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




Friday, October 12, 2007
posted by jason | 6:03 PM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • DiggAlex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • Fark:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • Furl:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • Ma.gnolia:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • Netscape:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • NewsVine:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • Reddit:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • Slashdot:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • StumbleUpon:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • TailRank:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • Technorati:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II
  • YahooMyWeb:Alex Castellanos Interview: Part II

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Anonymous | 3:19 PM | permalink
Check out these Rasmussen Report numbers about general election match-ups. Note that while all GOP candidates do not fare that well against Clinton or Obama, there is virtually no difference between Giuliani and Romney in this respect. In addition, they are both better in general election match ups than Fred Thompson.

Lessons Learned:
  • Going with Fred is suicide.
  • If Romney is as electable as Giuliani, go with the conservative candidate!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Electability
  • DiggElectability
  • Fark:Electability
  • Furl:Electability
  • Ma.gnolia:Electability
  • Netscape:Electability
  • NewsVine:Electability
  • Reddit:Electability
  • Slashdot:Electability
  • StumbleUpon:Electability
  • TailRank:Electability
  • Technorati:Electability
  • YahooMyWeb:Electability

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


We HAVE To Have Rudy . . . Because?

Jack Kennedy must be spinning in his grave. Now, I have to ask for some forbearance from my Catholic friends. This is not directed at Catholicism.

We hear the whispers, the innuendoes, the insinuations, and the outright inference that Giuliani belongs to the correct religion, McCain is neutral, Romney is the devil incarnate, and the *SEI's (Southern Evangelical Idiots) are inconsequential. We hear it at Fox News (Catholic - New York). We hear it from the Giuliani clan (Catholic - New York). We hear it from ultra-liberal Chris Matthews (Catholic - New York). And we have heard it more than once from Robert Novak (Catholic - New York).

Giuliani? Oh yeah, he made pretty good speeches AFTER 9-11. He did nothing before 9-11 to fix the communications infra-structure for the NYPD, the FDNY and the Port Authority. Is that not what we elect officials to do? We elect them not to necessarily read a crystal ball and prevent such as 9-11, but to be PREPARED in such an event. Let’s just step back and ask a few questions.

Among Romney, Giuliani and McCain, who has had the fewest wives?
Among Romney, Giuliani and McCain, who is the most family oriented?
Among Romney, Giuliani and McCain, who is pro-life?
Among Romney, Giuliani and McCain, who backs a constitutional marriage amendment?
Among Romney, Giuliani and McCain, who is focusing more not on past events but the future?
Among Romney, Giuliani and McCain, who actually worked on health care in their respective states?

I'm not really big on conspiracy theories, but . . .


*SEI''s - code word in the North, the Left Coast, and the MSM for “Southern Evangelical Idiots”




posted by Anonymous | 3:01 PM | permalink
The 5 page letter by Mark DeMoss to Evangelicals is getting some MSM play. See the Time article here. The topic discussed further and generally by Charles Mitchell at Evangelicals for Mitt.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • DiggEvangelicals for Mitt
  • Fark:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • Furl:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • Ma.gnolia:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • Netscape:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • NewsVine:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • Reddit:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • Slashdot:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • StumbleUpon:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • TailRank:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • Technorati:Evangelicals for Mitt
  • YahooMyWeb:Evangelicals for Mitt

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Anonymous | 2:51 PM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Foreign Policy
  • DiggForeign Policy
  • Fark:Foreign Policy
  • Furl:Foreign Policy
  • Ma.gnolia:Foreign Policy
  • Netscape:Foreign Policy
  • NewsVine:Foreign Policy
  • Reddit:Foreign Policy
  • Slashdot:Foreign Policy
  • StumbleUpon:Foreign Policy
  • TailRank:Foreign Policy
  • Technorati:Foreign Policy
  • YahooMyWeb:Foreign Policy

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


I like Mitt, but that ad - especially the background music - is cheesy as hell!



I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing cheesy about it. It is a simple ad with simple and subdued patriotic music. The point is the promises Mitt makes.




posted by Justin Hart | 12:52 PM | permalink
Former NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik is feeling the heat. This as of this morning:
Bernard Kerik's legal nightmare is about to get worse, with federal prosecutors expected to file charges against the former police commissioner that will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.

Will this have any impact on his former boss Rudy Giuliani? The Daily News thinks so:
The indictment will have direct implications for Giuliani, the sources said.

For one, another Giuliani commissioner and a top inspector general during Giuliani's years as mayor will be called as witnesses to describe the secret meeting in Tribeca.

...

Giuliani has extensive ties to Kerik, promoting him to correction commissioner, then to police commissioner. Giuliani later also hired him at his firm, Giuliani Partners, and recommended him to President Bush for the job of Homeland Security secretary.

The relationship soured in December 2004 when Kerik withdrew from consideration for the Homeland Security job and a torrent of accusations of wrongdoing poured forth.

To be fair, Rudy has handled this very well. He's admitted that the nomination was a mistake and there is no direct implication Rudy's efforts in Kerik's aleged illegalities. Still, skeletons in the closet are not pretty... but first glances can be deceiving.

Romney has had his share of associates get banged up for legal and ethical problems and I can tell you from personal experience that some of these issues are just trumped-up silliness. I don't think that Kerik is any type of victim here... but the criminal-candidate connections are usually way overplayed.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • DiggBernie Kerik in trouble
  • Fark:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • Furl:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • Ma.gnolia:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • Netscape:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • NewsVine:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • Reddit:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • Slashdot:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • StumbleUpon:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • TailRank:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • Technorati:Bernie Kerik in trouble
  • YahooMyWeb:Bernie Kerik in trouble

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by jason | 11:06 AM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • DiggInterview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • Fark:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • Furl:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • Ma.gnolia:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • Netscape:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • NewsVine:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • Reddit:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • Slashdot:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • StumbleUpon:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • TailRank:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • Technorati:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1
  • YahooMyWeb:Interview with Alex Castellanos, Part 1

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Justin Hart | 8:20 AM | permalink
So, the primary season is coming to a close. And then... it starts all over again! Only this time... the opponents will be clear and the focus will be forward. Time to prime ourselves on what it takes to raise money.

Here's the one rule you need to know about fundraising, everything else is ancillary. It is the one guiding principle I've used to set expectations and predict success over the last three years.

In short: fundraising is very hard work.

But with the right model in place and the requisite sweat equity, you can accomplish amazing things.

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 almost a decade. Without fail, a general clarion-call for money will fail compared to a plea for a specific cause, especially when it is 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 compel people to open their wallets.

  2. "People give relative to their means"
    No matter what the cause, the dollar amount donations from the 35-65 crowd will far outweigh the 20-30 crowd for one simple reason: they have $ to spend. This is why online fundraising has not yet exploded on the scene. As Patrick Ruffini has noted, the Dean revolution was an email revolution not a website coup. The Facebook, blogging and Web 2.0 crowd are truly young at heart. It will be a few years before they can churn out the $$$ to make a difference in the fundraising sector.

  3. "Those closest must set the pace"
    When Romney kicked off his 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 takes 9 hours out of her day to sit down and ask her friends for money it makes an impact on everyone around her. The candidate, the board, the members, the founders must make their efforts public and powerful.
Next we need to take a look at the trends in fundraisings. I note some of the efforts that I've been involved in as quick case studies for each point:
  1. Growing use of the Internet for fundraising.
    Again, "growing" is the operative word. By most accounts donations raised via the Internet are pithy and underwhelming. Only a handful of non-profit organizations and candidates can boast more than 6 figures in online fundraising. The trend is obviously toward 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 for donations. Standing 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 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 advocates. Many non-profit organizations are building bonus structures for their staff based donations that they bring in.

  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 has broke the fundraising mold by utilizing a contact management system called SalesForce.com typically utilized by large and dispersed sales and business development groups. Many non-profit organizations are using ROI models to predict success and maximize margins on the donations.

  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". Everytime a donation comes into the Lighted Candle Society, I personally call the contributor to thank them.
Lastly, you need to understand WHY people give:
  • They believe you are making a difference in a cause they care about.
  • They value your work
  • They see it as an investment
  • They get something in return
  • They feel good about themselves
  • Returning a favor
  • Solving a problem
  • Sending a message
  • Receiving quality information
  • Aligning with peers
  • Bringing 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.

You may have heard about the $80,000 we've raised at MyManMitt.com for the Romney campaign. I should admit here openly and honestly that $40,000 of that money came from me working the phones. Of course, the website became the fulfillment engine for those donation, but the work to get the people there was manual.

But once that momentum was in place I was able to do some amazing things online. In the last two days of the quarter we raised $5000 and I didn't make a single phone call. I basically customized an email to my previous donors and asked them to make a difference.

Next week I'll talk in more detail about why I think the Democrats have been so much more successful at fundraising online that the GOP.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Thursday, October 11, 2007
posted by Beth Barnat | 11:00 PM | permalink
My name is Beth Barnat. I have been posting comments at conservative websites since 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq.

Recently, Jason invited me to post my thoughts and comments here at mymanmitt.com, and I feel honored to do so.

Just a little intro: I am a child of the 50s -- That idyllic time when life was an imitation of Leave It To Beaver. It wasn’t really, but everyone tried to come across that way. At least my parents did.

I grew up in a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian home in Indiana. After high school I attended a four year interdenominational Bible College in Miami, Florida, in hopes of getting a degree so I could go and preach the gospel of Jesus to the poor people in the inner cities of America.

Somehow, I managed to get that degree, and now … many years later … I live in a small farm town in Winters, California, far from the ghetto, just trying to make a living as a single mom in this great blue state.

During the 80’s I was busy raising my children, watching Sesame Street with them, helping out in the Winters Parent Nursery School and had no idea that one of America’s greatest presidents was presiding over our country.

During the 90’s I was going through a divorce, experiencing my second adolescence, trying to keep everyone sane (including myself), and thank God, had no idea that the Clintons were ravaging the dignity of our country.

It wasn’t until 9/11 that I woke up.

I was getting ready for work, watching the news and heard that a “small” plane had flown through one of the Twin Towers. It must have been an accident. I watched as the second plane flew through the second tower and then … everyone knew … we had been attacked.

My boyfriend called me and told me, “Don’t even try to drive to San Francisco. They are closing all the bridges.”

That is the day that changed my life.

I thought, “Who are these people? Why do they want to kill us? And what are we going to do to stop them?”

I love this great country of ours, and everything that I do, everything that I think, every political urge that I have drives me to do all I can to continue to keep our country the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

That may seem corny to some, but for someone who is a child of a World World II veteran and who grew up in a time when being proud to be an American was a given, it just seems as natural as breathing.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and hope that you will share your thoughts with me, as well.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:May I introduce myself ...
  • DiggMay I introduce myself ...
  • Fark:May I introduce myself ...
  • Furl:May I introduce myself ...
  • Ma.gnolia:May I introduce myself ...
  • Netscape:May I introduce myself ...
  • NewsVine:May I introduce myself ...
  • Reddit:May I introduce myself ...
  • Slashdot:May I introduce myself ...
  • StumbleUpon:May I introduce myself ...
  • TailRank:May I introduce myself ...
  • Technorati:May I introduce myself ...
  • YahooMyWeb:May I introduce myself ...

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


Nice to have you on board. We have enjoyed your comments.



Thanks, Timotheus! I always enjoy yours!




posted by Justin Hart | 6:58 PM | permalink
Remember the incident earlier over the sumer where Romney staffer Jay Garrity supposedly intimidated a reporter and ran his license plate number? NYT reporter Mark Lebovich reported this incident with baited breath in his article.

Turns out there was no there, there:
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said Tuesday that her office found no evidence that anyone, during the time in question, had requested registration records for the car New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich was most likely driving.

She concluded no crime was committed.

Leibovich refused to cooperate, except to say that while he was following Romney in May, a staffer told him they had run his license plate.

Many Romney opponents were quick to pull out the beating sticks on this one. Did something actually happen or is just another case of the MSM over-excitement?

I'm not saying the incident was made up but it proves my theory that we can usually trust the MSM to blow things out of proportion and therefore... we shouldn't trust them... even when they provide fodder against our non-prefered candidate.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


If it bleeds, it leads!

The MSM will devour anyone (on a slow news day) just to get ratings!




posted by Justin Hart | 1:33 PM | permalink
"Stop Spending"
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • DiggRomney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • Fark:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • Furl:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • Ma.gnolia:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • Netscape:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • NewsVine:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • Reddit:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • Slashdot:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • StumbleUpon:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • TailRank:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • Technorati:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad
  • YahooMyWeb:Romney and DeMint Radio Ad

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 1:06 PM | permalink
It seems that way. The Washington Times cites statements by both Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer that seem to suggest support of Romney. Perkins also rules out Huckabee saying:
"I was disappointed that in a recent speech he suggested that we should offer economic incentives to Iran to deter their development of a nuclear bomb and urged more negotiations," Mr. Bauer said. "I don't see how you negotiate with a Holocaust denier."

Here's the thing, and it seems to have accelerated in the last few weeks, essentially every major social conservative leader has shut the door on Romney's major rivals for the nomination. Dobson has eliminated McCain, Giuliani, Thompson. Perkins and Bauer seem to be eliminating Huckabee. All the while, these leaders plus Richard Land have praised Romney and found his conversion on life issues to be sincere. Is this an explicit endorsement? No, but it's not far off. Add to that, the explicit endorsements by persons with real gravitas like James Bopp, Jr. and Mark DeMoss and we seem to have a good idea of who social conservatives should endorse. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a general consensus among social conservative leaders after the Values Voter Summit next week.

Labels: , , ,

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Justin Hart | 9:12 AM | permalink
I'm continuing to push the theory that this is narrowing down to a two-man race. I could be wrong. Fred might push forward and actually make some momentum... but the polls, the money and the organizational prowess currently favor Rudy and Romney, not Fred.

Leaving Fred aside, to date, I have felt confident that either candidate would be a good choice against Hillary Clinton in the general election. Rudy has a national connection to the electorate and Romney has the "fix-it" mantra.

But today... I worry about judges. I worry about a third party break-off and I worry about Rudy towing the conservative line and possibly tearing the party apart. In short, I'm less convinced of a conservative victory if Rudy is the nominee.

Read more »
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • DiggJudges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • Fark:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • Furl:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • Ma.gnolia:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • Netscape:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • NewsVine:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • Reddit:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • Slashdot:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • StumbleUpon:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • TailRank:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • Technorati:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss
  • YahooMyWeb:Judges, Rudy, Mitt, Meese, and DeMoss

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Wednesday, October 10, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 8:39 PM | permalink
It's Wednesday, which means bath night for my kids. But when they got out the tub I was the one dripping wet... from the rushing deluge of satire and classic Coulter criticism.

Her latest article cuts deep:
Conservatives unhappy with our Republican presidential candidates seem to be drifting aimlessly toward Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in the misguided belief that these candidates are more conservative than Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. This is like breaking up with Bobby Brown so you can date Phil Spector.

First she slices away at Huckabee:
On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Tom Tancredo. He has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, "I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."

(Frankly, I didn't know that quote) She drives on:
(I just realized why Mike Huckabee can't run for president as a Democrat -- they've already got Mike Gravel.)

Then, onto Fred:
In 1999, Sen. Fred Thompson joined legal giants like Sens. Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to vote against removing Bill Clinton from office for obstruction of justice.

Thompson, whom President Nixon once called "dumb as hell," claimed to have carefully studied the Constitution and determined that obstruction of justice by the president of the United States did not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors." He must have been looking at one of those living, breathing Constitutions we've heard so much about.

...

Only a handful of Republicans voted against all law and reason to keep Clinton in office, and only one of them was from Tennessee.

This isn't the time to be toying with any Republican who had a Clinton in his sights and ended up shooting himself in the foot.

If you're bored with our top candidates, go see a slasher movie. Don't take it out on a presidential election.

OK. I was at CPAC when she dropped the "F" bomb on Edwards. I thought it was way overboard but that didn't seem to stop the book-signing line meandering out the door. If she comes back to CPAC... I think the line will be shorter.

When Gov. Romney was told at the CPAC bloggers table that Coulter had "endorsed" him... he grew a bit uncomfortable in a comical way shrugged his shoulders and said: "well, I guess we welcome everyone." He got a good laugh.

In my opinion, Coulter is a combination of Jonathan Swift, Chris Rock, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, all wrapped up in one thin blond package. No one can deny her talent for writing but her shock-value comedy overwhelms her articulation of conservative values.

Labels: , ,

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


Ann Coulter is awesome! It's about time conservatives have a bold, dynamic answer to the liberals.

Besides, my brother is in love with her.



I like Ann, and enjoy her weekly column, but it makes sense that Mitt would be reluctant to fully embrace an endorsement from her with open arms- being associated closely with someone that right-wing would be dangerous in a national election.




posted by Anonymous | 1:33 PM | permalink
Mitt called Rudy out yesterday on his efforts back in the day to overturn the federal line-item veto. Rudy, of course, responded saying that the line-item veto is unconstitutional and claiming that as a strict constructionist, which he clearly is not, there was nothing to be done about it.

Several presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George Bush 41, Bill Cinton, and George Bush 43 have asked for the line-item veto from Congress. The line-item veto was part of the Contract with America with which Republicans swept into Congress in 1994, led by Newt Gingrich. Minus Bill Clinton, a pretty good group of guys for Mitt to be with.

As you may know, when Rudy was mayor of New York, President Clinton "line-item vetoed" a sizable chunk of entitlement spending, that was headed to New York, in order to balance the budget. Whenever a Republican candidate thinks that there should be more entitlement spending than Bill Clinton did, you should be very, very concerned.

Well, the mayor sued the President and won in the case of Clinton v. City of New York. So, Rudy got his money and the line item veto went away, well maybe. As noted above, Bush 43 has requested it be passed again and Rudy's buddy McCain has been supportive.

For those unfamiliar with the debate, one might think that Rudy is right by saying it is a matter of strict construction. I just want to point out that at least one good strict constructionist, appointed by Ronald Reagan, disagrees...

I give you excerpts from the dissent of Justice Scalia:

"The Presentment Clause requires, in relevant part, that '[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,' U. S. Const., Art. I, §7, cl. 2. There is no question that enactment of the Balanced Budget Act complied with these requirements: the House and Senate passed the bill, and the President signed it into law. It was only after the requirements of the Presentment Clause had been satisfied that the President exercised his authority under the Line Item Veto Act to cancel the spending item. Thus, the Court's problem with the Act is not that it authorizes the President to veto parts of a bill and sign others into law, but rather that it authorizes him to "cancel"-prevent from "having legal force or effect"-certain parts of duly enacted statutes."

"Insofar as the degree of political, "law-making" power conferred upon the Executive is concerned, there is not a dime's worth of difference between Congress's authorizing the President to cancel a spending item, and Congress's authorizing money to be spent on a particular item at the President's discretion. And the latter has been done since the Founding of the Nation."

"The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the President to "decline to spend" any item of spending contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional. What the Line Item Veto Act does instead-authorizing the President to "cancel" an item of spending-is technically different. But the technical difference does not relate to the technicalities of the Presentment Clause, which have been fully complied with; and the doctrine of unconstitutional delegation, which is at issue here, is preeminently not a doctrine of technicalities. The title of the Line Item Veto Act, which was perhaps designed to simplify for public comprehension, or perhaps merely to comply with the terms of a campaign pledge, has succeeded in faking out the Supreme Court. The President's action it authorizes in fact is not a line item veto and thus does not offend Art. I, §7; and insofar as the substance of that action is concerned, it is no different from what Congress has permitted the President to do since the formation of the Union."

My Anaylsis:
For those of you unfamiliar with legal opinions and Justice Scalia's method of writing, he just said, if you think that the "line-item veto" should have been found unconstitutional because of a strict reading of the constitution, you don't know what you are talking about.

For those of you who are familiar, I don't know about you, but if I find myself on the wrong side of a Justice Scalia dissent, I usually have some soul searching to do about my commitment to a strict construction of the Constitution.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:The Line-Item Veto
  • DiggThe Line-Item Veto
  • Fark:The Line-Item Veto
  • Furl:The Line-Item Veto
  • Ma.gnolia:The Line-Item Veto
  • Netscape:The Line-Item Veto
  • NewsVine:The Line-Item Veto
  • Reddit:The Line-Item Veto
  • Slashdot:The Line-Item Veto
  • StumbleUpon:The Line-Item Veto
  • TailRank:The Line-Item Veto
  • Technorati:The Line-Item Veto
  • YahooMyWeb:The Line-Item Veto

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


Rudy's argument about "constructionalist" and "line item veto being unconstitutional" is a bunch of B.S. You don't get any more constructionalist than Scalia.

Congress always has the power to over-ride a veto if there is ample support, so this veto does not give too much power to the executive branch. The line item veto was a divided Supreme Court ruling (6-3) and we need a president who will fight to have that over-turned.

The president has no way to battle pork barrel spending of congress without this tool...I agree with Romney wholeheartedly.

This is yet another issue where Romney proved that Giuliani is not the man we want for president. Giuliani knew his position here would not sit well with republicans so all he could do was put some spin on it by saying he beat the Clintons. Very Weak.



Great post, Timotheus.

And not to butt in, but Team Romney has a press release on a similar vein, which is here:

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Giuliani_Fiscal_Conservatives




posted by Justin Hart | 10:42 AM | permalink

Quinnipiac GOP Florida Primary

  • Rudy Giuliani 27% (28%)
  • Fred Thompson 19% (17%)
  • Mitt Romney 17% (11%)
  • John McCain 8% (10%)
  • Mike Huckabee 4% (2%)
  • Ron Paul 2% (2%)
  • Sam Brownback 1% (0%)
  • Tom Tancredo 1% (0%)
  • Don’t Know 16% (18%)

Survey of 345 registered Republicans was conducted October 1-8. The margin of error is +/- 5.3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 3-9 are in parentheses.

Labels: ,

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


Nicely done Mitt! Looks like Florida is going the way of South Carolina. Mitt has gone from single digits to making it a real contest in a matter of one month.

Also interesting is the fact that 29% of Americans have never heard of Mitt and 15% more have no opinion of him. This means Mitt has significant room to grow. All Americans will know his name once he wins in Iowa.



Amen, Slick Willy!!




posted by SteveT | 7:37 AM | permalink
How about in the first few years of the “Republican Revolution?”

The Fred Thompson campaign has been trotting out a new theme (Where were you in 1994?) to try to say that he has been consistently more conservative than the rest of the field. This column will look at a number of Fred’s positions and votes from that era that demonstrate a far less conservative side to Fred.


Abortion

Fresh off of Fred Thompson’s stint as a lobbyist for a pro-choice group and only one year after being quoted as saying he supported Roe vs. Wade, Fred Thompson was running for the senate as a pro-choice candidate from Tennessee, stating:



Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.


In the race, the Christian Coalition interviewed Fred and that, “The talk is not good...[there are] serious concerns about his candidacy.” They viewed him as no different than his Democratic opponent on social issues. The decision to support him was based on the thought that, “...[his] conservative peers in Congress will get him to do the right thing, not because of Fred’s own principles.”

Then in 1996, Fred Thompson fought to remove the Abortion plank from the GOP platform, calling it, “a distracting issue.” Although Thompson's voting record was generally pro-life, voters may conclude that this had more to do with him representing socially conservative Tennessee than any real commitment to the cause.

Tort Reform

Once in the Senate, Fred became a stalworth defender of the trial lawyers, voting against Tort Reforms in the “Contract with America”, such as the Medical Malpractice Cap.



Aligning himself with trial lawyers … Thompson routinely voted against legislation aimed at shrinking the size of fees that attorneys could collect and rejected limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, bucking his own party. Most Republicans supported such reforms, arguing that trial lawyers routinely filed frivolous lawsuits or won unnecessarily large awards that drove up the cost of insurance and products.


Over his eight years in the senate Fred racked in trial lawyer money like almost no other Republican:



Unlike many Republicans during the 1990s, Thompson easily collected large sums of political donations from lawyers during his Senate career -- more than $1.5 million over eight years.


Welfare For Illegals

As the Republican congress was pushing to reform welfare and get more people off the dole, Fred Thompson was fighting to preserve welfare benefits for illegal aliens:



The most stark example was his 1995 vote on the welfare overhaul, when he voted to preserve illegal aliens' ability to receive federal benefits. He was one of just six senators to vote that way, joining four other Republicans and one Democrat.

Immigration

Many other votes related to immigration are also troubling. Fred Thompson voted against an employment verification system:



And in 1996, as Congress considered a crackdown on illegal aliens, Mr. Thompson voted against setting up a system so employers could verify the legal status of their workers.

Other immigration related votes, include:
- In 1996, voted to remove higher fines for businesses which hire illegal aliens
- Voted in 1996 to continue chain migration
- Voted to strip legal reforms from 1996 bill
- Voted to grant amnesty to nearly one million illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997


Affirmative Action

As the movement to curtail Affirmative Action was gaining strength, President Bill Clinton attempted to slow down the movement by stating it was time to, “Mend it. Not end it.” Fred Thompson helped carry water for him in the senate by voting against efforts to curtail affirmative action.

In 1995, Thompson voted against Senate amendment 1825 to H.R. 1854 (the "Gramm Amendment") which would have banned affirmative action
in the awarding of federal contracts.

Minimum Wage Hikes

Fred also voted for a large increase in the Federal minimum wage of over 20% from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour in 1996.

McCain-Feingold-Thompson

Once in the senate, Fred Thompson went right to work on the piece of legislation that he is most known for, the McCain-Feingold-Thompson bill. This legislation limits the ability of the national and state parties to raise money and severely restricts the ability of third party groups to influence elections. His misrepresentation of his role in this should give any conservative pause.

US Senate Investigation Of Clinton China Fundraising

From Newsweek:

“Though he'd been in the Senate only a few years, in 1997 Thompson was picked to lead a major investigation into Democratic fund-raising abuses during the 1996 presidential campaign. Republican leaders dreamed of calling top White House aides—and maybe even Bill Clinton and Al Gore—to testify about big checks from shady Chinese businessmen and rich donors buying pajama parties in the Lincoln Bedroom. GOP leaders saw Thompson as the perfect master of ceremonies for what they envisioned would be a C-Span skewering.

It didn't turn out that way. Thompson wound up losing control of the investigation, and the support of his own party, when the committee turned its attention to Republican campaign abuses as well. Thompson has said he wanted to make sure the inquiry was fair, and not just a Republican hunting party that would be viewed with suspicion by the public. But Republicans thought he was a weak chairman who was outmaneuvered by committee Democrats. The investigation fizzled and eventually shut down; Thompson was a near pariah among some Senate Republicans. Trent Lott was so furious at his friend that he stopped speaking to him. Letters in Thompson's archives show that he put in several requests for a seat on the Senate intelligence committee, but Lott blocked them.”

What Republican groups did we start investigating, “…the National Right to Life Committee, the Christian Coalition, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Heritage Foundation and Citizens Against Government Waste.”

This is amazing. Fred Thompson said that the probe needed to be expanded to be seen as fair. Imagine if the Senate Watergate Committee had set up the same standards during the early seventies, they would have had to start investigating the 1972 McGovern campaign to be fair to Nixon!

More than anything else, the two acts that Fred is best known for, McCain-Feingold-Thompson and his investigation of Clinton’s China fundraising shed a lot of light on what kind of president he would be. Upon reflection, I doubt many would view them as examples of conservative leadership.

After a careful analysis of Fred Thompson’s record from this early period it becomes obvious that Fred has not been anything close to a “down the line conservative.” This analysis does not even include many of his later problematic votes such as his votes for the Prescription Drug benefit in 2001, his efforts to reduce the 2001 Bush tax cuts and his votes for Bush’s 2001 and 2002 budgets that increased domestic spending more than 10% per year. Fred should be careful about pushing his new theme too aggressively or his own record might just trip him up.


These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • DiggWhere Was Fred in 1994?
  • Fark:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • Furl:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • Ma.gnolia:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • Netscape:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • NewsVine:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • Reddit:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • Slashdot:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • StumbleUpon:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • TailRank:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • Technorati:Where Was Fred in 1994?
  • YahooMyWeb:Where Was Fred in 1994?

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Justin Hart | 6:54 AM | permalink

OK.. this is totally unfair but I love satire.

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
7 Comments:


You're right. Unfair. Funny though.



The Republicans Debate in Michigan

Thompson spoke in generic terms and played it safe. Romney and Giuliani clearly outshone the rest of the field while sparring over the economy and their conservative roots. The other candidates were just plain dull, though Huckabee and Hunter made good points. Once again, Ron Paul must have forgot to take his medication. That being said, the best one-liner was the Thompson smack down of Chris Matthews, “That’s your opinion, Christopher”

Now, Romney and Giuliani were the best-prepared Giuliani plied his New York tough guy shtick to no avail when called on the facts by Romney, “Baloney! Get your facts straight Governor.” Of course, Giuliani will never win on the line-item-veto issue; he got hammered.

Romney, well versed on the Michigan economy, was much clearer and spoke with confidence and optimism. His line about Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. (“I figured she was going to put a tax on the debate before it was finished.”) was classic and got good response from the crowd

Somewhat disappointing was the lack of reference to the greatest danger to our economy;
the democrats and Hillary Clinton. Romney and Giuliani did their part, but the rest of the field seemed to have forgotten the bigger picture. We must keep taxes low, we must bring spending under control for the survival of the economy. Kudos to Romney and Giuliani for attacking Hillary on these issues. That is why they are the front-runners.

The after debate polls mean nothing really. The Ron Paul supporters spammed up the works again, and CNBC and CBN closed their polls down. No one really believes 72 percent of viewers think Ron Paul won anything. The MSNBC poll is so skewed due to the Ron Paul spammers that it’s irrelevant; though, if you throw out the Ron Paul numbers, Romney wins hands down.



Why unfair, this is the truth, isn't it?! The truth is always fair. It may be hurtful, but it's fair.



I'm a Mitt supporter and I am getting concerned. Mitt's "lets get-the-lawyers-to-sort-it-out" response is spinning out of control. Conservative talk show hosts are saying it was a serious gaff and may cost him the nomination. They say he seems so scripted as to appear insincere. All these alligations going unanswered. Where are the Romney supporters to fight the negative spin? Everyone is commenting on Fred and Rudy 's army of bloggers and where are Mitt's. It seems like Mitt is fadding just as McCain and Fred are surging. Is it all going down the tubes?



The notion that McCain and Fred are surging is not true. Actually, it appears as though Fred is flailing and McCain is slipping back to where he has been for months. Check out the latest Rasmussen numbers which show Mitt surging pre-debate. Mitt's position as challenger to Rudy is a good position to be in.

I have to say, I think Romney clearly won the debate yesterday. Rudy has very little to gain by engaging Romney. Romney has much to gain as being the challenger to the front runner. Romney can out with a good joke, and ended with a good joke. In fact, I would not be surprised to see Romney get a bump from the debate, but I don't know how many people were really paying attention.



Nice try scotty. Something tells me you aren't really aren't a Mitt supporter.



Well, I am a Mitt supporter and I think that he needs to clarify his comments.




Tuesday, October 9, 2007
posted by jason | 9:22 PM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • DiggInterview With the Romney Sons
  • Fark:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • Furl:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • Ma.gnolia:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • Netscape:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • NewsVine:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • Reddit:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • Slashdot:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • StumbleUpon:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • TailRank:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • Technorati:Interview With the Romney Sons
  • YahooMyWeb:Interview With the Romney Sons

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by jason | 8:56 PM | permalink
While I was in the spin room, my wife and our youngest child had the opportunity to attend the Romey post debate party at a nearby Steak House. Here is a picture with Mitt and my wife and our 6 month old baby. The campaign photographer got some shots of just Mitt and our baby, but I will have to get my hands on those.

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 4:47 PM | permalink
... really whiffed on the negatives of the devaluation of the dollar,

as did Brownback about who would be his chief economic advisor (unable to name anyone),

as did McCain saying he wished interest rates were zero.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Fred?...
  • DiggFred?...
  • Fark:Fred?...
  • Furl:Fred?...
  • Ma.gnolia:Fred?...
  • Netscape:Fred?...
  • NewsVine:Fred?...
  • Reddit:Fred?...
  • Slashdot:Fred?...
  • StumbleUpon:Fred?...
  • TailRank:Fred?...
  • Technorati:Fred?...
  • YahooMyWeb:Fred?...

Technorati Tags: |
 
4 Comments:


Anyone working full-time out there. You guys are way to slow. By the time you comment on anything about Mitt, it is yesterday's news. Advice: hire a full-time staff.



That'd be nice to hire anyone. In fact, Justin, I think I deserve some sort of compensation.

I am a little confused as to why you think that this comment is slow (unless you're using sarcasm that's going over my head). I wrote that as soon as they said it during the debate.



Pay no mind to the little man behind the curtain that said you guys need to hire someone! Obviously I am not alone in coming here for up-scale-regular person reporting and it is always timely if not entertaining, above and beyond MSM type stuff. I'm thinking it's the wave of the future and you folks lead the way. Thanks.



I was not referring specifically to this post. Generally, I wish that there would have been more substance from the debates coming from MMM. I rely on MMM for the latest on Mitt.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 4:15 PM | permalink
... for sounding an optimistic tone on the economy. Everyone else (except Rudy) sounds negative about our economic prospects.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Thank you Mitt...
  • DiggThank you Mitt...
  • Fark:Thank you Mitt...
  • Furl:Thank you Mitt...
  • Ma.gnolia:Thank you Mitt...
  • Netscape:Thank you Mitt...
  • NewsVine:Thank you Mitt...
  • Reddit:Thank you Mitt...
  • Slashdot:Thank you Mitt...
  • StumbleUpon:Thank you Mitt...
  • TailRank:Thank you Mitt...
  • Technorati:Thank you Mitt...
  • YahooMyWeb:Thank you Mitt...

Technorati Tags: |
 
4 Comments:


Romney had this one in the bag. Rudy did pretty well but Romney won hands down.



Kyle- I am an ardent Mitt fan but I am not sure you gave Brownback his due. He was also very optimistic and did not name anyone to his economic team because he favors a team rather than any one individual. I also thought his answer about the status of American families as one of our greatest economic threats was very correct. These are some of the finest men the GOP has running in many years. Mitt is the cream of the crop but I am impressed by most of his rivals for various reasons. I do think we have to be careful in looking for the negative in the opponents instead of lauding Romney's strengths and point our differences where they exist.



You're right. Brownback's "This country rocks" comment was sufficiently optimistic. Unfortunately, Brownback hadn't said it by the time I published that comment and have been in class ever since. To be sufficiently fair I'll post a full recap as soon as I can, giving each candidate his fair due.



Kyle- Thanks for the response. I appreciate all your contributions and the worth of this site. I can't go a day without getting "My Man Mitt" updates!




posted by Kyle Hampton | 3:58 PM | permalink
...Why is Chris Mathews asking about attacking Iran in a debate about ECONOMIC ISSUES???
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:A question...
  • DiggA question...
  • Fark:A question...
  • Furl:A question...
  • Ma.gnolia:A question...
  • Netscape:A question...
  • NewsVine:A question...
  • Reddit:A question...
  • Slashdot:A question...
  • StumbleUpon:A question...
  • TailRank:A question...
  • Technorati:A question...
  • YahooMyWeb:A question...

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


...because he is meat for brains as manifested in previous debates and because he has unbridled contempt for the war effort and Mitt Romney. Any more questions?




posted by jason | 3:35 PM | permalink
Will have some video interviews up soon, here are some pics to keep you satisified:

Spin Room




Romney advisor, Alex Castellanos, interviewed by Univision




Carl Cameron checking his PDA

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Last night I was watching post-debate reporting. Cameron said something nice about Romney's performance and showed Romney's "Law & Order" joke. When it went back to Cameron after the clip, he was laughing visibly.

You know your canned joke is good when the reporter, who's already seen it several times, can't stop chuckling.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 2:32 PM | permalink
On the morning of the debate about economics, McCain offers this economic proposal:
He suggested that government should supplement the income of older workers for “a few years” so they could afford to take lower wage entry-level jobs in newer industries.
Uh…really? Government should be supplementing worker’s income? How much should it supplement their income? How long is a “few years”? Where's the talk of fiscal restraint? How will this be paid for?

Count me unimpressed.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by jason | 1:17 PM | permalink
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • DiggQuick Video of the Spin Room
  • Fark:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • Furl:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • Ma.gnolia:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • Netscape:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • NewsVine:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • Reddit:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • Slashdot:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • StumbleUpon:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • TailRank:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • Technorati:Quick Video of the Spin Room
  • YahooMyWeb:Quick Video of the Spin Room

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by jason | 12:32 PM | permalink
After a quick run to Best Buy to rebuy all the things I forgot, a jaunt through the never ending maze of security who had no idea what I was talking about, and then a short WiFi ouage, I am finally here reporting.

While waiting for the internet to get back running, I headed outside and took some pictures of the outside festivities. A little southwest of the center there is a predebate rally for all the campaigns. As usual the award for most original presentation goes to the Ron Paul crew.

Apparently Ron Paul has a mascot, Fido Paul.



This guy loves the surge... actually he was pretty nice guy I don't mean to mock him.





Some Thompson signs




News media Vans near the VIP entrance


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

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Color me ignorant when it comes to dogs, but is this Fido Paul a boxer? If so, I must admit it is an irony!




posted by Kyle Hampton | 12:05 PM | permalink
In advance of the debate tonight, I wanted to talk a little about a headline that has popped up again of late: That Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan is similar to the one that Hillary Clinton has put out. As always, I am not an expert myself, but there seem to be even basic differences between the two.

Let’s start with what the story says are the similarities:
Like Clinton's plan, the law Romney signed in April 2006 is underpinned by an "individual mandate" compelling people to buy health insurance. Both plans entail subsidies and government regulations.
Of course, if you get out to the abstraction that this article does any healthcare plan would look similar to the Massachusetts plan. That both plans “entail subsidies and government regulations” essentially tells us nothing. The Giuliani plan contains both subsidies and government regulations as does the Edwards plan. No one would argue that all of these plans are essentially the same. Yet somehow our journalists are unable to see the differences.

That leaves us with the individual mandate. Yet are all individual mandates the same? Let’s take and compare the different healthcare plans with a much more familiar topic of universal coverage: education.

Hillary Clinton’s plan very much resembles the current state of our educational system. While allowing individuals to elect private coverage, it provides coverage for anyone who doesn’t opt out, much like our current education system allows for students to elect private schools while still providing public schools.

The Massachusetts plan is much more like Milton Friedman’s proposals for school choice. While not rebuking the mandate for children to be educated, Friedman reasoned that shifting the tax support from producers (the schools) to consumers (the students) would result in marked improvement in the educational system. Similarly, the Massachusetts plan shifted tax dollars from producers of healthcare (hospitals and doctors) to consumers of healthcare. The redirection of tax dollars from producers to consumers aligns the correct incentives and interests to induce a better product.

Yes it is true that both the current education system and Friedman’s school choice proposals would both entail and individual mandate, subsidies, and government regulation. Yet, that level of abstraction hides the significant differences between two different views of how to accomplish a goal, one reliant on government top-down commands, the other using a bottom-up market approach.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Is it just me or if there were any similarities between Hillary and Mitt's plan, wouldn't the headline read "Hillary's Plan is Similar to Mitt's Plan?" since he had this law written, passed, and in motion long before she talked about this "new and improved plan".




Monday, October 8, 2007
posted by jason | 4:26 PM | permalink

I am here in Michigan. It really isn't that bad, despite the two years I spent living life as a Buckeye in Columbus, Ohio. Hey, and despite what people are saying, anyone could have lost to Appalachian State...

A preview of tomorrow's events: I should have some video interviews (from the Romney, Giuliani and Hunter Campaigns), coverage from the Spin Room and live blogging from the hot dog eating contest between Fred and Huckabee. The last one should be a blast, I will see what I can do to make it happen.

I will be loading my coverage to these three sites:

www.race42008.com
www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisreview.com

So check back often for the updates.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Reporting From Michigan
  • DiggReporting From Michigan
  • Fark:Reporting From Michigan
  • Furl:Reporting From Michigan
  • Ma.gnolia:Reporting From Michigan
  • Netscape:Reporting From Michigan
  • NewsVine:Reporting From Michigan
  • Reddit:Reporting From Michigan
  • Slashdot:Reporting From Michigan
  • StumbleUpon:Reporting From Michigan
  • TailRank:Reporting From Michigan
  • Technorati:Reporting From Michigan
  • YahooMyWeb:Reporting From Michigan

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


How on earth are you going to report from Dearborn without me Jason (wink). I look forward to your reports.



Judging The Debates

CNN believes “The main event during Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate in Michigan is Fred Thompson's debate debut.”

John Gibson on the Fox News Channel believes the anti-Republican bias of debate co-moderator Chris Matthew is the story, “How in the world can NBC put on a fair debate with a moderator like Matthews?”

When the debate starts, smart Republican voters will not care about the endless candidate trivia, or campaign stump theatrics. In order to make a realistic assessment of candidate’s beliefs and values, Republican voters will look for factual information. The sideshows of Thompson’s first debate and Matthew’s bias are inconsequential. The often snide and elitist Chris Matthews will be taken for what he is. Thankfully, we won’t see Wolf Blitzer asking candidates ludicrous questions to be answered a show of hands.

The pertinent subjects for the debate are 1. the war on terror, 2. the economy and how we compete with Asian and European nations, 3. preserving our culture and values, 4. excessive taxes and spending in Washington. The voters will look for the candidate with the experience and ethics covering each of these subjects.

Who will win this and future Republican debates? A forward looking, positive candidate who speaks clearly, in complete sentences, and who is impressive in explaining how he will approach these problems will carry the field. After all, the Republicans are really selecting a candidate that presents a clear choice and credibly to oppose Hillary Clinton on these key issues next year.




posted by Justin Hart | 1:43 PM | permalink
The recent exchange between "myclob" and Jim Geraghty is an excellent case study into the uneasy and unprecedented GOP intra-party nomination. In short: this is new and unfamiliar ground for all of us on the blogging right and sometimes... we step in it.

When George W. defeated McCain for the nomination in 2000 I doubt any of us were blogging. Certainly none of us were actively engaged in cross-site debate in 20 minute news cycles. In 2004 the approach was easy: beat up Kerry - no Republican primary necessary.

Today, the game has changed. Vile and vitriol that we reserved for only the left-iest lefties we now pour out on our own friends in the conservative movement.

The identifying feature of most political blogs is "who" you support for the nomination: RedState becomes FredState, Ankle Biting Pundits becomes a shill for McCain, Race42008 leans heavy for Rudy, etc...

None of these characterizations is fair.

Or take the latest at our fellow Mitt blog Elect Romney in '08 bringing up Allen's endorsement with a post entitled: Mr. Macaca joins team Fred. Think about it. One year ago that title would fit like a glove as a post on DailyKos. Today, it's on a conservative blog, beating up an opposing conservative candidate with a line that defeated a conservative candidate in 2006.

The Elect Romney folk are indispensable but I'm slowly trying to make my way back to shore before we all drown in knee-jerk reactions.

This is not pretty. And I'm not sure what the answer is.

Geraghty's TKS was one of seven tabs that I refreshed every 30 seconds into 2004 election night on pins and needles. Jim and I actually exchanged several emails that night trying to get on-the-ground information to overcome the terrible early exit poll fiascos. His reports from Obi Wan were invaluable. I was so nervous about a loss I even had my blame game fixed on Jim. TKS was right, thankfully.

I think some of these debates are fair, some are wanting and some are just plain wrong. If we step in it here at MMM I will call it out.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Fashioning Clubs
  • DiggFashioning Clubs
  • Fark:Fashioning Clubs
  • Furl:Fashioning Clubs
  • Ma.gnolia:Fashioning Clubs
  • Netscape:Fashioning Clubs
  • NewsVine:Fashioning Clubs
  • Reddit:Fashioning Clubs
  • Slashdot:Fashioning Clubs
  • StumbleUpon:Fashioning Clubs
  • TailRank:Fashioning Clubs
  • Technorati:Fashioning Clubs
  • YahooMyWeb:Fashioning Clubs

Technorati Tags: |
 
6 Comments:


The way I look at it on the "Mr. Macaca" post, is that had Allen just said that he was FOR Fred I wouldn't have said a thing. But, Fred appointed him to his National Leadership Team. That means that he trusts him to lead his campaign in that capacity and shows character.

In the same sense that Governor Romney wants to clean house among Republicans in the fiscal sense. We also need to clean house in the moral sense as well.

Allen made the comment from his own mouth, and smiled while he did it. Sure, he lost his seat (and in turn lost the seat for the party too keep in mind). But, I think it's way too soon to be seeing him on the National scene again. By allowing him to do so, we show as a party just how "insensitive" that we're repeatedly characterized as.



I agree with Justin. I know I fall into the trap of bashing other Republicans for any little slip, sometimes, because I want Romney to win so much. That certainly doesn't make it right.

In a sense I agree with Ann. George Allen is not my type of Republican. And putting Allen in a prominent position just begs for riducule. However, the petty snipping that goes on gets old. Thanks for a good dose of reality, Justin.



So it's Dick Cheney's fault for not running then. ;)

Did the democrats have similar problems in 2004?



You always have problems when you generalize. Sometimes its good to critisize what fellow republicans say, and sometimes it is not.

Romney has been going pretty hard after Rudy.

You don't always play nice...



The policy at Moms4Mitt has always been "Pro-Romney all the time". Nothing about the other candidates - period. EVER.

I understand that politics is a dirty business, but I am happy to provide my readers with an escape from all of this.

MyManMitt is still my favorite blog, and it's would be nice have a break from the constant negativity and return to what we all love - MITT!!



I also get a little uneasy with the "Come down on Rudy" stuff on Mitt's site. The folks there tread a fine line as they try to report what the other candidate has done or said while not attacking the person himself (or herself).

Thanks for the thought provoking piece and all the great work you do for Mitt!




posted by Kyle Hampton | 12:32 PM | permalink
Doug Wilson's article over at Townhall.com outlining the benefits of Romney's tax free saving plan. A tease:
If such a policy had been in place in 2005, 56 million taxpayers who earned interest, 28 million taxpayers who earned dividends, and 23 million taxpayers who earned capital gains would have paid zero taxes on their savings and investments. In 2004, the median income for a family of four fell into the $50,000 to $75,000 tax bracket—and that income group paid over $796 million in capital gains taxes. Under the Romney plan, that income group would have paid nothing.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:A must-read
  • DiggA must-read
  • Fark:A must-read
  • Furl:A must-read
  • Ma.gnolia:A must-read
  • Netscape:A must-read
  • NewsVine:A must-read
  • Reddit:A must-read
  • Slashdot:A must-read
  • StumbleUpon:A must-read
  • TailRank:A must-read
  • Technorati:A must-read
  • YahooMyWeb:A must-read

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 10:52 AM | permalink
Via Newsweek itself:
The Making of a Candidate

I am an American running for president, not a Mormon running for president, but I am also very proud of my faith. And I am not a cafeteria Mormon, choosing some parts to accept and reject—I am "true blue, through and through." My family and I are better people and far happier than we would have been without our faith. It is puzzling that when NEWSWEEK looks at me ("A Mormon's Journey: The Making of Mitt Romney," Oct. 8) what you mostly see is a Mormon. I would have thought that more important to my potential presidency would be my record as a governor, 25-year business leader, Olympic CEO, father, husband—and American.

Mitt Romney
Belmont, Mass.

Labels:

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
3 Comments:


The Media’s Foregone Conclusion

As a Sunday morning talk show junkie, I shouldn’t be surprised. I thought the 2008 presidential election was more than a year away. But when I tuned in, believing that the shows would give the usual updates and opinions, I learned that the pundits have already called the race.

On Meet the Press, while feigning tough questions, Tim Russert actually set the stage with lead ins for John Edwards. It was just more of JE’s “Chicken Little” repartee, “The war in Iraq is much worse than it was in 2003 and 2004, and it’s continued. Our healthcare situation is dysfunctional. It does not work . . . Global warming is now, by anybody’s measure, a crisis . . . And we’re becoming a country made up of just a few rich people and everybody else. “ On what planet has this man been living? Exit Edwards.

Next, Tim invited David Broder, David Brody, Margaret Carlson, and Ted Koppel to a Hillary Giuliani lovefest:
MR. BRODER: “Well, she’s in an interesting position, because if you believe the national polls, this election’s over.”
MR. DAVID BRODY: “That’s right. And I was in California with Giuliani about a week, week and a half ago, and this is pretty much what he said to fundraisers, on the trail. I mean, he is talking about Hillary Clinton and nobody else.”
MS. MARGARET CARLSON: “Well, she’s going right at the heart of what looks like her opponent at the moment, Rudy Giuliani. And Rudy and Senator Clinton are in a dance right now, because the stronger she gets, the stronger he gets. Because Republicans want to unite behind a tough person.”
MR. TED KOPPEL: “She’s playing it safe, and, you know, so far ahead right now, . . . We’re—it’s much too early, but she, she is clearly the one to beat.”

Yeah, there was a few rather dismissive remarks about Republican “money” and two national polls, and Russert did mini hit pieces on Romney and Thompson, but the gist of the entire segment was that the Republican field cannot beat Giuliani for the nomination, and Giuliani cannot beat Hillary for president. It’s over, done.

One could turn to This Week with George Stephanopoulos, but it was pretty much the same thing. Never mind that Romney, while third in the national polls, leads in most of the early primary states and has strong support in such diverse places as FL, MI, NV and CA.

Even on Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace had House Speaker Pelosi stammering over the war in Iraq, the SCHIP legislation veto, and dismal approval ratings for Congress. But when it came to politics, it was all Hillary.

Finally, in the three-ring circus known as The Chris Matthews Show, the distinguished panel included Katty Kay, Clarence Page, Norah O'Donnell, and Howard Fineman. These four represent the BBC, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC and Newsweek respectively. Here is my unofficial tally for candidate names mentioned: Hillary Clinton, 32 times; Rudy Giuliani, 23 times; Barack Obama, 11 times; Fred Thompson, 11 times; John Edwards, 3 times; Mitt Romney, 2 times; McCain and Huckabee, 1 time each.

In the political barnyard of the 2008 presidential election, the liberal media have counted all the chickens - and I have yet to even see an egg.



Kenneth, if you are reading this, I will post your comments if you cut them down by half. You make good points, but they're too long for the comment section (at least for my taste).



This is exactly the public response Mitt needs to make on "The Mormon Question". Flesh it out a bit, but stay right on point. Mitt's not a Mormon Candidate. He's a candidate for President that happens to be Mormon. That's not just semantics. There is a huge difference.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 10:23 AM | permalink

From Richard Land himself:

Also, Tony Perkins channels Mitt's stump speech:

There seems to be a growing consensus that Mitt Romney is the conservative of choice for leaders of the religious right. I think that they are hesitant to come right out and endorse him, but it is clear enough after they have eliminated essentially every other choice.

Of course, I did that 10 months ago. I will now pat myself on the back repeatedly.

Labels: ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • DiggNo third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • Fark:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • Furl:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • Ma.gnolia:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • Netscape:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • NewsVine:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • Reddit:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • Slashdot:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • StumbleUpon:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • TailRank:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • Technorati:No third party candidate if it's Mitt
  • YahooMyWeb:No third party candidate if it's Mitt

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


So basically, the religious right won’t support Rudy, and is okay with Romney, while the Log Cabin Republicans (who see the religious right as their last obstacle to promoting gay rights) denounce Romney, and favor Rudy. Interesting!




Sunday, October 7, 2007
posted by Jeff Fuller | 2:17 PM | permalink
Fred at "Real Debate Wisconsin" had the following to say about Mitt's Performance at the Defending the American Dream Summit (and his comments came AFTER Fred the Blogger said of Fred Thompson's entry to speak: "Dude is a rock star. The place went nuts." . . . looks like, once again, Mitt outshines everyone)

Mitt spoke to gathered masses.

I have to tell you, he was freaking phenomenal. He was channeling Reagan.

He was witty, charming and looking VERY Presidential.

I've been leaning Fred Thompson, I'm conflicted.


He's also posted video of Romney's Summit speech here and here

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

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


If you watch Fred’s speech, there’s no wonder why he would be considering Mitt. Fred’s speech could put you to sleep, Giuliani’s speech was acceptable, Romney’s speech was awesome.




posted by Myclob | 8:32 AM | permalink
Libertarians, Beware the Rigid Reign of Rudy
by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.

Behind Rudy Giuliani's impressive lead in the polls is one fact that puzzles the pundits: Many cultural conservatives are backing a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate. But what should be equally surprising is the strong support Giuliani is finding among libertarian-leaning Republicans, who also make up a big slice of the GOP base.

Here's why: Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush.

As a U.S. attorney in the 1980s, Giuliani conducted what University of Chicago Law Prof. Daniel Fischel called a "reign of terror" against Wall Street. He pioneered the use of the midday, televised "perp walk" for white-collar defendants who posed no threat to the community - precisely the sort of power play for which conservatives reviled former state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. And Giuliani's use of federal racketeering statutes was so disturbing that the Justice Department changed its guidelines on the law.

As mayor, Giuliani had many successes. Crime came down. He cut taxes and held down spending (David, this is not true. NYC debt rose by $16 billion during his tenure in office to a total of $43 billion, and by the end of his term New Yorkers were paying around $6 billion a year in interest alone. Rudy's a good vote for lower taxes, but his record on debt screams incompetence). But his prosecutorial personality sometimes threatened personal freedoms. He cracked down on jaywalkers and street vendors. His street crime unit used aggressive tactics to confiscate guns from city residents, resulting in wholesale searches and detentions of citizens, especially young minority males, and occasional tragedies like the shooting of the unarmed Amadou Diallo.

When a police officer fatally shot another unarmed black man, Patrick Dorismond, Giuliani had police release Dorismond's sealed juvenile arrest record. The city later settled with Dorismond's family for $2.25 million.

And it should distress many conservatives that Giuliani took umbrage at affronts to his dignity, perhaps most notoriously when he tried to stop city buses from carrying a New York magazine ad saying the publication was "possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for." The First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams notes in his book, "Speaking Freely," that "over 35 separate successful lawsuits were brought against the city under Giuliani's stewardship arising out of his insistence on doing the one thing that the First Amendment most clearly forbids: using the power of government to restrict or punish speech critical of government itself."

As a presidential hopeful, Giuliani's authoritarian streak is as strong as ever. He defends the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program. He endorses the President's power to arrest American citizens, declare them enemy combatants and hold them without access to a lawyer or a judge. He thinks the President has "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if Congress were to cut off war funding, a claim of presidential authority so sweeping that even Bush and his supporters have not tried to make it.

Giuliani's view of power would be dangerous at any time, but especially after two terms of relentless Bush efforts to weaken the constitutional checks and balances that safeguard our liberty.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater declared it "the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power." George W. Bush has forgotten that; Rudy Giuliani rejects it.

This article appeared in the New York Daily News on May 30, 2007.


I don't quote this article because I agree with everything in it. I quote it, because Rudy quotes the CATO institute's grade they gave Romney. The CATO institute gave Romney a C in something, and Rudy is running all over the news saying, look, the CATO institute doesn't like Romney. Well Rudy, they don't like you either. THEY ARE LIBRITARIANS! ROMNEY IS NOT RUNNING AS A LIBRETARIAN, he is running as a Republican, so I think Rudy is stupid to think we care what the CATO institute thinks.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • DiggRudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • Fark:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • Furl:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • Ma.gnolia:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • Netscape:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • NewsVine:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • Reddit:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • Slashdot:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • StumbleUpon:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • TailRank:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • Technorati:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...
  • YahooMyWeb:Rudy should be careful when citing CATO...

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