Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt: 11/11/07

Jonathan Martin has his updates here but it appears we’re the only one with a major source

I’ve communicated to my source at Western Wats on numerous occasions now. (see here and here )

He is a senior executive at the company. He is very tight lipped about the whole thing but notes the following:

The call could have been made at anyone of their locations (they have call centers in Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas)
They employ over 1500 people across the country and have dozens of projects happening at any given moment
They claim that they do not do push polling… rather their focus has been message testing. They do this for political campaigns and Fortune 500 companies to gauge the reaction to certain facts and pieces of information.
They don’t write the scripts. They don’t analyze the data. They have no stake in the end results.
In many cases they have no idea who the end client is. (this way they don’t taint the data one way or the other)
He indicated that he would love nothing more than a political entity to force their hand on this and reveal the client. But his hands are tied.
He believes that if the script is ever made available that the reaction will be “Is this all? that’s not a big deal.”


	1 Comments: I think it's ridiculous that Western Wats and other companies like them could say that they "do not do push polling" yet they also say that they "don’t write the scripts." If they don't write the scripts, then how do they know that their clients aren't going to just write a push poll? And if they are making sure that their clients don't write push polls, what happens if their client does write something that Western Wats considers to be a push poll? Wouldn't their input to help clients change their questions mean that they are helping clients “write the scripts?” I just don't see how they can have it both ways. I've helped run a campaign before where my candidate was the victim of seriously negative push polling. We never quite confirmed exactly who had done the push polling against us. But the damage may have already been done none-the-less. The funniest part of the whole ordeal was that the wife of my candidate was still registered to vote under her maiden name and actually received one of these calls. Being politically savvy as she was, she took a lot of notes, and our campaign was able to a big deal of it. Out of all of my theories on this, I'd discount Giuliani as culprit the most. He has the most to lose. And although, I see a lot of distain from John McCain toward Mitt Romney, I'd probably discount him second most. McCain doesn't seem to be at all opposed to attacking Mitt Romney himself, so I don’t think that he would see any need to do it in an underhanded manner. Fred Thompson might have been involved in it without even knowing it. Doesn't his wife just run his campaign however she wants anyway? Plus, since Thompson can't recall which pro-abortion groups he may have worked for in the past, he may not have any idea who's working for him either or what they are doing. So, I'll give Thompson the pass for being ignorant. Mike Huckabee is much more likely. And some of his jabs have seemed somewhat anti-Mormon to me. Or at least, he seems willing to do or say things that attempt to openly point out things that might be construed as divides between evangelicals and Mormons. The most likely culprit though, I believe could easily be an anti-Romney 527 or any anti-Mormon group that has a substantial amount of money. This could include groups led by Sandra Tanner or any other foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Mormons or possibly some other "Christian" group that is petrified at the thought of a Mormon in the White House. These anti-Mormon individuals and groups might think of political on a different level than the ABCs (Anybody But the Clintons). These people might be thinking ABMs (Anybody But Mormons). By Judicial, at November 17, 2007 at 3:41 PM Post a Comment

UPDATE: Just spoke to my Western Wats source (a senior employee at the firm).

He said the notion that this is Romney-driven is “nonsense” and “ridiculous”.
He did not confirm or deny that the calls came from his firm.
His company employs 1500 people with centers is Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, and numerous other states.
He also indicated that this is being blown way out of proportion. He thinks if the details came out people would scratch their heads wondering what the big deal was.

------------

OK. So, let's review the last 24 hours:

Jonathan Martin of Politico and others get wind of research calls going out to Iowa and New Hampshire voters inserting some anti-Mormon rhetoric along the way.
Philip Elliot of the AP runs with the story and points to Utah firm Western Wats as the calling center source for the alleged phone survey.
Hugh Hewitt notes that whoever the campaign is behind this effort will catch some serious flack.
Other blogs start to catch on and Martin updates his post to note that Rudy's research team have used Western Wats in the past
McCain denies it. Rudy follow suit.
Questions begin to surface as to why an opposition candidate would risk such a venture and why they would use a Utah firm to do so
Romney calls the efforts "un-american" and points to Mcain Feingold as one of culprits
The NH Attorney General says he will investigate.
Liz Mair, David Freddoso and others start poking around and find out that there are numerous donors to Romney's campaign who work at Western Wats.
I contact some sources and finally get in touch with a senior employee at Western Wats willing to talk anonymously about some details.
Soren Dayton takes the conspiracy implications further by noting that the founder of Western Wats has ties to Romney.
Hewitt calls the bluff on those touting Romney did it theories and they back off a bit

That's where we are. In short,


	6 Comments: He thinks if the details came out people would scratch their heads wondering what the big deal was. How would he know this if his company wasn't involved? Isn't this a tacit admission that they made the calls? By Joe Carter, at November 16, 2007 at 9:58 PM My guess is that a campaign (Huckabee?) hired Western Wats to conduct a legitimate survey (not a push poll) of message testing. I'm thinking he's gauging whether he ought to more overtly go after Romney and his religion. This will prove to be a misstep by him, but not dirty politics. It will still reflect badly on him even if it is just message testing. Just the fact that he his thinking about having a 527 attack Romney about his religion is a killer for his campaign. By Anonymous, at November 17, 2007 at 1:16 AM I'm so glad you are on top of this. When sites like Hot Air & others are running with speculation, getting to the truth quickly is imperative! http://crotchetyoldbastard.com/blog/2007/11/somebody_has_some_splaining_to.html Off to check out HH's post. Thanks! Donna L. By Anonymous, at November 17, 2007 at 8:49 AM what a propagandist website this is! what a joke! ... i called an unnamed senior person! LOL~! they told me what i wanted to hear! P.U. By Anonymous, at November 17, 2007 at 12:23 PM You really think a rival candidate is going to hire a Mormon-owned firm to do anti-Mormon push polling? This whole think sounds like a classic piece of political theatre aimed at making Romney look like the victim of religious bigotry. Romney knows that the Mormon issue is killing him, and he's increasing desperate to get it off the table. This gambit not only didn't work, it's going to backfire. By Anonymous, at November 18, 2007 at 4:20 AM Mitt Romney is a racist, nationalist, and homophobic person who will set back our country to the ages of pre-civil rights. If he gets elected- i'm moving to Canada. Vote Obama or Hillary to save our country. By Anonymous, at December 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM Post a Comment

I was browsing the speech Giuliani was privileged (courtesy of Ted Olsen) to give to the Federalist Society. I am proud to be a member of the society. I have gone to many student and attorney events and I have generally found there are two types of Federalists. There are libertarian and there are conservative Federalists.

Interestingly enough, I found that I disagreed sometime more with libertarian Federalists than I did with some right leaning democrats. Why? Because while I thought it perfectly acceptable to pass laws through democratic processes related to social conservative issues, the libertarian members often opposed such laws. For example, while we might both agree that Roe v. Wade should be overturned as bad precedent, the libertarian was likely to oppose a state heavily restricting abortion (I realize there are libertarians who feel differently). Another example is the war on drugs. Generally, I found libertarian Federalists to oppose any drug laws where I supported them.

If Rudy Giuliani is a Federalist, he is surely a libertarian one, at best. Which is why when I was reading his speech, I wondered aloud how anyone could swallow one of the central claims of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy, that he can be trusted to appoint "conservative judges." Yes, that phrase "conservative judges" actually appears in the speech. But realize as well that Rudy has never clearly applied that label to himself.

So, I asked my search engine the magic question: "Rudy Giulaini history judges appointing." The first hit was a Politico article about Rudy's experience appointing judges in New York. Now, some people might say this is a different matter, but I think the article makes a good point of why all judicial appointments have consequences. Have a read, I think it is enlightening. And really, a bit of a shock to think that the promise to appoint a certain type of judge could possibly hold up a two legged stool.

Romney posted another strong Poll from Rasmussen Reports today from Iowa.

Romney 29%
Huckabee 16%
Giuliani 15%
Thompson 14%
John McCain 6%
Ron Paul 4%
Tom Tancredo 4%

When the three battling for second lose, I will find it funny when the one who loses the least claims victory. In my line of work, when the other side comes in second, someone goes to prison.

I just spoke at length with a senior Western Wats employee about the situation.

I told him that there are numerous reports now on both sides of the battle. One claiming that opposing campaigns are behind these efforts another pointing to Western Wats employees contributing to Mitt and claiming this is an inside job to make Mitt's opponents look bad.

First, he wanted to impress upon me that Western Wats does not do push polling, rather they do message testing. (I think this distinction will be lost on most people.)

Here are the key takeaways from the interview:

Western Wats does not write these scripts
They do not analyze the data
They don't know the outcome of the analysis
Many times they don't know the end client at all

I asked him about the NH AG looking into the matter. He said, he hoped they would it would save him a lot of headaches. The short of it is this (IMHO): we won't get any answers until there's a official investigation to pry it out of the NDA-clenched hands.

Here are some near verbatim quotes:

"I have to act like any business. I am under NDA to all of our clients. If I violate this there are serious consequences."

"Believe me. There are 100 conversations I wish I could have in depth with people today."

"The primary thing we do here is conduct and survey research data via telephone and internet surveys. We don't write or design or analyze the results. We simply collect the data."

"Like any industry, the research market is highly specialized. We specialize in making the calls and the technology that goes on behind it"

"First thing to note, we are not the author of the work, we don't have a primary interest in how that data is used. Its used on Fortune 500 companies across the world and in political campaigns as well. When we do any kind of a survey we don't have a direct interest in the outcome."

"As to the donations. Its a pretty big company by our market standard. I wouldn't be surprised if other people had given to other candidates"

"You should also understand that if you went to any political polling strategist the candidate message is tested as part of that process. Good or bad or indifferent. They use it to sculpt messages, speeches and media."

"People don't understand that this is very different from push polling"

"As a company we often don't know who the client is."

He sent me a press release:

It has come to the attention of Western Wats that several stories in the press are circulating claiming Western Wats engages in a practice commonly referred to as “push polling.”

Western Wats has never, currently does not, nor will it ever engage in push polling.

Often we find there is confusion on the question of what is legitimate opinion survey research and what is commonly referred to as push polling. American Association of Public Opinion Researcher (AAPOR), has good definitional information on push polling
http://aapor.org/aaporstatementonpushpolls. Additionally, interested individuals may find an article which appeared in the Rothenberg Political Report on this topic to be of interest.

Western Wats is a survey research data collection firm which services the opinion survey research and marketing research industries. Western Wats does not design or determine the content of the surveys it operationalizes by telephone or over the Internet, nor does it analyze or use the data for its own purposes. Confidentiality agreements prohibit us from commenting on specific projects and/or clients.
----------

With the latest about the anti-Mormon calls going around, several people have weighed in on what Romney's reaction should be. First, the Editors at NRO have some thoughts:

Nor should Romney denounce anti-Mormon bigotry. Accusing people who are so far withholding their votes of bigotry is not likely to persuade them to change their minds. Few people who oppose Romney because he is a Mormon are going to come around. Romney’s problem, and his opportunity, is a different group of people: those who are not hostile to Mormons but find Mormonism unfamiliar and strange.

They further suggest that Romney should give a speech, not like JFK's, but one saying that the unfamiliar and strange parts of Mormonism have no bearing on his ability to govern and that he still shares similar values.

I find it almost unbelievable that they suggest that Romney not denounce anti-Mormon bigotry. It's not that the people are withholding their vote that offends, as the editors suggest. It's the offensive and false slanders directed at Romney and his religious affiliation that warrant denouncement. Romney would find no occasion nor cause to decry a lack of votes due to hostility to Mormonism. Neither has Romney attempted to revile large segments of the electorate for apprehension towards him because of his faith. However, specific acts of ugly anti-Mormonism should be condemned clearly and unequivocally

In response to the Editors, Lisa Schiffren (at the Corner) says that Romney should go further than the Editors suggest:

It is not easy to spell out one's own religious views and how they compare and contrast to the standard doctrine of that religion in a speech. We voters are best off observing, over time — as the nation has done with, say, Senator Lieberman, whose very moderate Orthodoxy has made it easy for him to get along with both conservative Christians and less religious voters. But Romney is a serious possibility in this cycle. So, I personally think that letting us know more about his religious beliefs would be useful. Especially now that the anti-Mormon push polling has begun in New Hampshire and Iowa.

So the question is: Does the recent manifestation of anti-Mormonism directed at Romney merit Romney's deliverance of some sort of religious address? In my opinion, the answer is still no. An a-religious media is incompetent in religious matters. Thus, Romney's message would be placed in the hands of an unreliable messenger. Nor would the media be satisfied that Romney has laid the issue to rest, continuously second-guessing the effect of the speech or speculating about the reason(s?) that Romney excluded certain doctrines and included others.

Schiffren acknowledges as much, understanding that behavior teaches us more than any speech can. The goal, then, should be to inquire about Romney's past in order to learn about the man and his beliefs. Indeed this is what Paul Weyrich describes in an Op/Ed in the Washington Times convinced him to endorse Romney:

The issue here is simply this: Is Mr. Romney competent to be president of this great country? Indeed he is. Mr. Romney has the experience, vision and values to be president. He has spent most of his career in the private sector turning around companies and the 2002 Winter Olympics. He has actually met payrolls. How many of the other candidates running can match that? And, he successfully ran a very liberal state for four years by governing as a conservative.

And while I very much disagree with the theology of the Mormon Church, its principles have given him the ethical standards needed for an American president. Can anyone point to scandals connected with the governor?

Update 2: I just spoke to the firm in question. They indicated that they do not do push polling. Rather they focus on "message testing". Whatever. They did not dent or confirm that they were the source of the calls in question. They are preparing a statement.

UPDATE: Some reports indicate that McCain is the culprit. McCain disputes this in a statement. Politico points the finger at Rudy but then recinds. News vans are outside the UTAH-based polling firm! What is going on!

Numerous sources are now reporting anti-Mormon push-polls running in New Hampshire and Iowa. Apparently, the call starts out ok and then delves into some nasty rhetoric:

Among the questions was whether a resident knew that Romney was a Mormon, that he received military deferments when he served as a Mormon missionary in France, that his five sons did not serve in the military, that Romney's faith did not accept blacks as bishops into the 1970s and that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible.

...

"The first 15 or 20 questions were general questions about the leading candidates," she said. "Then he started asking me very, very negatively phrased questions about Romney. The first one was would you have a more favorable, less favorable, blah, blah, blah, impression of Mitt Romney if you knew that his five sons had never served in the military and that he considered working on a presidential campaign as public service or some such question."

Hugh Hewitt says: If the campaign that used appeals to religious bigotry is identified, it will be over for that candidate.

This is ugly folks.

Jeff Fuller

We've spoken on numerous occasions about the unique innovations that Romney has used to drive his campaign forward. Tonight, I spoke at the Leadership Institute's Internet Fundraising Forum... when I get back to my email I see that the Romney campaign has redefined fundraising once again.

One of the fundamental principles of fundraising is trust. How do I know (as a contributor) that you're going to use the money I give you in the right way. Well... now you know.

Introducing the Victory Fund. The Romney camp gives you the ability to buy an actual ad in a local early state market. (see graphic below)

Just like you buy a brick to build your local library. Now you can buy a brick in the Romney media machine as he drives toward victory!

Try it out!

Contribute $175 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Charleston, South Carolina.

Contribute $300 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Florence, South Carolina

Contribute $425 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Contribute $800 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Des Moines, Iowa.

Contribute $1,275 to buy a 30-second TV ad in Manchester, New Hampshire

Labels: ads, fundraising, fundraising team mitt, iowa, online fundraising, south carolina, tv

...Marc Ambinder says that Huck takes a swing and whiffs:

To the roar of the crowd, ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee stepped up to the plate yesterday. A fast ball. Swing and a miss. Strike one.
Huckabee was asked to respond to the unflattering video of him "begging," in the words of the Romney campaign, the state legislature to raise taxes in 2003.
On Fox News, Huckabee said that he was following the will of the state Supreme Court, who had ordered the state government to pay more for education.
But the video clip in question showed Huckabee referring to a regular budget plan and had nothing to do with the state supreme court decision.
So -- about half of Huckabee's press coverage was positive -- Huckmentum -- and half of it was negative -- particularly the Fox News-Drudge-conservative blog half.
This wasn't an underhand pitch -- it wasn't a question about his weight loss, his guitar or his sense of humor -- it was about an issue that has the potential to trip him up.
Welcome to the big show.

Labels: mike huckabee

Today, the Thompson campaign comes out swinging. In an email from Comms director Todd Harris, Fred's campaign knocks Romney for his Healthcare plan citing a fine for non-enrollment and the low cost abortion option.

(Note, I believe this is the first official Fred offensive.)

The Romney Camp, prepared for just such an occasion, lets loose an arsenal of serious rebuttals to the charges:

The Thompson campaign tries to link Romney with the $295 charge for non-insurance. Romney vetoed the item but the Democratic legislature put it back in:

"Many of the law's core elements, including the requirement that all people in the state get insurance, were in Romney's original proposal in 2005. The Democratic legislature added many of its own ideas to the final law, including a $295 fee per employee for businesses who do not offer health insurance to their workers. Romney vetoed that provision but was overridden by the legislature." (Perry Bacon Jr., "Romney Plays Down Role In Health Law," The Washington Post, 4/13/07)

"My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Health Care For Everyone?" The Wall Street Journal, 4/11/06)

The other big charge, that Romney happily included a low-cost abortion option in the plan. False. The law of Massachusetts REQUIRES that medical care fund abortions. If you want to blame someone, blame the Supreme Court of Mass.:

According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On "The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right" Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer "Medically Necessary Abortions." (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)

Next onto the plan itself. First, goals are being met across the board:

"The law appears to be working. As of Nov. 1, the date for the most recent statistics, more than 200,000 formerly uninsured people had gotten insurance, roughly half of the state's target." (Glen Johnson, "Rivals Chide Romney On Health Care Plan," The Associated Press, 11/15/07)

Second, the costs are both affordable and consistent with the plan:

"The average uninsured Massachusetts residents could obtain health care coverage for as little as $175 a month under the state's insurance law, Gov. Deval Patrick announced Saturday as he released the results of negotiations with the state's health insurers." (Steve LeBlanc, "Patrick: Residents Can Get Health Insurance For $175 A Month," The Associated Press, 3/3/07)

Note also, that numerous conservatives have praised the plan giving Romney credit for tackling the issue when no one else would:

The Heritage Foundation: "In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there." (Edmund F. Haislmaier, "Mitt's Fit," The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 1/28/07)

"Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)

"Romney's plan also got a thumbs up from an unlikely source yesterday – Barbara Anderson, head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, a group that often looks with deep suspicion on government mandates and programs. … The tax activist said that Romney is proposing universal insurance, not universal health care – which Anderson said society effectively already has, as almost no one is denied care even if they can't pay for it. 'Let's just face that reality and deal with it,' Anderson said, adding that covering more people will reduce costs to taxpayers." (Jay Fitzgerald, "Romney Wins Health-Y Reviews," Boston Herald, 6/23/05)

"Health Care: Massachusetts lawmakers have passed a universal-coverage bill. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney plans to sign it. Has Romney flipped? Not at all. He has won a victory for market-based reform." (Editorial, "Blue-State Surprise," Investor's Business Daily, 4/6/06)

One charge out there is that the plan brought more taxes. False.

"The big question we faced, however, was where the money for the subsidy would come from. We didn't want higher taxes; but we did have about $1 billion already in the system through a long-established uninsured-care fund that partially reimburses hospitals for free care. The fund is raised through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus contributions from the state and federal governments." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Health Care For Everyone?" The Wall Street Journal, 4/11/06)

"The subsidies require no new tax monies. Federal and state funds currently subsidizing hospitals for treating the uninsured will simply be redirected into buying coverage for the low-income uninsured." (Edmund F. Haislmaier, "Massachusetts Health Reform: What The Doctor Ordered," The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 5/6/06)

Labels: healthcare

The two love each other . . . at least in Iowa, and as long as it will hurt their main competitor, Mitt Romney. Many of us who have been following the message boards have been seeing Rudy supporter pump up Huckabee like crazy (even though he's the antithesis to their candidate). Now even the major news sources are seeing that they have a common goal . . . take down Romney:

Meanwhile, he and Giuliani appear to have an unspoken alliance, teaming up against Romney while simultaneously praising each other. Giuliani has not given great emphasis to early test states like Iowa or New Hampshire, even though he’ll begin airing his first television ad this week in New Hampshire. But Huckabee’s success in Iowa could help Giuliani by deflating Romney’s standing.

“I think Mike’s a wonderful guy. I have great regard for him and I have nothing bad to say about Mike Huckabee,” Giuliani said Wednesday in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

Huckabee offered similar sentiments: “There is an authenticity about Rudy that people find refreshing, and I think the same is true in my campaign.”

What to these guys gain?

Huckabee’s thinking: “Praise Rudy and either 1) get a VP offer, 2) steer clear from his oppo research department 3) get to possibly be the social conservative in the Rudy vs last social conservative standing show down”

Rudy’s thinking: “Praise Mike to help him derail Mitt in Iowa . . . then rip the poor sucker to shreds. Hey, I’d much rather run against Huckabee than Mitt!”

Jeff Fuller

This YouTube is bad news for Mike Huckabee

Not only is he a blatant fiscal liberal nanny-stater . . . he's now purposefully distorting his own record. Good Luck Huck!

Jeff Fuller

Douglas Kmiec, who I heard speak this year down at Pepperdine Law School (he's brilliant), says that Romney should give "The Speech" about Mormonism:

It’s too late — the governor and his faith have our attention. For better or worse, Mormonism is on the public table. The “good news” part, for Romney, is that the public interest signifies how important he has become in the presidential sweeps. Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he is now being taken seriously as a prospective nominee. The “bad news” part is that, despite Romney’s desire to think only the best of his fellow citizens — to think that no one would disqualify a person merely because of faith, 218 years after the promise of religious freedom in the First Amendment — such a vision of religious freedom is not yet a reality.

I personally disagree with Kmiec, but he makes a convincing case. I think that there is little to gain from such a speech. It will undoubtedly increase media attention on the divide between Mormons and other Christians. This does Romney little good and likely will do him much harm. I think the campaign has taken the right steps regarding religion, letting endorsements and endorsers make the case to voters. This is one of those areas where I think that actions (particularly those of evnagelical endorsers) speak louder than any words that Romney could utter.

Perhaps I'm wrong? Apparently a smart guy, and Romney supporter, like Kmiec thinks so.

Labels: religion

Today, the Massachusetts Republican Party defended Mitt from some raucous attacks across the radio airwaves by noted anti-Mormon Gregg Jackson. You can download the press release here.:

BOSTON – Last week, local radio talk show host Gregg Jackson penned an op-ed on the "real Mitt Romney." Unfortunately, it failed to note the many conservative accomplishments Mitt Romney had as Governor of Massachusetts. Here is Governor Romney's real record of leadership in Massachusetts:

THE RECORD #1: Gov. Romney Provided Strong, Pro-Life Leadership In Massachusetts And Massachusetts Pro-Life Organizations Agree.

· Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Gov. Mitt Romney, The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)

· Gov. Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)

· Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Gov. Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)

· Gov. Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, The Associated Press, 10/29/02)

· Gov. Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, The Associated Press, 5/27/05)

· Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 1/10/07)

THE RECORD #2: Gov. Romney Championed Traditional Marriage In Massachusetts.

· Gov. Romney Called For A Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman. "I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear." (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, "Statement By Governor Mitt Romney On SJC Decision On Same Sex Marriage," Press Release, 11/18/03)

· When The Legislature Would Not Vote On The Amendment, Gov. Romney Filed Suit To Force A Vote. "Governor Mitt Romney and a group of Massachusetts residents asked the state's highest court yesterday to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, accusing legislative leaders of violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal." (Jonathan Saltzman, The Boston Globe, 11/25/06)

· Gov. Romney Enforced A 1913 Law Preventing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Couples From Marrying In Massachusetts. "Same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts will not be able to marry in Massachusetts when gay marriage becomes legal here next month, Gov. Mitt Romney said." (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 4/25/04)

· Massachusetts Family Institute Kris Mineau: "He's been rock solid on the issue of marriage." (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 1/12/07)

THE RECORD #3: Gov. Romney Put Conservative Principles To Work In Health Care.

· The Club For Growth: "Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance…" "Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code." (The Club For Growth, 8/21/07)

· Health Care Reform "Has Cut The Number Of Uninsured In The State By Nearly A Third." (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 4/11/07)

· The New York Times: "Observers of the state's progress since the health care law was passed in April 2006 say they are impressed that the varied constituencies – including health insurers, businesses, advocates, medical providers and taxpayers – largely continue to support the law and have worked to resolve differences." (Pam Belluck, The New York Times, 7/1/07)

· Uninsured Massachusetts Residents Can Obtain Health Care Insurance For As Little As $175 A Month. Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 3/3/07)

THE RECORD #4: Gov. Romney Appoint Judges Who Would Be Tough On Crime And Would Not Legislate From The Bench.

· For The State's Highest Courts, Governor Romney Said He Would Appoint Judges With "Strict Construction, Judicial Philosophy." (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

· For The State's Lowest Courts, Governor Romney Focused On Legal Experience And Whether The Nominee Would Be Tough On Crime. "He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience. 'People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away,' Romney said." (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

· The Boston Globe: "Some of Romney's nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney's pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court's gay marriage ruling." (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

THE RECORD #5: Gov. Romney Took Action When Problems Were Found With The Big Dig. He Removed The Head Of The Turnpike Authority And His Quick Response Was Widely Praised.

UPDATE: I'm getting lots of emails citing attacks from the Romney campaign and how I'm being hypocritical. Not at all I reply:

I'll be the first to admit that this is one ugly primary with many bloody noses... but I tend to think that the candidate themselves should stay out the mud as much as possible. The reality is that the candidate has a different bar to clear than the campaign itself.

If the "Huckabee campaign" knocks Romney for Mexicans in the front yard that's one thing... to have the candidate stoop to a personal quip is quite another.

Two new national polls have Romney in second place. The more surpising one is ARG (what did you expect, it's ARG), which has Romney within the margin of error (+/- 4%) of the lead:

Giuliani 25 (+1)
Romney 21 (+6)
Thompson 17 (+1)
McCain 12 (-2)
Huckabee 6 (nc)
Paul 4 (+2)
Undecided 12 (-5)

The other one, Cook/RT Strategies, shows Romney tied at second:

Giuliani 29 (+2 vs. last poll Sept 13-16)
Romney 12 (+4)
McCain 12 (-3)
Thompson 12 (-6)
Huckabee 8 (+4)
Paul 6 (+3)
Undecided 16 (-1)

Labels: Polls

Here's Romney's response:

Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on Governor Eliot Spitzer abandoning his plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants:

"It took long enough to convince him and other open border Democrats like Senator Clinton that driver's licenses for illegal immigrants was exactly the wrong approach to enforcement, but at least Governor Spitzer finally listened to the American people and common sense.

"States that provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants act as a magnet for more illegal immigration and frustrate our country's efforts to control the borders. Unlike Senator Clinton, I oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. As president, I will adopt policies that discourage states from turning into sanctuaries."

Labels: Immigration

Kevin Madden, Romney's National Press Secretary released the following e-briefing on the state of the race:

The latest public polls of Iowa and New Hampshire, just released last night, show that these traditional early primary states are shaping the trend dynamics of this race.

And the trend dynamic is competitive in both states.

Some thoughts:

First up, Iowa. This latest public poll indicates Governor Romney’s campaign is right where it needs it to be in Iowa: in a competitive position as the caucus date draws closer.

The campaign has built a strong organization in the Hawkeye State and has communicated his message of a stronger America to Iowa voters. Governor Romney will continue to campaign aggressively in Iowa as we get closer to January and the race tightens.

With less than 50 days until the caucuses, Iowa is coming into focus and the other campaigns are shipping resources into Iowa with ads and staff. Fred Thompson is airing television ads in Iowa, Mike Huckabee is focusing his efforts almost exclusively on the state and Mayor Giuliani is spending more time in the state along with a heavy rotation of surrogate travel and direct mail.

The activity by other campaigns makes sense: Data from the last four competitive Iowa caucuses provides a great deal of evidence as to why these campaigns are putting more resources into Iowa.

In the last four competitive races, the first place finisher averaged 34% of the vote. The lowest winning percentage was 26%. In a competitive multi-candidate caucus, a result in the 30s would be a strong finish.

And, don’t forget: SOMEONE has to finish second in Iowa. And, in the last four competitive races, the second place finisher averaged 26.8% of the vote. Based on the standing of the candidates now, there is room for someone besides Fred Thompson to surge into second place.

Mike Huckabee’s second place finish in Ames is just one indication of the strength of other campaigns in Iowa. The Giuliani campaign confirms this, having recently declared that Mayor Giuliani is "in a race with Huckabee for second place in Iowa."

So, as more money, more staff and more ads are poured into Iowa, the race there will continue to tighten.

In New Hampshire, the new public poll indicates Governor Romney is in a competitive position just under 60 days before the expected primary there. Governor Romney is in a strong position to compete in the state as a result of his hard work at town hall after town hall, regular travel throughout the state and an effective deployment of campaign resources designed to reach voters at the grassroots level.

Other candidates have also spent plenty of time, effort and resources in New Hampshire. Both Mayor Giuliani and John McCain have been all over the airwaves, with McCain even guaranteeing his campaign will win the primary. Mayor Giuliani has also been flooding the post offices with direct mail. And, Fred Thompson has traveled to the Granite State’s capital of Concord with a promise to campaign “early and often” while competing to win the state outright.

So, there is ample evidence that New Hampshire is going to be a tough battle on the road to the nomination. Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are all invested in New Hampshire and committed to winning the state.

I'm sure there are loads of new Romney supporters coming into the fold daily.

This 1994 campaign flyer from when Romney took on Teddy Kennedey is "required reading" for every Romney supporter. They say a picture is worth a thousand words . . . this one's worth quite a few more.

Put it in your "Favorites/Bookmarks" and feel free to link to it at message boards when you run into the frequent "Mitt used to be a liberal" or "Mitt's flip-flopped on every major issue" comments from the opposing forces.

Jeff Fuller

Two new Iowa Polls out today:

CBS/NYT GOP Iowa Caucus Poll, conducted Nov. 2nd-12th, 2007 (no previous polling from this firm to compare to)

Mitt Romney 27%
Mike Huckabee 21%
Rudy Giuliani 15%
Fred Thompson 9%
John McCain 4%
Ron Paul 4%
Tom Tancredo 3%
Huckabee's supporters are airing this one far and wide (can you blame them?) . . . however, this is the highest Huckabee has ever polled in Iowa. He is to Iowa social conservatives what Fred Thompson was to national social conservatives a few months back . . . i.e. "The Flavor of the Month." Huckabee's record is far worse than Fred Thompson's. He's a much better speaker/campaigner than Fred, but his open-borders immigration history and his fiscal liberalism will be thoroughly exposed. It's pretty obvious that he's not quite what his current supporters think he is (sounds like Fred, eh?). Fred had a good line by calling Huckabee a "Pro-life liberal." . . . now for the next poll.

Strategic Vision GOP Iowa Caucus
(Poll from 4 weeks ago in parenthesis for comparison)

Mitt Romney 30% (27%)
Mike Huckabee 19% (12%)
Rudy Giuliani 12% (13%)
Fred Thompson 11% (10%)
John McCain 7% (5%)
Ron Paul 5% (4%)
Tom Tancredo 2% (2%)
Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
Undecided 13% (22%)
Brownback had 4% in last month's poll and was excluded here because he dropped out. Maybe Huck and McCain got little slices of that small piece of the pie. Also, the undecideds are way down. (Huck and Romney must have picked up some of these).

All told and even including these polls, the Real Clear Politics Iowa Average has Mitt with a 13% lead. This will likely shrink . . . but the sky is not falling.

Rudy's continued argument of inevitability has led to increased scrutiny of his plan. Most have found it wanting. The infamous Richelieu, over at the Campaign Standard, finds Rudy's argument to be both deceiving and emitting a repugnant odor:

It is a very smart plan and easily the best expectations control strategy of any of the big campaigns. You gotta hand it to them. Best of all, it is deliciously and surreptitiously ironic: The campaign that loudly denies the bounce effect exists is actually relying on it more than the others. Because if Romney beats Rudy in both Iowa and New Hampshire, lights out for the New Yorker.

Labels: rudy giuliani

The indispensable Jim Geraghty (whose website should defiantly be on your browser tab on election night) had this to say about Romney's numbers:

I realize everything can change fast in Iowa and New Hampshire, and some are rightly skeptical about the value of polling in a caucus state. I also recognize that some pollsters' methods of figuring out who's a "likely voter" are better than others.
But if I were a Romney guy, I'd be pretty pleased about the trends in those two primary states.
...
Even the South Carolina numbers are starting to look better across several polls — he's leading the field at 29 percent, up 6 percentage points on Giuliani in ARG (okay, really, how is Fred Thompson getting 10 percent in South Carolina?), tied with Giuliani and one point behind Thompson in Winthrop/ETV, in a three-way tie for second and five points behind Thompson in InsiderAdvantage, leading the previous ARG by 3, and down 9 percent in Rasmussen, and even that's five percent higher than the previous poll by that organization.

JG attributes the NH success to the serious attention that Romney has given to the state. One Romney campaign operative told me that they are literally stunned at how little the Rudy folks are in NH. They feel its "there for the taking" and they'll take it if no one else will.

We couldn't agree more!

Labels: New Hampshire, Polls

Hillary, social engineer extraordinaire, has decided to delve into the world of automobile engineering and rework America from the inside out. Leave it to Hillary to wear her knowledge of internal Combustion, Multi-Point Fuel Injection and variable spark duration like a velvet glove only to reach deep into heart of the American family and squeeze the life out of it.

From her Website:

What worries me most about this is that Hillary and her liberal pals seem to think liberal ideas act independently of the laws of physics. Despite the fact that fuel efficiency has doubled since 1972 when the clamp down truly initiated, we are not necessarily capable of repeating this feat every 30 years. Much of Fuel efficiency has more to do with car weight, gear ratios and other factors that are not endless sources of innovation. There are advances to be made in such things as spark duration and quality, turbo systems, tire construction, etc. but realistically any major advance in those categories might yield a 1-2 mpg gain at the cost of huge amounts of research.

What we are left with is an order to tall to fill. As automobiles have increased in fuel efficiency they have increased in price as well, and it's no coincidence. Fuel efficiency is born out of engineering, which costs lots of money. Who will pay for it? The consumer.

In 1972, when Ralph Nader got his hands on the 426 Hemi, the average MPG was 13.5 miles. Today the standard is 25 mpg. The average cost of an automobile in 1972 (adjusted for inflation) was $17,075. Today it's over $28,000! If Hillary was to get hr way, by 2055, accounting for inflation we could have car prices averaging well over $100,000 to pay for the increase in technology and research.

But I am thinking that Hillary and the Dems are imagining another way to achieve these goals with less reliance on automobile engineering and more on some serious social engineering.

The Bush administration bucked up the U.S. auto industry Tuesday in the fight over tougher fuel economy standards, telling Congress the president likely would veto an energy bill if it contains the Senate's fuel economy provisions.
The move creates another hurdle for backers of the Senate's plan to set a standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for new cars and trucks, who were unable to force a vote on the proposal in the House after intense lobbying by Detroit automakers and Toyota Motor Corp. n a letter to House and Senate leaders Monday, Allan Hubbard, director of the president's National Economic Council, said the administration would recommend a veto of any energy bill if it combined cars and trucks under the same fuel economy target, as the Senate bill does. Hubbard said President George W. Bush also would receive a recommendation to veto the bill for several other reasons, such as tax increases or mandating renewable energy sources for electric utilities.
...Democrats have said that instead of naming a conference committee to hammer out a compromise between the energy bills that have passed each chamber, they plan to fashion a unified bill on their own. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., support the Senate's fuel economy plan. Link

Put it together folks. Hillary is making near impossible goals for cafe standards. At the same time we have Dems on the hill pushing for a more stringent standard of classification of SUV's and automobiles, that would make SUV's and work trucks in the same class as a Honda Civic. This not only would be a major crushing blow to the American worker who needs a pickup at an affordable cost to do his work, but also to the American mother, who needs a car she can fit her kids and groceries in.

By making the fuel economy standard impossible for mini-van and SUV’s she is ensuring their extinction.

If these stringent CAFE dreams become law, and Hillary sings in sweeping reclassifications of SUV's, the American family will have three choices: Own two cars instead of one (hope you have a spare $200,000), have less kids, or invest in Schwinn.

Auto Engineering meet Social Engineering.

Henry Ford, meet Aldous Huxley.

Had to pull this information from a bunch of sources for the graph. I wouldn’t use this graph as exact numbers for certain years, but rather an indisputable evidence of the relationship between MPG and cost
State of Louisiana

US DOT


	6 Comments: Guess what? Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has these 4 attributes (there are more but I forget): integrity, honor, patriotism, and compassion. I double dog dare you to find another candidate with these attributes. I got $35 in the bank that says you won’t be able to find one. By Anonymous, at November 13, 2007 at 1:36 AM Pretty positive Hillary has none of those. By jason, at November 13, 2007 at 12:21 PM I'm sure that this is a fun forum for a Hillary supporter to hang out. Great job Jason, this is fantastic information, thanks for putting it together. By Stephen Hampton, at November 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM Wow I really hope that person was joking, because any rational person that thinks that Billary has those attributes... is... well, non-existent, because a rational person would never think that! By Steve-O, at November 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM Hillary is funny. We already have a very few car models that can go at 40s and 50s MPG. They are among the hottest vehicles, breaking records year after year (if you don't know them, they are Honda's hybrid Civic and Toyota's hybrid Prino, among a few). The manfacturers for those cars could not keep up with the demands. In fact, some of those cars has a waiting list in some states! The free market is working. It simply requires the time for demand to be met, and even then, not all of the needs can be met. Hillary, I dare you to try fitting my family of 8 in a Civic!!! By Anonymous, at November 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM How can anyone support someone who believes that Joseph Smith dug up some golden tables in the woods in Vermont under the direction of an angel named Moroni, then translated those tables revealing that people from the middle east, the Nephites and Lamanites, came to the Americas and evolved into the Indians, and that "Jesus" appeared to the Nephite leader, Mormon, (how can anyone support someone who believes these things) be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States? If you don't know the Mormon story, you'd better learn it before you make a severely serious mistake by supporting someone who is not a rational thinker and by most definitions should be considered insane or moronic. By Anonymous, at February 2, 2008 at 9:17 PM Post a Comment

The Plank's Ben Wasserstein assesses Giuliani's campaign strategy and arguments of inevitability:

I don't buy the arguments in the Giuliani campaign's recent conference call outlining their candidate's inevitable path to the Republican nomination--and not for the reasons suggested by the Romney campaign. On The Stump, Noam Scheiber argues that if Romney comes out ahead in the early primary states, Mitt could start picking up states in the Midwest and West, even Florida, Rudy's supposed "firewall." But another looming problem, seemingly unaddressed in campaign’s conference call, is the South. If Fred Thompson continues his swan dive, while Rudy keeps playing the supposed-frontrunner-who-gets-beaten, isn’t it possible that a high-spending family man like Romney could make a play in states like Mississippi and Virginia? Someone’s got to get those voters who are fleeing from Fred--why not the guy with the momentum? And with the RNC granting additional delegates to states that have voted red, Dixie has disproportionate clout. Maybe Giuliani can get away with basically ignoring Iowa and conceding first place in New Hampshire, but if Romney makes a strong showing in the South, he won’t get very far at all.

(One more note: On the call, Rudy’s aides reportedly said that they feel good about their current second-place position in New Hampshire. What if McCain keeps climbing?)

I think Wasserstein has the right idea. Giuliani's projections assume a static situation once voting begins. As Justin's historical example of Mo Udall shows, there is little predictability once you get past the early states. Votes will be fluid up until the day to vote based on voter assessment of the race at that time. That's one of the reasons why winning early and often is so important: voters' conceptions of the candidates and the dynamics of the race can change quickly (due in part to free media reports of how the voting went). The candidates gain a reputation and sense of viability based on performance. The race is, thus, more fluid than what can be gained from looking at polling in states that don't vote until February.

In a sense, the Giuliani campaign is trying to (if you'll permit a sports metaphor) flip a switch for the playoffs. He figures that the early states don't really matter and that he can somehow shift gears at a later date. The logic for that kind of argument, especially in electoral politics, is flawed to say the least.

Labels: Giuliani

This post is dedicated to the overly confident advisers of Rudy Giuliani who aren't the least concerned about losing early states:

Morris "Mo" Udall ran for President in the Democratic Primary for the 1976 ticket. He lost to Jimmy Carter. How'd that happen Mo?

“We had thirty primaries, presumably all of them equal. After three of those primaries, I’m convinced, it was all over. [...] I take a poll two weeks before the (Wisconsin) primary and he (Carter) is ahead of me, two to one, and has never been in the state except for a few quick visits. That was purely and solely and only the product of that narrow win in New Hampshire and the startling win in Florida.” (Morris Udall, 1977)

Jonathan Chait, that lover of the religious right, has a new article over at TNR, essentially proclaiming discrimination against Mitt Romney and his Mormonism to be the fault of the right's embrace of religion in politics. He concludes:

Not long ago, John McCain declared that, "since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith." GOP Representatives Virgil Goode and Bill Sali, and conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, have railed against Muslims and Hindus offering their own prayers in Congress. I'm sure most advocates of faith-based politics would abhor this sort of discrimination. But it's really just the natural conclusion from the premise of faith-based politics: If it makes sense to support public figures because they share our religious beliefs, then it also makes sense to oppose public figures who don't.

Of course Chait misses many points, but, in particular, misses the sophistication of religious voters. Beyond the extreme views of Goode and Sali and the like, religious voters have been extremely tolerant of people of other faiths. Why else would religious voters back such a wide ranging field of presidential candidates whose religious backgrounds couldn't be more different? The reason is that religious voters endorse people of religion, not because of simplistic identity politics, but because of what a faith tells the voter about that person. It's a level of sophistication removed from the blunt treatment that Chait gives religious voters.

Chait, unfortunately, looks at religious voters as liberals look at any other demographic: monolithic and simple-minded, voting for someone because of association with that group. Blacks vote for blacks. Hispanics for hispanics. Women for women. This is not, however, how religious voters behave (and I would argue most groups don't behave that way, but I digress). Religious voters take a person's religion as only an indication of that person's character. It tells them something about faith in the face of the unknown, about commitment to shared values, and about service to one's neighbor, among other things. None of these things are religion specific, nor do they facilitate identity politics.

So, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney, the subject of this blog? Chait would have it mean that Romney's nomination exposes the hipocracy of the religious right. I, however, see it differently. This is the first time that voters have been confronted with the implications of Mormonism. Particularly with respect to those attributes that Mormonism imbues in its followers, voters are asking themselves what it is that Mormonism means to Mitt Romney's faith in the face of the unknown, his committment to shared values, and about service to his neighbor, among other things. Normally these questions are easily answered as voters are familiar with evangelical protestants, Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics and what those religions mean to character and values. The unfamiliar Mormonism warrants additional investigation, but voters are drawing conclusions based on the candidate. The results have been somewhat mixed (some voters prefering familiarity), but probably better than most would have suspected. This is to be expected given the sophistication of religious voters. Otherwise, denominations would have quickly lined up behind the candidate of their religion. Nothing so simplistic has occured, further refuting Chait's argument.

Look for the continued sophistication of religious voters, who are able to look beyond the simple label that religion serves for Chait, and will vote for Mitt.

Labels: religion


	1 Comments: While this article first appeared Thursday, October 04, 2007 in Analecta Politica (www.howellunc.townhall.com) I am compelled to run it again. After all Paragraph 3, Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution means nothing to the MSM, or to Chris Matthews, or to the pathetic Keith Olbermann, or to Romney’s rivals. Paragraph 3, Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads, “. . . all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” - emphasis added. The Speech, the Speech! Mr. Romney, My Kingdom for the Speech! Thursday, October 04, 2007 Whew, let’s all just calm down. There is no reason for Romney’s “JFK” religion speech. Not yet. While liberal pundits, the media, and a few Giulianiacs (read Novak) in New York are fixated on Romney’s religion, very few national evangelical leaders oppose Romney on religious grounds. For obvious reasons Catholic and Jewish leaders are rather adamant that there be no religious issue concerning Romney and the 2008 presidential race. The loudest objections come from the left. Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, said, "Romney's religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters - and rightly so." His justification comes from a rather strained reasoning that objecting to one’s “religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage . . .” What? Late last year Romney met with the prominent evangelical leaders. Oh, to have been a fly on that wall! From the few remarks made by some of the attendees, that meeting must have gone quite well. Says Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, "Evangelicals know that they're not electing a theologian in chief, but a commander in chief. If they agree with Romney on social issues, his Mormonism won't be a hindrance . . ." And Jerry Falwell, who has often spoken in unflattering terms about Mormons said, "There's no question that there are strong feelings about Mormonism. But we're not electing a Sunday school teacher; we're electing a president. I do not believe his church affiliation will hinder his being a viable candidate among evangelicals." So just who are these 24 percent of Americans (not 29 percent as reported by Novak.) who would not vote for a Mormon? see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/site/newsweek/ Well, certainly many are liberal and/or secular. In the same poll 14 percent said they would not vote for a woman, 64 percent said no to an Atheist. Even more telling is what Novak did not reveal. In the same poll 68 percent of Americans said they had a favorable opinion of Mitt Romney while only 13 percent did not. Gee, I wonder what Hillary’s numbers would be. So everybody, just take a deep breath. After Mitt has secured the nomination there will be plenty of time for The Speech. By Ken Howell, at November 13, 2007 at 10:01 AM Post a Comment

Here's a couple of new polls

First, there's two new polls from New Hampshire. Marist shows Romney extending his lead from their last poll in October. Giuliani gains, McCain is down, Paul is up, and Thompson is in freefall:

Republicans (w/leaners)
Romney 34 (+7 vs. last poll in Oct)
Giuliani 23 (+2)
McCain 13 (-4)
Paul 7 (+5)
Huckabee 7 (-1)
Thompson 5 (-5)
Undecided 12 (-3)

The Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire poll shows a similar picture:

Romney 32 (no trend)
Giuliani 20
McCain 17
Paul 7
Huckabee 5
Thompson 3
Undecided 16

Overall, RCP shows Romney with an aggregate lead of 11 points.

Second, in Florida, the St. Petersburg Times shows Romney's continued improvement there over the last few weeks:

Giuliani 36
Romney 19
McCain 12
Huckabee 9
Thompson 8

Labels: Florida, New Hampshire, Polls

Mayor Giuliani's "momentum-proof" national polling lead, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny all walk into a bar…

You're right. None of them exist.

Why the "frontrunner" label and fifty cents won't even get you a cup of coffee nowadays:

Mayor Giuliani continues to hang his hat on national polls that show him garnering around 30 percent support, yet fully 100 percent of the electorate knows who he is. That is a very big gulf to have between the number of voters that know him and the number that actually support him.

National poll samples are largely a reflection of name awareness at this point in the campaign. The polls taken of voters in the early primary states reflect the opinions of voters who are the most engaged and most informed about the candidates. For Mayor Giuliani to have 100 percent of Iowa voters know who he is, yet only around 11 percent of those voters support him...that's a major problem for his candidacy.

The latest polls out in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina show that Governor Romney is perfectly positioned to be competitive in the early election contests.

The latest New Hampshire poll numbers from the University of New Hampshire and Marist College indicate that Governor Romney's frequent travel to the Granite State—coupled with a message focused on his strong record of fiscal responsibility—has earned the campaign a competitive position with voters there. Here's how the race has shaped up:

A contrast has emerged between Governor Romney and the other candidates in the field: Governor Romney's message of lower taxes, his promise to cut wasteful spending and his support for the line-item veto have helped voters identify with him, as opposed to other candidates who have proposed tax hikes, voted against tax relief and brought lawsuits against the line-item veto in order to protect pork barrel spending and earmarks.
Governor Romney has also continued to advocate his opposition to sanctuary cities policies that Mayor Giuliani embraced in New York City.

The competitive position in the New Hampshire surveys also comes at a time when other campaigns are now spending resources in the state with radio and TV advertising, in addition to direct mail efforts. Governor Romney still maintains his position even though Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are competing on the airwaves with their own radio and television advertising campaigns.

Meanwhile, in the South…

Recent Florida and South Carolina polls also show that Governor Romney's attention to those states has helped a positive trend line emerge, putting the campaign in a more competitive position in states that are next up on the calendar after the traditional early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

52 Days to Iowa…But Who's Counting?

There is very little doubt that the contests in these early primary states will continue to tighten as we draw closer to the caucuses and primaries. With Governor Romney's current position, it is inevitable that rival campaigns will train their crosshairs on the governor in an attempt to tear down his current competitive position in the early states. In other words: Here come the attacks in the form of paid advertising.

But, our goal of attaining a competitive position in the early primary states is currently secure. The next few months will be dedicated to staying in a competitive position in the early primary states, introducing Governor Romney and his platform of ideas to more and more Republican voters and building out our national campaign infrastructure as we work towards securing the Republican nomination

In his new book, Super Crunchers, Ian Ayers documents the growing use of serious data analysis to predict everything from success at home plate to prices for airline tickets.

In one example, Ayers discusses Orley Ashenfelter, Princeton professor and wine expert, who devised a model in the 1980s to predict great Bordeaux wines based on rainfall and temperature. In short, Ashenfelter claimed that he could predict the success of a wine with a mathematical formula.

Wine aficionados across the spectrum mocked his approach preferring instead the age-old practice of serious subjective wine expertise to establish the quality of a vintage. Today, Ashenfelter's predictions are surprisingly accurate and are routinely used in econometrics courses across the country as an example of successful number crunching.

Recent discussions in the political arena have brought up the question of activism vs. punditry. In other words, does the methodical (even mathematical) approach to political success trump the articulation of logical and convincing ideas? To wit: can you win an election with anything but cold hard strategic political maneuvering?

"Myclob", who posts here on MMM and on the Elect Romney Blog, recently crafted an entry entitled: "Is Patrick Ruffini Jaded?" He bases his inquiry on a sentence from Patrick's most recent Townhall article: "Appeals to reason increasingly fall on deaf ears. That sounds like a stinging indictment, but it’s not. It’s simple reality. And smart politicians need to adapt to it."

Myclob questions aloud:

Patrick, if we abandon our ideas and our reason, we are not worthy of our heroes, we exchange our role in the “war for truth”, for a “lead role in a cage”. If we abandon logic for a popularity contest, what kind of world will we live in? A cage.

Reason is the only way that Republicans can win the presidency.

Its a nice maxim. Its a pretty thought. But it doesn't win elections.

Myclob calls on Lincoln as evidence of a politician winning by articulation of ideas and reason. Evidently, he hasn't read Goodwin's excellent book Team of Rivals, which walks through the spectacular political mastery of our 16th President to gain his party's nomination and win the Presidency. Every President since then has forged the same path, examining the winds of the day and charting a course accordingly. Today, volumes of data are available to modern candidates. Those who ignore these efforts in favor of "ideas" alone will fail (notice I said alone).

Do ideas and reason help? Yes. But Patrick is correct: they don't win elections.

Voters don't elect ideas, they elect people. This is why 30%+ of the electorate say they have problems voting for a Mormon but a good portion of these folks will vote for Mitt Romney anyway. Why? Because Mitt Romney isn't just a Mormon, he's Mitt Romney.

We've noted before the recent political studies showing that for every margin percentage point, the winner of the New Hampshire primary is 8% more likely to win the nomination. This is the cold, methodical and mathematical calculation that Romney has made to win the nomination. Notice, Romney also wins on ideas, but they don't count for anything if he can't get the votes in.

When Romney won CPAC he was accused of buying votes. I was there on the ground at the time and I can tell you that the people who were there for Mitt were extremely enthusiastic for Romney's campaign, regardless of who paid for their ticket.

When Romney won the Iowa Ames Straw Poll people accused him of having a political machine to get out the votes. Guilty as charged in my book.

When Romney won the Values Voters poll in October by less than 40 votes he also won the press that comes with it (much to Huckabee's chagrin).

What gave Mitt the edge in these cases? Ideas? Perhaps. Reason? Sure.

What pushed him over the edge to actually win these events? Thousands of phone calls, dedicated paid staff, enthusiastic volunteers, calculated risk, detailed strategy, finely-crafted emails, press targeting, strong fundraising prowess, innovation, precinct walking, and competitive positioning. Activism won him this effort. Not Punditry

When we face Hillary Clinton in the general election... "ideas" and "reason" become rallying points for the divided forces of the electorate but the cold decisive execution on a politically proven model will win the day.

"The first responsibility of a statesman is to get elected."

Labels: activism, election, punditry


	2 Comments: I am conviced that ultimately, America will do the most reasonable thing and elect the best candidate, Mitt Romney. In the meantime, I am going to work like crazy to make sure they do. By Anonymous, at November 12, 2007 at 12:48 PM I haven't read "Team of Rivals" but I'm not advocating that we "abandon activism" just that issues are far, from "secondary"... If you are a paid political consultant, like I think Patrick is, you might not care at the end of the day what issues are advanced, just that someone pays you for helping them "win (as Justin's pin says)... But issues are the ONLY thing that motivates people to do "activism". Patrick also that we should go negative. I think this is jaded, as stated previously in my blog, and simplistic. Patrick saying that we should go negative is simplistic, because there is a difference between pointing out differences, which Romney will do, and "going negative". If Romney "goes negative", I will not support him, even if it floats Patrick's boat. It is also simplistic because it doesn't work, like Patrick said it does. Just look at Howard Dean and Dick Gebheart the former front runners, who went negative, and left an opening for John Kerry and Edwards. Issues are not secondary. Issues are what fuels activism, or else politics is just the protestants voting for the protestants, Catholics voting for the Catholics, poor people voting for the poor politician. Politics is an empty pointless depressing pony show where everyone votes for the person who is most like themselves if issues are secondary. By Myclob, at November 12, 2007 at 2:05 PM Post a Comment

Apparently, some Romney advisors think that Romney really shouldn't give a speech about his faith. Romney was quoted today as saying:

"Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no - it's not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone."

I may agree with Romney's advisors on this one. Hey, as long as you are polling like this, it would seem to be an unnecessary risk. When what you are doing is working, stick with it.


	2 Comments: I am Mormon, but I agree. Let's face it, most people wouldn't understand certain aspects of our faith in a sound byte. Seriously, have you ever had to try to explain Kolob to an anti-mormon? Or how the new Jerusalem will be in Missouri? They just don't get it because they are blinded by Satan. Not to mention all the irreverent comments there would be about garments. By Anonymous, at November 12, 2007 at 8:32 AM One of the problems with giving a "Mormon Speech" now is that it makes it almost impossible to give the same speech later on if necessary when the entire electorate is paying attention instead of just Primary voters. This sort of speech is much more important to the entire American electorate than just the Republican base. The ugly little head of bigotry pops up everywhere whether it is among Republicans, Democrats, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, evangelicals, Catholics, or even Jews and Mormons for that matter. I don't know for sure, but from what I understand Kennedy gave just one "Catholic Speech" and that was during the General Election campaign and not during the Democratic Primaries. I think that the "Mormon Speech" might be necessary or crucial at some point, but it's best if delivered when Romney has the full resources of the Republican Party at his back defending him and ready to pounce on anybody who attacks Romney for his beliefs as irrational religious bigots. Once the Republican National Committee can be fully committed to Mitt, he will have added resources that could easily make him look like a victim if any anti-Mormon attacks become widespread in the media or by Democrats. By Anonymous, at November 12, 2007 at 12:59 PM Post a Comment

This report came into us today:

Mitt Romney has had a great week in California.

First, on Wednesday night, the Young Republican Federation of California's Board of Directors voted to endorse the Romney campaign - becoming the first grassroots group in the state to endorse Governor Romney.

To add to that, just minutes ago, the California Republican Assembly joined the YRFC by overwhelmingly voting to endorse the Romney campaign.

By a vote of 148 - 73, CRA took a big step in showing clearly that the conservative base of the Republican Party is coalescing around Governor Romney.

Primary elections are traditionally dominated by the bases of each Party - and within California, there aren't more representitive voices of the conservative base than YRFC and CRA.

Like I said, it was a big week in CA for Mitt Romney.


	7 Comments: Mitt doesn't have a chance at all to win the presidency. If you want to check out a real candidate with real values, check out Hillary Clinton. You won't be disappointed. By Anonymous, at November 11, 2007 at 9:38 PM I love satire! Hillary Clinton with real values...that's classic! By Anonymous, at November 12, 2007 at 12:40 AM Hillary online: Hillary with real values, you said? Wow that's the understatement of the century. Apparently you don't know enough about Hillary. Just wait until next month, and on towards the general elections; it gets worse for her. Have you learned about Travelgate, Whitewater, the White House "heist"?, the Hsu story, and all the questionable fundraising, and on, and on and on?...you must be out of your mind to make the claim about Hillary's vlaues, to say the very least. By Anonymous, at November 12, 2007 at 12:49 AM Clintons the worst of the pack Convictions change with each attack With a tear and a tissue on both sides of each issue She must think we're ALL smoking crack! By ebadger, at November 12, 2007 at 1:58 AM Where the heck did that first commentor come from. He came and went like a fart in the wind. Hey Hillary lackey, your time would be better put to use helping your boss really answer some questions. Oh wait, does she even know how. She couldn't hold a flame to Gov. Romney. By Anonymous, at November 12, 2007 at 6:26 AM VFHO, I think you may have gotten lost on the way to the Huffington Post ;-) . By IZ, at November 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM No need for attack. Someone came here to spam...ugh I mean share their point of view (over and over again, that is what spamming is). It is great to know that there are still people out there who are not flip-floppers no matter what their candidate says or does. By Anonymous, at November 12, 2007 at 11:43 AM Post a Comment

Romney Responds to the Anti-Mormon Iowa/NH Calls

Western Wats speaks some more...

Anti-Mormon-Gate

Giuliani Appoints Liberal Judges

Iowa Still Blooming for Romney

Exclusive interview with Western Wats Employee

The lingering question

Whodunnit?

Anti-Mormon/Anti-Romney Push Poll Call Happening in Iowa

Where does my donation go?

Continuing with the baseball metaphor...

Fred comes out swinging, Romney swings back

Rudy Hearts Huckabee . . . and vice versa

Huck's Fibbin

Kmiec on "The Speech"

Gov. Romney On The Glenn Beck Show

Mass. GOP Comes to Mitt's Defense

Romney Responds to Huckabee's Personal Attack

National Polls moving?

Spitzer's plan scrapped

Kevin Madden, on the record, on the state of the race

The Flyer Every Romney Supporter Should See

Two New Iowa Polls: Romney Leads Solidly, but Huckabee is new FOTM (Flavor of the Month)

More on Rudy's strategy

Geraghty: Romney Fans Should Be "Pretty Pleased"

Gov. Romney On Immigration

HIllary Clinton: Auto Engineer in Chief

Pretty Funny

Rudy's inevitability

Ask "Mo" Anything

Religion in politics

New Polls

Huckabee Begs For New Taxes

"Polls, momentum and the Easter Bunny"

Punditry vs. Activism

The "Religion" Speech

Big Week in California for Romney

NH poll details

Romney Tribute to Veterans Day