz Focus group showed Mike Huckabee making the strongest impression (full write-up here at The Politico) , it is still telling that Romney was the only other candidate to hold or improve his support.
"At the session’s start, only one participant picked Huckabee as the candidate he or she wanted to win. Nine chose former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, eight were for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, five were for the absent Fred Thompson, two were for McCain, and the remaining candidates were picked by one or none.

But when it was over, Huckabee had 14 votes, compared with 10 for Romney, three for Giuliani, one for Fred Thompson and one for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California."

So Mitt remained strong from 9/29 to 10/29 despite a huge "love factor" for the Huckster who soared from 1/29 to 14/29 (but can Mike translate these good debate performances into actual masses of supporters . . . hasn't happened so far despite great debate performances throughout the process).

But those results are really bad for Rudy who went from 8/29 to 3/29 and Fred Thompson who went from 5/29 to 1/29. Even McCain went from 2/29 to 0/29 . . .

These strong findings for Huckabee are similar to the outpouring of favorability for Romney following his NH debate performance (which many pundits claimed was his worst performance . . .) See some details about that in the YouTube's below:



In the next below be sure to watch starting at 4:00 where Luntz says that Romney is "almost like a Rockstar" and went from 7 out of 29 support at the start to "the low to mid 20s/29" support at the end. He also explains why he thinks Romney is so effective:



This brings up that there may be something odd about how Luntz does his pre-/ post- debate support polling. I remember the recent S.C. Democratic debate where Obama had far over 50% of the group's support by the end. I know Luntz lets his participants have sufficient time to voice their opinions and who they liked (he generally shows clips of these). Maybe he has them make a final vote after this banter, where support is more likely to consolidate around one person? Who knows, but it's an interesting trend (and good for headlines), that one candidate seem to dominate in each of his recent focus groups.

FOCUS GROUP #2-----by Presentation Testing (MessageJury.com):

 AUGUST 5 GOP DEBATE: Pre- vs. Post-Debate Dial Test “Candidate Comfort Scale”: “How comfortable would you be with each candidate as your President, on a scale from zero to 10?”


 





































































CandidatePre-debate scorePost-debate scoreChange
Brownback5.75.6-0.1
Giuliani5.16.6+1.5
Huckabee5.86.2+0.4
Hunter3.15.0+1.9
McCain4.36.6+2.3
Paul2.22.0-0.2
Romney7.17.8+0.7
Tancredo4.74.9+0.2
T. Thompson4.45.0+0.6

 



Although it is always mathmatically/statistically difficult to maintain/increase a lead when you start out far in front, Romney almost did that, starting out with an overall 1.3 pt lead (over Huckabee) and ending with a 1.2 pt lead (over Giuliani and McCain.) In contrast to Luntz's findings, Huckabee didn't seem to impress these folks all that much.

The bottom line from this firm?:

Sometimes dial test results can be ambiguous, but today there was no question: Our “message jury” started off in favor of Romney, and the debate did nothing to soften their comfort level with him. In these two clips below, he showed two sides of his appeal. The first clip, featuring one of the highest scoring parts of the debate, demonstrated his direct appeal to three core GOP constituencies:






And this other clip showed he can deliver a partisan zinger (although one of our participants noted Romney had it at the ready):






Several other real-time dial testing videos of Romney and others are available at their website. (Actually, if you scroll down you can find stuff from the S.C. Democratic debate . . . and it's interesting to find that no Democrat candidate scored higher on the post-debate "comfort scale" than Romney at 7.8 . . . which is the same score as Obama and Edwards, and bested Hillary. Hard to draw any conclusions between different groups/studies, but still interesting)

The Des Moines Register also reported a little different twist on this same group of 9. After saying how McCain gained some support and that Huckabee had some good moments they reported:
When it came time to pick a winner of the debate, however, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had the most votes. Some participants said his cool demeanor and articulate speaking set him apart. It's also a contrast from President Bush, who is notorious for his public speaking flubs, a few said.

"I just think we're more vulnerable right now. People are looking for a change, and I think people are bailing out, and if we have somebody who is well-spoken, that will do well for us," said Dorothy Pisarski, a test group participant.

David Yepsen, a moderator along with George, had this to say in his post-debate column:
Most of the Republican presidential candidates used Sunday's ABC-TV debate at Drake University to court the votes of social conservatives in Saturday's straw poll of Iowa GOP activists in Ames.

With that as a yardstick, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came out on top. He leads in public opinion polls of Iowa Republicans and is expected to win the straw poll. Nothing that happened Sunday knocked him off that course.

He turned in his usual polished, executive-like debate performance. He also got off one of the best one-liners of the day when he attacked Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. Romney said: "In one week, he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

Findings like these show why Romney has been hit early and often throughout and before his campaign. Believe me, all the major campaigns on both sides (and I'm sure some "lesser campaigns" on the GOP side), and major groups like MoveOn.org, the DNC (for evidence that Romney's target #1 for the DNC see here), etc . . . are all running there own focus groups in correlation with these debates. I'm sure they also tag these focus groups to watch different campaign commercials, major political speeches/townhalls by different candidates, etc . . . While I can't claim to be privy to the results of all these groups, it is well known to folks that Romney keeps building support and favorability with the more exposure he gets. In short, it is becoming conventional wisdom that Romney "wears well" on audiences, voters, viewers, etc . . . I'm pretty convinced that these groups have known for some time who they need to worry about and have been working overtime to "brand" him negatively. All the negativity against Romney makes a little more sense now, eh?

This is all a lede in to the Ames Straw Poll. The expectations game will be working against Romney as well . . . according to this recent survey of 30 key Iowa GOP activists (via Real Clear Politics), Romney should win it handily. Now he's got to deliver . . . and it's all up to us, his supporters. I'll be there and I hope every other Iowan Romney supporter will make it as well! See you there!

Jeff Fuller
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • DiggFocusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • Fark:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • Furl:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • Netscape:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • NewsVine:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • Reddit:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • Slashdot:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • StumbleUpon:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • TailRank:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • Technorati:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:Focusing on Focus Groups:  Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
5 Comments:


It's interesting that Fred Thompson went up almost as much as Romney without even being there. Maybe everyone else was just so disappointing.



Response to Jihan Varisco
===
Fred Thompson?? I do not even see him on the chart.
I see Tommy Thompson listed and he went up after the debate.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 9, 2007 at 7:14 AM  


GeorgiaMom-


Exactly. Fred isn't even listed.


Also, the real number isn't the % increase. It's the total positives. Romney had the highest before and after the debate. Obviously, when you go in w/71% liking you, you have less room to move than when only 40% like you. Surprisingly, despite their significant upward movement potential, Paul & Brownback actually went down.



I didn't see the Iowa debate but I've seen (or read the transcripts of) the others. I think I must be living on a different planet than other viewers.

Before the debates, Giuliani was my first choice.

Now, I'm not sure I'd vote for him over the crazy homeless guy in the street.

Romney AND Ron Paul were the big winners for me. My heart is with Paul because of the war.

But my head is with Romney because he was a good record as governor AND he's at least somewhat more reasonable than the Neocon Twins (McCain/Rudy), and I feel like there's a 50-50 chance he could get us something vaguely resembling peace by 2013 (as opposed to 100% with Paul, 0% with Neocon Rudy).

Huckabee seems like a good guy too, but there's no issue that really pulls me in his direction. He'd be a good VP for Romney though.



Woodrow-


I definately know where you're comming from. Obviously I favor Romney by a wide margin, but I definately understand Paul's appeal. He is money on several significant issues and I believe his intentions are pure.


I favor Romney for a couple reasons.
(1) Romney is a pragmatist. He studies the data before making a decision. For Iraq this means following a course that will actually win or find a way to get out. Rudy/McCain will stay forever no matter what the data says. Paul will pull out w/disregard to genocide that will follow.
(2) Romney gets things done. It's not just about great ideas. It's also about being able to follow through. Romney truly has done some very tough things in some very tough circumstances. His record makes his promises more believable (not just well intentioned) than promises from any other candidates, including Paul.




posted by jason | 1:11 PM | permalink
Sen. Dan Rutherford, Illinois State Chairman of the Romney campaign, in conjunction with the Committee to Elect Delegates has offered up free bus rides for anyone interested in attending the Illinois Straw Poll next Thursday, August 16th.

Busses are leaving from the following places:

Batavia

South Suburbs

Chicago

Lombard

Onarga/Paxton

Pontiac

Peoria

Edwardsville


Carbondale


Bloomington

If you don't live by a scheduled bus location, but are still interested in attending, go here.

If you are going, let me know: 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:



Tuesday, August 7, 2007
posted by Anonymous | 2:21 PM | permalink
I was musing at the silliness of the debate on Sunday, especially the part where they asked Romney to respond to a desperate and negative campaign telephone call from Senator Brownback. The phone calls are really pathetic. The Senator has forgotten that there is a struggle to be waged against those who are actively promoting abortion laws (including Giuliani, hello? not to mention the democrats) and has instead decided he wants to tear down someone who is pro-life. I think that Americans, like myself, want a leader who is not afraid to change their minds and to do what is right when confronted with the tough choices of office. Romney has proven his pro-life credentials for which he took a lot of flack in Massachusetts.

Having said all of that, I have come up with my top 10 things that I thought would have been fun if Romney had said them in response. Obviously, Romney is a nicer person than I and wouldn't have said most of these things and I wouldn't recommend them anyway, but I thought they would have been fun, nonetheless.

10. I'll simply turn the other cheek on that one and point out for those people the Senator has misinformed that I came down on the side of life on every issue I faced as Governor and to suggest otherwise is simply false.

9. I'm sure on election day that the voters will show the Senator that the Republican Party is not a single issue party and will reject a single issue candidate.

8. People who distort the truth have never led America anywhere good.

7. Those of you out there listening to the pro-life advocates be warned, Sam Brownback is coming to get you if you are persuaded.

6. I suppose the Senator is just upset that short of being pro life longer, I've got him beat on every other issue.

5. The Senator had better watch out, Dr. Ron Paul has been pro-life much longer than him.

4. Obviously, in the hustle and bustle of the campaign the Senator has forgotten the adage that applies when you don't have anything nice to say.

3. I'm flattered that the Senator thinks I am the candidate to beat, I just wish he would mention more of my ideas for the country in his telephone calls.

2. Well, I have a small gift given to me by one of my grandchildren that I'd like to offer the Senator, it is a bracelet with the letters WWJD.

1. "I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have." (Obviously the best response. Go Mitt!!!)

Feel free to post your suggested Responses in the Comments, only be nice.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • DiggTop 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • Fark:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • Furl:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • Ma.gnolia:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • Netscape:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • NewsVine:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • Reddit:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • Slashdot:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • StumbleUpon:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • TailRank:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • Technorati:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate
  • YahooMyWeb:Top 10 Responses to Brownback in the Debate

Technorati Tags: |
 
12 Comments:


Proposed response...
Why does Senator Brownback direct his hate and venom at confirmed pro-life people? Does he not understand converting folks to our side IS THE GOAL?
---
And
-----
Does the fact that Senator Brownback was a Methodist one day and a Catholic the next make him a Flip Flopper?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 3:35 PM  


Sam, the Pharisees and Sadducees aren’t mentioned in the Bible as a guide on how to behave.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 5:22 PM  


Well, now you know why Sam didn't get a job on my staff. He constantly gets my views wrong.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 5:25 PM  


I think it's great Romney bloggers are talking about Brownback like he's the embidiment of every injustice in the world. I just want to tell them, buck up. If that's an unfair trial, Romney's base is pretty immature.



Embidiment? Hmmm, well I think we're discussing Brownback not out of fear that he's a valid candidate, or a whining sense of unfairness, but rather because it's funny to see such a huge target on such a small person.

Mr. Brownback has chosen the low road by failing to observe some of the basic Christian ideals he believes himself is the embodiment of.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 9:31 PM  


My proposed response:

"Senator Brownback, are you honestly representing to the audience of this debate and voters across America that that the reason you would do a better job of leading the free world is because you have been pro-life longer than me? That's really your platform? Really?"



Immature? At least my candidate's website is not substantially devoted to bashing another candidate. Romney is the candidate of ideas for the party of ideas.



Katherine,
"party of ideas" I agree with you there. It only took Romney half a century to figure that out. (as he was a registered independant before that).



The Dude is obviously a Troll and most likely from another campaign.
******Don't Feed The Trolls********

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 8, 2007 at 7:37 AM  


The Dude is definately a troll. He runs a blog for McCain's imploded campaign.


The Dude-


The fact that Romney was once independant is irrelevant. Regan was once Democrat. Intelligent people are open minded enough to change when reason dictates they should. An example of this would be McCain's media team, which many consider the best in the business. They chose McCain because he was once a viable candidate. When his viability disappeared, they quit. You should too.



I just looked at Sam Brownback's campaign website and it had several anti-Romney mentions, with a couple of hits against Huckabee.
--
Brownback's going against them because they are the top 2 expected in the Ames Straw Poll.
--
Brownback is hurting the race by bringing negativity and hate into it, resorting to dirty campaign tactics because he himself lacks substance, running as the "Christian guy" while running a demogoguery-filled campaign using human rights as a pie-in-the-sky platform. Take a look.

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


The ONLY person Sam Brownback has hurt during this campaign is SAM BROWNBACK.
He went from a highly respected member of the Senate to a whiny, mean spirited little boy.
He is going to give Hagel a run for his money as they least pleasant Republican on Capital Hill.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 9, 2007 at 7:50 PM  



posted by Kyle Hampton | 1:39 PM | permalink
Here are some of my thoughts on the debate and the state of the race.

Mitt: I think Mitt was very strong. His foreign policy answers were great. I know the line about Barack Obama has gotten the headlines, but the substance of his answers shows a real grasp of what works in accomplishing foreign policy goals. He also showed a better understanding of healthcare than anyone else. He shot down Rudy’s idea of tax breaks by pointing out that the people who need it aren’t paying taxes anyway and showed himself more serious than Tommy Thompson by looking at the root of the problem and not just at the money saved from going paperless (although I’m sure that’s a good way to save some cash). Overall a solid debate for the Iowa frontrunner.

Rudy: Rudy also was good, although a notch below Mitt. Rudy is always quick and witty. His deflection of the abortion debate is starting to get old to me. Also, Mitt exposed him on the healthcare issue. Overall he commands a presence above the second tier

Huckabee: Huckabee is always entertaining. His folksy stories and one-liners are always good and he shows a genuineness about his approach to government that the other 2nd tier candidates generally lack. If you pay close enough attention, though, you get a hint of compassionate conservatism in him. I think he does not share the consistent view of small government, which is a problem for me.

Paul: The thing about Ron Paul is that he is so good about directly answering the question. I really appreciate a politician that can do that. However, in my experience, there is a positive relationship between use of the word “neocon” and some kind of insanity. I generally agree a lot with what John Derbyshire said over at NRO.

Tancredo: It was unfair for him to not have a question at all for the first 20 minutes of the debate. Tancredo is hit or miss when he gets the chance to answer. His answer about the role of government in healthcare had some merit, but his answer about bombing Islamic holy sites is just looney.

McCain: McCain seemed subdued and tired this time around. Not sure if that had to do with the time of day of the debate or a larger fatigue from the campaign. McCain’s answer tying abortion to national security was weak. I don't know if I remember any other answers from him. Makes you long for the old "gates of hell" days.

Hunter: Hunter was great on military matters, but showed little beyond that. I’m not sure why he mentioned that he didn’t do anything special, but wore the uniform. Makes it sound like he did it reluctantly or that he wasn’t a good soldier.

Brownback: Brownback has exchanged his bland flavor for a bitter one. No longer is he the nameless Senator running for office, but is the mudslinging Senator who tried his best to make the campaign as hateful as he could. Brownback’s attacks just embarrass him. I can’t imagine that anyone turning into the debate came away saying anything positive about Brownback’s performance. Between his attacks on Romney, his copy of Biden’s Iraq plan, and his over the top religiosity there is little to find positive about Brownback’s debate performance.

Thompson: Tommy Thompson seems like a nice guy, but in a time where the largest of problems face us, he seems to have small answers. Plus, people don’t find his jokes funny. Sorry Tommy, time to move on.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
5 Comments:


Sam Brownback
-

June 26, 2004 - Methodist
June 27, 2004 - Catholic
-

Flip Flopper?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 2:28 PM  


I am going to make a tentative endorsement here: Mike Huckabee for Romney's VP candidate. Seems like a nice guy, even though I have previously basjed on him in some blog posts, I respect his campaign for the most part. Further, he will help win the South and though he is a bit big government, I know that Romney will be making the fiscal decisions and I think the Huckabee's background make him a great person to travel and speak, and appear in important roles, especially in a time of war.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM  


timotheus-

I really want to agree w/you. Huckabee impresses me every time I hear him speak... but...

What can he do? He's a great speaker, but does he bring any other strategic advantage?

I sure wish Duncan Hunter had wider likeability--he'd likely bring the most substance to the VP ticket, but that likeability is killing him.



Slick Willy --- The perfect VP candidate is sitting somewhere in Iowa with Mitt Romney right now.
South Carolina's Jim Demint.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 9, 2007 at 7:51 PM  


Interesting...

I know very little about Demint, but I like what I've seen.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 12:03 PM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • DiggFred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • Fark:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • Furl:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • Ma.gnolia:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • Netscape:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • NewsVine:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • Reddit:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • Slashdot:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • StumbleUpon:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • TailRank:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • Technorati:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?
  • YahooMyWeb:Fred Thompson, waiting too long?

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Monday, August 6, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 11:56 AM | permalink

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • DiggComing Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • Fark:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • Furl:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • Ma.gnolia:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • Netscape:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • NewsVine:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • Reddit:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • Slashdot:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • StumbleUpon:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • TailRank:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • Technorati:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail
  • YahooMyWeb:Coming Soon: 24 Hours On The Trail

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 11:33 AM | permalink
A few people’s reactions from the debate last night (I’ll have my own later today):

From the Note:
As for the top tier, former governor Mitt Romney, R-Mass., walked on to the stage as the frontrunner in Iowa, and left the stage the same way. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had his moments (got to love the visual of Cheney heading up a telecommunications task force) but missed too many others as he seemed to fade into the set. And while Giuliani, R-N.Y., drew laughter by saying that only a priest (perhaps including George Stephanopoulos' father) could hear the list of his mistakes, Iowa was and remains slightly foreign territory for Hizzoner. (Dissing David Yepsen in Des Moines is a bit like throwing Cal Ripken out of Camden Yards.)

It was Romney who had the best zinger of the morning (Obama has "gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week," he said.) It was Romney whose stage presence again made him the focal point (while he put just enough distance between himself and President Bush). And most importantly, it was Romney who was prepared for the inevitable attacks, which he parried like a pro. ("I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have," he said of Brownback's criticism of his abortion record.)

From Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot:

Of the strongest performers, I’ll give a slight edge to Romney, but my general vibe coming out of this is similar to the other ones – Republicans have a clear first tier, and each time, they demonstrate why they’re in it.

Romney’s line about Obama “going from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in the span of the week” will be the soundbite of the day. Romney knows how to land a punch, and he’s clearly decided to lay off McCain or any other potential future ally. (I guess when you’re leading, as he is in Iowa, you just need to focus on keeping your supporters.)

Message Jury had a focus group rating the messages of the candidates:
Sometimes dial test results can be ambiguous, but today there was no question: Our “message jury” started off in favor of Romney, and the debate did nothing to soften their comfort level with him.
Check out the video of Romney talking about his three-legged stool and the reaction he was getting from the focus group.


From the Fix:
Mitt Romney: We've heard mixed reactions about Romney's retort to Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-Kans.) attack on his abortion stance ("I get tired of people who are holier than thou because they have been pro life longer than I have"), but we thought it was powerful. As regular Fix readers know, we are big fans of raw emotion in debates and Romney's outburst seemed to be one. He also landed the most quoteable line of the day about Sen. Barack Obama ("He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week"); we'll take a few points off for the fact that it was obviously pre-prepared but it worked nonetheless. Romney did nothing to break his momentum heading into the Ames Straw poll this weekend.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by jason | 8:10 AM | permalink
I don't know about you guys, but I am getting a little tired of the filth and dirty tricks of the Brownback campaign. It seems to never end.

Now we have this from Cyclone Conservative in Iowa:



Tonight, I listened to a message on my parents' answering machine that literally made my jaw drop. Senator Sam Brownback's campaign is calling supporters of Bob Vander Plaats' gubernatorial bids and asking them to support Senator Sam at the Straw Poll.

If you know anything about this race in Iowa, you know that Bob Vander Plaats is the State Chairman for Huckabee's campaign, which is one of Brownback's chief rivals in this campaign.

This is a very misleading phone call.

The girl who left the message on my parents' machine said her name and then thanked us for our support of Bob's bid in 2006. She then said that because of that, we should then support Brownback at the Straw Poll as he is pro-life and in favor of the Flat Tax. Obviously, Huckabee is a staunch supporter of the Fair Tax and not the Flat Tax.

She then urges my family to come and enjoy some good bbq and Christian bands at the Straw Poll in Ames next weekend.

I'm wondering when the Huckabee campaign will respond to this. My parents knew enough to know where Bob stood in this race, but there are thousands of Bob supporters around the state that may not know of Bob's position in the Huckabee campaign.



Sam, can you please stop all the frontal and backhanded attacks? Other than your supporters, no one likes it. You have some good things to run on: Third World help, Flat Tax, the unborn, etc. If you can be personally compelling you should be able to do well without attacking all those with whom you compete. At this rate, should you win, you will have no friends to support you, and will face the undaunting task of wooing moderates and centrist democrats on your own.

From one Conservative GOP'er to another, Sam, clean up the filth in your campaign. Start running a decent and honest fight you promised:


"We are looking forward to running a strong issue-based, positive campaign."

-Sam Brownback campaign manager Rob Wasinger (The Associated Press, April 2, 2007)
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Tired of This Filth?
  • DiggTired of This Filth?
  • Fark:Tired of This Filth?
  • Furl:Tired of This Filth?
  • Ma.gnolia:Tired of This Filth?
  • Netscape:Tired of This Filth?
  • NewsVine:Tired of This Filth?
  • Reddit:Tired of This Filth?
  • Slashdot:Tired of This Filth?
  • StumbleUpon:Tired of This Filth?
  • TailRank:Tired of This Filth?
  • Technorati:Tired of This Filth?
  • YahooMyWeb:Tired of This Filth?

Technorati Tags: |
 
10 Comments:


What is it going to take to show Brownback next week that his horrible campaign has no future? What ever it is, I hope he gets that message at the Straw Poll this Saturday. He's the only candidate in the field that I have developed a very strong personal distaste for. And he'll drag our party down the longer he's in the picture.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 6, 2007 at 9:16 AM  


talking abt. morals ?? Brownback's chair in Linn County is " full of ego " . She shows her affection infront of the public to her co chair who is also married. I am getting tired of it. This woman acts like she is available. They should look at the people that represents them. I am tired of them , but will ride on their bus and vote for Mitt. I will tell my friends too.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 6, 2007 at 9:33 AM  


Please don't ride on their bus if doing so obligates you to vote for Sam. This is something the Ron Paul folks have been advocating--ride Mitt's bus and vote RP. It's really a dishonest thing to do. It's a bad idea to bet on the ends justifying the means.



Can someone from camp Romney set me straight? Why is Brownback a desperate bottom feeder when he points out things that Romney has said and done in the past couple years. But Romney is somehow immune when he calls Giuliani pro-gay marriage? The latter isn't even true.

When do I get to hear Romney appologize to Rudy for being a desperate bottom feeder?



To The Dud --
Brownback is talking about PAST tense things as if they are PRESENT tense. Is is a LIE and YOU and BROWNBACK know it.
--
Talking about FACTS is fair game, making stuff up or distorting the truth is bottom feeding.
---
And Dud, one more thing...Sam Brownback has ZERO chance of being President so the nasty and negative vibe he brings to campaign only helps the Democrats.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 7, 2007 at 9:11 AM  


Time to call Giuliani a bottom feeder?

from abcnews.com

Romney Camp Can’t Back Up Claim

When contacted by ABC News, the Romney campaign was not able to provide substantiation for the governor’s claim that Giuliani is “pro-gay marriage”.

“It is sad,” a source close to the Giuliani campaign told ABC News, “but unfortunately not surprising, that Mitt Romney’s flailing campaign has chosen to misrepresent Rudy’s positions. He can’t keep his own positions straight let alone Rudy’s.”

haha.. "can't keep his own positions straight" good one..



Read the facts for yourself---
------------
"Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. ----
-----http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html ----
-
Also--
Under his control, the New York City Corp. lost a lawsuit against the federal government over Republican-crafted welfare reform legislation that required state and local authorities to report illegal aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ----
---
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20682



All you have to do is Google "new York Sanctuary City" and see what you get.
----



The Sanctuary City comments above where meant for a different forum.
----
About the gay marriage thing I think there is amble evidence Rudi supports it.
--
He signed a very generous civil union while Mayor to "take care of the imbalance" for gay couples.
---
7 March 2004 - Rudi came out against President Bush for his suggestion there be a BAN on gay marriage.
----
Why would he be against a BAN on Gay Marriage unles he is FOR gay marriage?

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


GeorgiaMom-


Way to take our resident McCain troller (The Dude) to task on this one. Anyone claiming Rudy is not pro-gay marriage is a liar or an ignoramus. Distinguishing civil unions (that give all marital beneifits) from marriage is semantics, not substance.


The reason Romney didn't give evidence of his statement about Rudy's support for gay marriage is because he didn't want to roll around in the negative filth w/which Brownback is so comfortable. Similarly, he backed away from a statement that George W was once pro-choice (which is true). Although evidence exists (several newspaper articles from the 1970s), he prefers to believe the candidate or President and not get tangled up in negativity.


Brownback, on the other hand, takes 2005 statements from Planned Parenthood, which refer to a 2002 statement from Romney and portray it as a view Romney held in 2005. Or, clip a 10 second snippet where Romney says he will maintain the "status quo" in MA in 2005 from a speach where Romney explains that he will veto any bill not favoring life. Brownback's tactics are clearly deceptive, but he sticks by them. He loves the mud.




Sunday, August 5, 2007
posted by Myclob | 8:58 AM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • DiggGov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • Fark:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • Furl:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • Ma.gnolia:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • Netscape:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • NewsVine:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • Reddit:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • Slashdot:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • StumbleUpon:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • TailRank:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • Technorati:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism
  • YahooMyWeb:Gov. Romney: Helping Moderate Muslim States Defeat Extremism

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Myclob | 8:52 AM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • DiggGovernor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • Fark:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • Furl:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • Ma.gnolia:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • Netscape:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • NewsVine:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • Reddit:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • Slashdot:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • StumbleUpon:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • TailRank:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • Technorati:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad
  • YahooMyWeb:Governor Romney: Winning The War Against Radical Jihad

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Myclob | 8:51 AM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • DiggGovernor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • Fark:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • Furl:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • Ma.gnolia:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • Netscape:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • NewsVine:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • Reddit:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • Slashdot:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • StumbleUpon:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • TailRank:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • Technorati:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care
  • YahooMyWeb:Governor Romney: Personal Responsibility In Health Care

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Myclob | 8:50 AM | permalink
"Tonight, we have a man with us who made that journey of conversion. A man who did not always know the evil of abortion, but he saw the truth. As our Governor during a debate on embryonic stem cell research, Mitt Romney took the courageous step of consulting the leaders of the medical and scientific communities to give him insight into what he knew in his heart was wrong.

"Mitt Romney was a great Governor, who served with honor and distinction. But most importantly, he was a pro-life Governor. He vetoed a number of pro-abortion pieces of legislation and made many pro-life appointments. He was always there for us. He's a busy man these days and we are extra fortunate that he and his wife Ann could be with us. Governor, you have been an inspirational leader in many ways. And if I may say so, Mitt, you're looking very presidential. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our friend, Governor Mitt Romney, to the podium as our 2007 Mullins Award Winner for Outstanding Political Leadership."
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • DiggRomney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • Fark:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • Furl:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • Ma.gnolia:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • Netscape:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • NewsVine:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • Reddit:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • Slashdot:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • StumbleUpon:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • TailRank:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • Technorati:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
  • YahooMyWeb:Romney Record: Kevin Jourdain on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Myclob | 8:49 AM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • DiggGov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • Fark:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • Furl:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • Ma.gnolia:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • Netscape:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • NewsVine:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • Reddit:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • Slashdot:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • StumbleUpon:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • TailRank:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • Technorati:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations
  • YahooMyWeb:Gov Romney Answers Sen. Brownback's False Accusations

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Myclob | 8:48 AM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • DiggGovernor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • Fark:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • Furl:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • Ma.gnolia:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • Netscape:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • NewsVine:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • Reddit:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • Slashdot:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • StumbleUpon:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • TailRank:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • Technorati:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:
  • YahooMyWeb:Governor Romney On Senator Obama:

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Myclob | 8:45 AM | permalink
The Fourth Republican Debate From Des Moines, Iowa

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • DiggGovernor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • Fark:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • Furl:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • Ma.gnolia:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • Netscape:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • NewsVine:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • Reddit:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • Slashdot:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • StumbleUpon:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • TailRank:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • Technorati:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support
  • YahooMyWeb:Governor Romney: We Need A Surge Of Support

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Sign up for MyManMitt
Enter your email address:

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






Copyright 2007 MyManMitt.com