|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     |
 Friday, October 12, 2007
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:
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.
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. 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. 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.  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:
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: fundraising Thursday, October 11, 2007
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.
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. 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: msm
"Stop Spending"
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: Gary Bauer, james dobson, Tony Perkins, Washington Times 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 » Wednesday, October 10, 2007
 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. 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: ann coulter, fred thompson, huckabee 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. Quinnipiac GOP Florida Primary
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. 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. OK.. this is totally unfair but I love satire.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
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.
 ... 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. ... for sounding an optimistic tone on the economy. Everyone else (except Rudy) sounds negative about our economic prospects.
...Why is Chris Mathews asking about attacking Iran in a debate about ECONOMIC ISSUES???
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  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: John McCain 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 
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: healthcare Monday, October 8, 2007
 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. 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. 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. Via Newsweek itself:
The Making of a Candidate Labels: Newsweek 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: Richard Land, Tony Perkins Sunday, October 7, 2007
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. He's also posted video of Romney's Summit speech here and here Jeff Fuller
Libertarians, Beware the Rigid Reign of Rudy 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: rudy giuliani |
    12/31/06 - 1/7/07 1/7/07 - 1/14/07 1/14/07 - 1/21/07 1/21/07 - 1/28/07 1/28/07 - 2/4/07 2/4/07 - 2/11/07 2/11/07 - 2/18/07 2/18/07 - 2/25/07 2/25/07 - 3/4/07 3/4/07 - 3/11/07 3/11/07 - 3/18/07 3/18/07 - 3/25/07 3/25/07 - 4/1/07 4/1/07 - 4/8/07 4/8/07 - 4/15/07 4/15/07 - 4/22/07 4/22/07 - 4/29/07 4/29/07 - 5/6/07 5/6/07 - 5/13/07 5/13/07 - 5/20/07 5/20/07 - 5/27/07 5/27/07 - 6/3/07 6/3/07 - 6/10/07 6/10/07 - 6/17/07 6/17/07 - 6/24/07 6/24/07 - 7/1/07 7/1/07 - 7/8/07 7/8/07 - 7/15/07 7/15/07 - 7/22/07 7/22/07 - 7/29/07 7/29/07 - 8/5/07 8/5/07 - 8/12/07 8/12/07 - 8/19/07 8/19/07 - 8/26/07 8/26/07 - 9/2/07 9/2/07 - 9/9/07 9/9/07 - 9/16/07 9/16/07 - 9/23/07 9/23/07 - 9/30/07 9/30/07 - 10/7/07 10/7/07 - 10/14/07 10/14/07 - 10/21/07 10/21/07 - 10/28/07 10/28/07 - 11/4/07 11/4/07 - 11/11/07 11/11/07 - 11/18/07 11/18/07 - 11/25/07 11/25/07 - 12/2/07 12/2/07 - 12/9/07 12/9/07 - 12/16/07 12/16/07 - 12/23/07 12/23/07 - 12/30/07 12/30/07 - 1/6/08 1/6/08 - 1/13/08 1/13/08 - 1/20/08 1/20/08 - 1/27/08 1/27/08 - 2/3/08 2/3/08 - 2/10/08 2/10/08 - 2/17/08 2/17/08 - 2/24/08 2/24/08 - 3/2/08 3/2/08 - 3/9/08 3/9/08 - 3/16/08 3/16/08 - 3/23/08 3/23/08 - 3/30/08 3/30/08 - 4/6/08 4/6/08 - 4/13/08 4/13/08 - 4/20/08 4/20/08 - 4/27/08 4/27/08 - 5/4/08 5/4/08 - 5/11/08 5/11/08 - 5/18/08 5/18/08 - 5/25/08 5/25/08 - 6/1/08 6/1/08 - 6/8/08 6/8/08 - 6/15/08 6/15/08 - 6/22/08 6/29/08 - 7/6/08 7/6/08 - 7/13/08 7/13/08 - 7/20/08 7/20/08 - 7/27/08 7/27/08 - 8/3/08 8/3/08 - 8/10/08 8/10/08 - 8/17/08 8/17/08 - 8/24/08 8/24/08 - 8/31/08 8/31/08 - 9/7/08 9/7/08 - 9/14/08 9/14/08 - 9/21/08 9/21/08 - 9/28/08 9/28/08 - 10/5/08 10/12/08 - 10/19/08 10/19/08 - 10/26/08 10/26/08 - 11/2/08 11/2/08 - 11/9/08 11/9/08 - 11/16/08 11/16/08 - 11/23/08 11/23/08 - 11/30/08 11/30/08 - 12/7/08 12/7/08 - 12/14/08 12/21/08 - 12/28/08 1/11/09 - 1/18/09 1/18/09 - 1/25/09 1/25/09 - 2/1/09 2/1/09 - 2/8/09 2/22/09 - 3/1/09 4/12/09 - 4/19/09 4/19/09 - 4/26/09 4/26/09 - 5/3/09 5/10/09 - 5/17/09 5/17/09 - 5/24/09 5/24/09 - 5/31/09 5/31/09 - 6/7/09 6/14/09 - 6/21/09 6/21/09 - 6/28/09 6/28/09 - 7/5/09 7/5/09 - 7/12/09 7/26/09 - 8/2/09 8/2/09 - 8/9/09 8/9/09 - 8/16/09 8/30/09 - 9/6/09 9/6/09 - 9/13/09 9/18/11 - 9/25/11 What People are Saying about MyManMitt: "A proactive voice in the wilderness, always on-message and fighting the fight, for Mitt." - David All |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Show/Hide 0 Comments | Post a Comment