I think such declarations are premature. I believe that Romney wanted to win Nevada big (he did). Generally wanted McCain to win S.C. (he did). And wanted to finish strong in S.C. (I think he needed 3-5% more to say this happened).
All in all however I think today was a good day for Romney. McCain’s win means that McCain will fight with Giuliani in Florida and I think this will be good for Romney. Huck’s loss SHOULD mean that Huck is no longer considered a real contender (which he probably should not have been considered after NH or MI anyway), but I am afraid it will not. Fred is done, and I think he will be out before Florida.
I however think it is premature to declare this a 2 man race. .
First, Giuliani with his anemic support and 1? delegate will be competitive in Florida. If he wins Florida, he will declare (and the media will support) the idea that he is ready for a commanding performance on super Tueday. Second, McCain is of course not out. And Third, Huckabee, I believe, is content to continue to tear apart the Republican Party. I fear he will continue to run. I fear he will continue to get support from folks who care little about politics and solely about his religion. With this support he will attempt to “purchase” something from himself (or whatever values he espouses) which I hope is not a VP slot (actually I hope in Nov. Romney offers him a position as a congressional pastor or something where he can use his faith appropriately).
Florida I think will be an important test for Romney. It is certainly an important test from Giuliani. And, McCain is not the anointed one precisely because so much of the Republican Party considers him fatally flawed. Florida will be one more building block for his message, “Elect me with my flaws because I am good enough and can beat Hillary (or Barack).
My political fantasies involve a number of things. 1. Fred leaves without endorsing McCain or Giuliani. Better yet he endorses Mitt. And/or the majority of Thompson supporter fall in line with Romney after Thompson leaves. 2. Huckabee leaves or upwards of 80% of evangelicals recognize he is not a good choice and he ceases to be viable. Better yet, his departure results in a pre-Florida (or pre-Super Tuesday) endorsement from James Dobson for Romney. Remember Dobson declared all front runners (at the time Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson) unacceptable to him. Without Huck it would seem he and other religions conservative could through their support behind Romney (even as Romney emphasizes his economic strength and radical competence). 3. Giuliani, no longer by himself in Florida, comes in a distant third to Romney and McCain and decides to leave before Super Tuesday or is clearly not viable in any Super Tuesday primaries. I think all of the above three things are reasonably possible.
Political negative scenarios: 1. Huck continues to Muck up this process by taking social conservatives away from real conservative candidates (like Romney after Thomson is gone). He does this so he can use whatever influence he has at the convention. Such a use will likely not go for Romney. 2. Thompson provides considerable support to McCain or Giuliani. 3. The media’s past hostility to Romney continues and this has an increasingly negative effect upon his campaign. I really think that Rush and Will and Novak and … will continue to rally around Romney (although Giuliani is not as unacceptable to them as McCain or Huck). But, the mainstream media has painted Romney negatively for those who pay only a little attention and I fear this could continue.
Romney was in Florida tonight. To me this indicates it is not time to celebrate the “3 gold medals” with the Nevada faithful, but rather time to work to make Nevada’s vote of confidence matter. I intend to make calls (through Call@Home) to Florida some time in the future if it all possible. I see no cruise control button on the Mitt Mobile at this point in time.
Huck's dangerous now becaue he's playing for the VP spot. That means he won't take McCain on directly.He'll continue to take pot shots at Romney to help McCain.Ed Rollins is blaming Thompson for his loss in SC. I agree. Thompson was McCain's hachet man and McCain's fingerprints wern't on it. When is illegal immigration going to have some teeth in this race. It seems a lot of people are voting for Mccain on electibility alone and that's a suicidal path for the GOP. We need clear differences between the Dems and McCain doesn't cut it there.My hope is Huck and Thompson supporters throw in with Romney and Guliani steals security votes from McCain.At the end of the day wouldn't mind seeing a Romney/ Guliani ticket which would be socially moderate and Rudi would give Romney security gravitas.
Dems Exit polling shows that 3% of those participating in the Democratic were Mormons.
I'm guessing NONE of them voted for Romney (sarcasm intended).
With voting totals around 115,000 in the Dem race (I saw that number on Fox News) that would come out to approximately 3500 LDS voters NOT voting for ROmney.
So, 4000 LDS in Nevada voted "Not for Romney" and 10,750 voted for Romney. That breaks down to 73% LDS for Romney and 27% LDS that were not for Romney. Not quite the absolutely robotic block-voting groups that many media outlets are trying to play up.
Interesting, eh?
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I think the lesson is, you can't have negative things coming out of your campaign about "Mormons", and expect to win their vote. Thompson has Cyndi Mostler, Huckabee has his website, and McCain has his mother’s comment on the news. Where else were they supposed to turn?
Chris Matthews is the worst violator. His snide remarks assume 100% LDS turnout and 100% LDS blind allegiance. He is a smart enough man to know the truth therefore I can only conclude he is lying to advance his party agenda. Yes, Chris Matthews is a Democrat. And Christ Matthews is a liar. And these are strong words where I come from. Apparently being a liar in the media is no big deal.
CNN Exit Polls suggest McCain will take 1st, Huck 2nd, and Mitt finishing with 3rd. Fred's close behind, however, in a split conservative race.
Go here to watch the delegate and overall numbers for SC.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Update: With 1% reporting (long way to go, obviously), McCain is way out in front and Mitt has a secure 3rd-place position (leads by 6%--18% to 12% ) over Fred.
What does this do to guaranteed-a-win Huckabee and 4th-place Fred?
Update II: With 39% reporting, Mitt is trailing Fred by 1400 votes. Our man may get 4th. It'll be close.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Wow,bad news,it looks like just about all the demos favor Mccain. I think the media is holding back declaring the win for McCain to keep people tuned in.So far it looks like Romney has enough distance from Thompson to come in 3rd anyway.
I can already predict tomorrow. Romney will go on Fox news Sunday and announce a $250 billion stimulus plan.Part of it will be to allow folks over 65 working and not paying SS taxes. This will be spun as pandering to the old folks in Fla.
I've never been to South Carolina. But as of today they don't strike me as thinking people. Must be a dynamic there I'm not hip to. Even poor Giuliani getting spanked by Ron Paul.
Somebody on another website said that Romney will have to make up a new kind of medal to describe placing 4th in the Confederacy. He suggested that Romney call it the Copper Medal. I would actually be pretty embarrassed if I were running for President and won in the Confederacy. Go Lincoln! Go Union!
Dear Dan and Darlene, Please email me at jmccann@nova.edu and I will add you as contributors to http://floridaformitt.blogspot.com. This invite goes to anybody else who wants to make a difference!
Some anecdotes about the Huckster in reference to Fred's campaign at the Campaign Spot:
Talked to my Dad in Greenville this morning. He said that if local talk radio is any measure of voter sentiment, Fred is “surging.” There is great hostility on the Greenville/Spartanburg airwaves to both McCain and Huckabee. A number of talk radio callers are unhappy with Huckabee’s fried squirrel shtick, many of them complaining that it “makes us look like country bumpkins.”
Huckabee also may have committed a gaffe in a recent appearance at Clemson University. My Dad said it’s been reported that during his remarks there, Huckabee brought up the topic of the Confederate flag flying over the State House, which caused so much heartburn during the 2000 Campaign. Huckabee said something to the effect that, “if people came into our state and told us what to do with the flag, we’d tell ’em where to stick that poll.” If that’s accurate, he just succeeded in bringing up an issue most South Carolinians simply want to leave behind. My Dad added that some talk radio callers wanted to know why a Baptist minister was making such a crude suggestion.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Word from the Corner that Mitt already started using the NV win in GOTV efforts in SC by mid-afternoon. Perhaps it will help a little. Great impressive victory.
I do agree however, with Matt Lewis (i think) Mitt should have stayed in NV and had proper victory party and speech tonight just win the SC coverage begins. Then go to Fl.
Huck has shot himself in the foot all along by overplaying different cards. He had a natural southern advantage but blown it with the kook factor.Bringing the flag up brings out a huge cringe factor. Romney's showing there is pretty sad. Obviously he insulted the voters there by going to Nevada.
Now that's a decisive win. Conservativism is making a comeback. Romney leads the medal count. I will welcome all the Fred supporters with open arms after tonight in SC.
Agreed...Romney/Thompson 2008...Thompson's a good conservative and would make a great VP candidate for Mitt (and also a great tie-breaking vote in the Senate).
The media is so angry about Mitt's easy win in Nevada they can't even stay focused on SC.I imagine they are hoping for a McCain win there to keep their national hero narrative going but it sure has the feeling of a hollow victory without Mitt competing there.If nothing else I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Huck wins SC.That will knock McCain down in Fla. which is in a 4 way tie already. I'm hoping Mitt does well in the panhandle there,especially if Thompson drops out.
Today, the people of Nevada voted for change in Washington. For far too long, our leaders have promised to take the action necessary to build a stronger America, and still the people of Nevada and all across this country are waiting. Whether it is reforming health care, making America energy independent or securing the border, the American people have been promised much and are now ready for change.
The need for change is even more apparent today as our economy faces challenges both here at home and abroad. For decades, we have talked about the long-term economic challenges confronting our country but still the tax burden is too high, business is stifled by regulations and more money goes to defending against junk lawsuits than promoting research and innovation. Now, Washington must act and take the steps necessary to strengthen our economy. With a career spent turning around businesses, creating jobs and imposing fiscal discipline, I am ready to get my hands on Washington and turn it inside out.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
The margin of victory is outrageous lol. Yeah Mitt!!...Chuck Todd started the media narrative saying it looked like a bunch of rich Mormons that gave Mitt the victory lol.He also hinted that it would be a big deal if McCain beat Paul there.Mitt also got a lot of evangelical vote there,so much for their Mormon bias.
Gosh, he was good. I just don't get the people, Dennis Prager, for example (who, by the way, I love), who doesnt think Mitt connects well with people. He was warm, funny, transparent. Go Mitt!
I think that's great and all, and for most candidates it wouldn't be a big deal, but the Huckster has set himself up for these things to be a focal point since he decided to run AS A BAPTIST MINISTER instead of as a candidate who just happens to be a Baptist minister.
Andru Blonquist, who runs SCforRomney.com, gives us the latest in South Carolina:
Here's what I see and hear from Greenville, SC.
First of all the "reality check" is that Romney is playing for third place, but anything could happen since some polling shows a 6% spread with up to 40% who say they could change their mind. Also, he got a good bump out of Michigan that might just sink Fred's campaign altogether if he beats Fred by more than a few percent (polling shows them neck and neck for third).
A majority of those not listing Mitt as their first choice, still have a positive perception of him, and could actually vote for him--especially if they saw him on Leno. In my opinion, going on Leno tonight was genius! Much more effective than if he had stayed in SC through Election Day.
As Jeff [Fuller of Iowans for Romney] pointed out earlier, most people here realize that the rules have changed this year and South Carolina probably won't pick the nominee as it has in the past. The most passionate folks here are the Fred Heads who are dying to keep him in the race. Very little passion towards Huckabee since the well-informed tend to be more passionate and the well-informed here know he's a fraud. Unfortunately, there's still a chance that the less-informed will still vote for him.
I helped set up for a Georgia group last night so the room would be ready for them and then I actually got a call from them today asking if I was still committed. They were planning on 2000 calls from the Greenville headquarters today--not a large number, but many have already been made this week. Most of the calls over the past week have been just to Romney supporters, or those leaning towards him to urge them to get-out and vote.
We got our first snow here on Thursday--canceling some of the campaign schedule and that was disappointing, but that might work to our favor on Saturday when the second snow of the season is expected.
In my opinion, low turnout favors Romney because his support numbers have been consistent over the past 2 - 3 months here while McCain and Huckabee have had a much more fickle support base and many of them are casual or less-passionate voters.
The fact of the matter here is that Romney's polling in SC shows similar numbers to what he had just prior to New Hampshire, but his subtle pulling out near the end has greatly reduced expectations and no one is even suggesting that he needs a win here. If he finishes second, it will be a victory for him.
Tagg Romney and Senator Jim DeMint also did a live studio interview on local talk radio today and came across very well. There was no sense of urgency or attacking other candidates, they simply presented a message about Governor Romney's qualifications and character and they made a pitch specifically to the undecided voter out there. It showed a lot of class and a sense of composure about where the campaign stands saying, "We realize that many of you are passionate about your candidate, but if you haven't made up your mind yet, we'd urge you to consider Governor Romney because he brings more to the table than anyone else when it comes to the most pressing issues facing us today--the economy".
Because South Carolina is a split winner-take-all state (meaning district delegates are WTA and then the at-large delegates are state-wide WTA), you could easily see Romney leaving here with no delegates, but he may pick up one or two here in the upstate.
One final note, the polls are open here until 7PM local time which is 4PM Nevada time and it sounds like we could have Nevada results as early as 1 or 2 PM local. Who knows, but maybe news of that here will have an added impact!
Look, I don't want to make too big a deal about this, but I thought it should be addressed. Mike Huckabee, as many of you know, described the Constitution as a "living" Constitution.
The reason I don't want to make a big deal out of this is that technically, Huckabee is right; the Constitution "lives" in the sense that there is a process by which we can change it. It can be revised through the amendment process.
However, and this is important, Huckabee's careless choice of words should be sending red flags up everywhere. One of the central fights in Constitutional jurisprudence has been over the idea of a "living" Constitution - i.e. one that can be changed through judicial activism rather than the amendment process. The notion of a living Constitution has given birth to cases such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. Conservatives have slowly turned the tide against the idea that the Constitution's meaning is generationally pliable through nominating "strict constructionist" or "originalist" judges. Of course all these words - "living Constitution", "strict constructionist", and "originalist" - are buzz words or code for a whole jurisprudential divide. Choosing to use one word or another generally signals one's stance on a whole host of issues including abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc.
While Huckabee's intent was not to indicate approval of abortion, gay marriage, or affirmative action (quite the contrary - he was talking about amending the Constitution to ban abortion and gay marriage), his inartful choice of words signals something else: inexperience. Only someone inexperienced with the intellectual movements among the judiciary and the social issues that follow them (which hardly seems possible these days after the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito) would describe his ideas in that way. These are basic issues and ideas for social conservatives and Huckabee flunked in getting key terminology right. Indeed, this once again exposes an intellectual gap that has haunted Huckabee in his quest for the Republican nomination. Huckabee has shown a profound lack of understanding when dealing with foreign affairs, economics, and now, what is supposedly his strength, social issues. The once faint and now persistent feeling that Huckabee is in over his head just keeps getting stronger as the campaign continues.
Yeah. He probably migrated the phrase 'living bible' over to the constitution. Especially in the context where he said it. It makes sense to that one audience, and it reveals a shallow preparation on the part of Huckster.
Huck is such a joke it's beyond belief.It's a shame that there are so many identity politic voters choosing him on religion alone.A constitutional fight over abortion would energize the libs when they are now demoralized because the war is going better and thier candidates are dividing them over racial/sexist lines. I wish Mitt would start running ads quoting Rush that McCain and Huck would be the end of our party as we know it.There are a lot of smitten Mitten women around who love Mitt's family and his relationship with his wife.You don't have any better value system than that.Huck's history of cronyism and gift grubbing in Ark. should be enough on it's own to do him in.
Just want to quickly back up Kyle and comment to any readers unfamiliar with constitutional law that Kyle is absolutely right.
Every first year law student in this country learns the difference between originalist and "living, breathing" constitutional viewpoints as part of his/her basic legal education. We're talking Constitutional Law 101 here, folks.
Now, I suppose we can't expect Huckabee to possess the knowledge of an attorney, but for a Presidential candidate, one auditioning for the chief seat of one of the three branches of government set forth under our Constitution, he shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the principled positions underlying the fight to preserve the Constitution the founders gave us.
Makes you shudder to wonder just what kind of thought process Huckabee would employ when considering potential Supreme Court nominees . . .
As a Latter-day Saint, I wonder about the possible underlying meaning of his words in this video regarding scriptures: "The scriptures, however, were not written so that we would change them, to adapt them to ever changing cultural norms." Is he making a coded criticism of "Joseph Smith's 'New Translation' of the Bible"? Or is making an indirect criticism of all the differing translations of the Bible found in Christian bookstores? I wonder which of the many translations of the Bible he reads? Whatever the meaning of his words, this confusion of mine supports your point that Huckabee is careless in his choice of words.
I went to a Mitt Meeting this morning here in Elko, and it was very positive! It was only announced late yesterday that he was coming, but there were at least 200 people in attendance (along with nasty Glen Johnson and his laptop - I had to restrain myself). Mitt opened by talking about local "icons" dear to the residents here - the gold mines, and the Basque restaurants. He gave kind of a short version of his stump speech. While he worked through the crowd shaking hands, a former volunteer from the SLC Olympics came forward with her Olympic jacket. Mitt jumped back on stage, got the mic working again, and talked about the volunteers at the Olympics, then signed the jacket. Despite his aide following close behind him, reminding him of their tight schedule (next stop, Reno), Mitt was kind and generous enough to shake hands, sign papers, and take pictures with everyone who wanted to (including my 5 year old daughter). I have attended 2 of these meetings, and both times I was really impressed with Mitt's generosity in taking the time to talk to people and shake hands. It really makes a difference.
The write-up in the afternoon paper was excellent here. There were actually 2 articles on Mitt's visit, plus the Elko Free Press' endorsement of Mitt, and Ann Coulter's excellent editorial supporting Mitt, "The Elephant in the Room."
The GOP rep at the meeting explained the Caucus procedure to us, assured us it wouldn't take longer than an hour, and that voting was through secret ballot, not through a raise of hands (as is the Dems' process). I think it reinforced most people's commitment to caucus tomorrow, and allayed some fears that the process would drag on all morning. He said we could stick around after the voting to hear the results, and that results for all of Nevada should be in by 1:00pm PST.
Now, I respect the press in terms of being professional and recognizing they do an important and sometimes difficult job. That said, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see our opinion about 'ol Glen Johnson expressed to him regularly at events like this. At least he'll know where we stand. Nothing nasty, just firm opinions about his lack of professionalism.
Glen Johnson is the shockingly biased and dishonest AP reporter who covers the Romney campaign. Yesterday we drew attention to Johnson's exchange with Mitt Romney in South Carolina on the status of lobbyists in the Romney campaign. Romeny said that lobbyists aren't running his campaign; Johnson argued that they are. Following the exchange, as Paul noted, a woman in attendance called out Johnson for being "rude and ugly." Johnson has now filed a story in which he continues his argument with Romney.
Please Mitt, don't seek an endorsement from Arnold. We want a real Republican in the White House. Arnold has essentially betrayed the Republicans of California. Run without his endorsement, let Rudy have it.
Bidding to seize control of the accelerating debate over economic stimulus, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is proposing a package with something for everyone. In an interview this afternoon, Mr. Romney said he will propose:
—To permanently cut in the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent.
—To make that cut immediately retroactive to 2007 tax liabilities.
Read on for more details.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I was hoping to see Mitt embrace middle class tax cuts and making them retro is even more encouraging. The dems answer of expending unemployment.heating subsidies is crazy along with bailing states out of their over spending woes.There has to come a point where we can no longer support illegal aliens so they can vote for dems. Put the pressure on california to do something about this. They want to close parks out there which is idiotic and the wrong way to go. Why punish good taxpayers citizens to keep paying illegal women to drop anchor babies and a path to permanent residency. Send them back to Mexico.If they are born US citizens, deport the parents and send the support check back the Mexico after they leave.
The reason conservatives have lost ground the past 10 years or so is they have abandoned common sense and tried to fight the dems on their issues. The dems will always win the emotional issues. You have to penetrate the commone sense and logic side of people's brain to win. I haven't seen even the most ardent supporters of the dems embrace their stimulus plan because it hits a dull spot in the brain as not being stimulating.People know one thing. Cash in people's pockets work.It's not a long term solution but a psycological stimulus is important also. The media seems happy about it which is good. The last thing the GOP needs to push is the "tax cuts for the rich". I don't like class warfare but let's face it a lot of rich people won't even bother to cash the check and would likely save it anyway.
I talked to a contact in Reno to get a sense of what’s going on. He said that volunteers are there from all over the Western U.S. (ID, UT, AZ, CA) There are over 100 from California alone. Some volunteers have been working for months to identify potential voters and Romney supporters. They are going door to door and have a call bank set up to contact these voters. It really is an organized effort going on. I asked whether voters seem to grasp the caucus system. He said it’s new to them, but that Romney voters have done their homework and are ready. He said the biggest issue for voters has been illegal immigration.
He said that Governor Romney has been all over Nevada today, from Henderson (southern Nevada) to Elko (NE Nevada) to Reno (NW Nevada). In Reno, the Governor was greeted by an overflow crowd of more than 300. He said the atmosphere was electrifying. He said there were several Nevada Republican leaders there who spoke along with Romney, including Nevada Republican Leader State Assemblywoman Heidi Gansert, who endorsed Romney just a few days ago.
Most of all he said that there in Nevada the campaign is feeling really good.
I was amazed at the Iowa caucus how just having an organized presence made a huge difference in Mitt's favor. In my precinct I was precinct captain and having stickers and respectable openly mitt supporters swayed a lot of swing voters. Remember not to disrespect anyone else for not voting your guy. They have a right to vote for anyone they want to vote for. But do be organized and confident.
In my Iowa precinct Mitt got more than double the votes of the next person in line Huckabee. In the next precinct over there wasn't an organized positive Mitt presence and Huckster tied Mitt. A lot of people decide who they're voting AT the caucus. So be there, be classy, and be openly supportive of Mitt. You'll do better than we did overall in Iowa. Hopefully you'll blow everyone else out of the water even more than Wyoming.
I'm glad that Mitt is coming out and emphasizing his 50 state campaign...I'm thinking a strong presence in the west, especially California, might give him the nomination.
Also, with a huge win in NV, a third in SC won't be too bad (though many pundits will then call him "unelectable" because he "can't win in the south"...though the south will NOT vote for Clinton or Obama so whoever the nominee is won't have to worry about the south). It's the west that we have to try and win over (swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, etc.).
When the press brings up his 3rd in SC, he needs to hammer that home, "I won't give up on, or ignore, a single job, a single state, or a single vote. They're all important."
Nevada Reader Ronald let's us know what's going on in Las Vegas:
On the ground here in Vegas. Detailed my thoughts on a Rally last night on my blog at redstate. There is a ground swell here and I feel like were going to trounce the field here tomorrow. Hopefully as well as Wyoming did. There are 34 delegates on the line and most are for Mitt! My phone is ringing quite a bit. McCain, Romney and even Hillary! Just spoke with Deborah Romney who was verifying my support for the Caucus. Told her my wife and I are 100% guaranteed to caucus for Mitt. Heard Duncan Hunter ad on Talk Radio This morning (apparently one time ad). Ron Paul's guys leafleted the Romney supporters cars at the Rally last night. (Nice Try, but none of us are leaving Romney.) Mitt is going on Leno tonight to reach both states and California. The local talk radio station has been replaying their interview with Mitt every hour all day including Rush, Hannity and Levin. Nice earned media coverage. (Thanks KXNT) They just added McCain on Immigration to the rotation too, but McCain waffling on immigration helps Mitt more than McCain.
Seriously, the press was driven over the edge by a presidential candidate promising to bring jobs back? Give me a break. If McCain promised to drive his Straight Talk Express directly into GM's corporate lobby, force the American auto CEOs into a room, and tell them to "cut the bulls*** and give everyone their jobs back," the press would swoon over his plan. "Finally," we'd hear, "a president willing to jawbone industry into line with the national interest."
Was watching Morning Joe this morning and that liberal shrill idiot David Shuster was on there. Scarbouroah made a point that the MSM hates Romeny and put Shuster on the defensive. Huck is Shuster's boy based on his days with him in Ark. Huck is catching some flak for reopening the confererate flag flap from 8 years ago to attack McCain with.It's crass politics but it may well work with some.Hoefully Rush unloading on McCain and Huck and basically emdorsing Mitt could help Mitt slip into the money there and that would be great couped with his win in Nevada. Of cousre the MSM has it's storyline ready to go when Mitt wins there/
Thanks for posting this excerpt. The whole article is fascinating. It clearly and honestly acknowledges the "white hot" hatred of the liberal media for Romney. (Their words, not mine.)
It's also a bit amusing, because this particular flap is based on a childish mis-construction on what Romney "promised" about the jobs in Michigan. The journalists have interpreted it to be a guarantee, and since no politician can realistic back up such a guarantee, they jump to the conclusion that it's "just another politician telling a lie."
In comparison, Romney promised to BATTLE for every job and he was taking on McCain's "roll over, you're dead" defeatism that the jobs would NEVER come back. McCain was giving up the erosion of this part of the manufacturing sector without a fight, which is ironic, since some of McCain's wild environmental votes cost thousands of auto jobs.
McCain was patronizing to the voters, and they felt it.
Romney let them know that he understood the real causes behind the regulation, the under-competitiveness with foreign firms, and other factors leading to the loss in jobs, and that he would FIGHT for every job.
McCain doesn't seem to know what the problem is or what causes it, so he has no solution other than Government retraining - until the next wave of jobs heads overseas and then McCain comes in and offers still more Government retraining. It's totally defeatist, and not what you'd expect from an effective leader.
It's not a guarantee for Romney to promise to FIGHT for each job, and if Romney would FIGHT to keep them and bring them back, it's not a lie.
The media have become so cynical, being around Washington insiders and all their failed promises, that they automatically ASSUME a lie. The problem is with their assumptions, not with Romney's battle plan or intentions.
The private sector speaks a different language than Washington politicians and reporters. This excerpt illustrates the great divide.
It's also a glaring example of Washington being broken. Washington insiders don't seem to understand how problem-solving works in the private sector, where it's difficult to meet a payroll on Friday if you and your firm haven't worked hard enough producing real goods and services. That kind of world is foreign to many journalists, so they attack it.
P.S. If you notice the comments at the bottom of the article, someone suggested that the media who are attached to specific candidates are used to the candidates buying plenty of alcohol for journalists, while assigned to them. Since Romney doesn't do that, maybe it's yet another reason to resent him.
Next time you see a critical comment from the press about Romney, maybe down deep he's upset that he has to buy his own alcohol.
Where does it end? Does the candidate who buy the richest, best booze get the best coverage - and how will the average voter know that they are being bought off, with alcohol?
Why are there no articles on the candidates' expected purchase of copious amounts of alcohol for reporters that accompany them? Do the media not want the public to know that they expect their candidates to buy them alcohol - in exchange for kind coverage?
posted by AmericanTestament.com | 3:30 PM | permalink
Women vs. Oprah - HUMAN EVENTS: "When Lieberman endorsed McCain, Democratic friends called his office seeking reassurance that he was endorsing McCain only for the Republican nomination and not actually the office of president. No, they were told, this was a real presidential endorsement."
I guess Lieberman didn't play the party patsy and "go along" with the plan as they had anticipated. Now they've unwittingly shown their hand in their desperate attempt to unethically control the outcome of the election by tinkering with the electoral process through PR.
The rest of this article is interesting in its own right.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
We have no one in the field this week, so we especially need your help. Email us your take on what's happening on the ground in Nevada or South Carolina. Tell us what's going on with getting the vote out and your first hand accounts of the latest happenings in those two states. We will post your thoughts here. Email us at info@mymanmitt.com.
I met Mitt last night at a meet-and-greet in Las Vegas. He had such an awe-inspiring presence, and if the reaction by the crowd was any way to guage it, he's got the winning stance on the illegal immigration issue. You can tell he pays attention to the people as well; he made a remark about my Salt Lake 2002 hat during his speech, and when I shook his hand outside afterward, he said "There's the guy!". Simply amazing. He's got Nevada.
I know this is off topic, but does anyone close to the campaign knows if Mitt will be attending the Right to Life march next Tuesday? I think this will help his appeal to Pro Lifers.
David Brooks is a liberal. He is labelled a conservative, so the NYT's can proclaim how diverse and open minded they are. This kind of "conservative" is the most destructive. How to put this delicately...he's pees inside the tent.
I was watching the Today Show this morning listening to the reports and Tim Russert (who I lose more respect for the more he speaks because he is the king of wrong-headed conventional wisdom) was trying to attribute Romney's Nevada lead to Mormon voters. Look, I don't doubt that there are several voters who vote for Romney that are Mormons, but this isn't a Mike Huckabee situation for two reasons.
First, Russert's assertion ignores what we have learned so far from the race. Romney has been winning across the spectrum of Republican voters. There is a reason that Romney has the most votes of any candidate in the race. Romney's appeal comes not from identity, but from message and personal qualities. If Romney was reliant on Mormon voters to win in any other state, he would have lost badly. On the contrary, Romney has been the only consistently appealing and performing candidate in the race. Thus, to attribute Romney's appeal in Nevada to the population of Mormons ignores what has happened so far in the race.
Second, Mormons, whoever they vote for, are an insufficient demographic in any state (except Utah and maybe Idaho) by which to win a state's primary, much less Nevada. The LDS website says that there are 169,714 members in Nevada. The Census Bureau estimates Nevada's population as 2,495,529. That means that even in a state with a significant LDS population, Mormons are only 6.8% of the state's population. Assuming that Mormons vote in equal proportions as other citizens (and there's no reason to assume otherwise), even getting all of the Mormon vote puts you in at Ron Paul territory. You don't even break double digits. Thus, Romney's more than thirty percent support cannot be attributed to Mormons voting in Nevada. To match Romney's support, Mormons would need to be 5 times more of the voting electorate than they constitute of the overall population.
Russert's assertion that Nevada would vote for Romney because of Mormons ignores both the race as it has developed so far and the demographics of Nevada. It is idiotic to continue to spout such falsities. But that seems to be what Russert does so well.
Kyle, Not only are you right, but the Church's numbers reflect all members aged 8 and up, active and lapsed. That number also includes Harry Reid, whom I doubt intends to caucus for Mitt!!
My take on Russert's comment is not that he was saying the POPULATION of Mormons in Nevada explains Romney's big lead there, but that the INFLUENCE of Mormons in a State founded by them, and with citizens who are familiar with them (and who elected Harry Reid).
Still, I wish he'd mentioned that Huckabee in Iowa enjoyed the benefit that 60% of the turnout reported they were evangelicals, because in that case the POPULATION and the INFLUENCE gave him a powerful edge.
To put it more kindly, Russert could be saying that most Nevadans have gone to school with or worked with Mormons, so the stereotypes that Romney faced in Iowa were greater because many Iowans have never known a Mormon.
Russert is one of the better reporters, but no reporter or candidate is perfect. If I remember correctly, it was he who didn't let Clinton slide by the driver's license for immigrants point in the Democratic debate. Prior to that, her "inevitable nomination" was all the media could talk about.
Leave it to the MSM to let those pesky little things called 'facts' get in the way of 'objectivity'. I'm LDS; Romney being Mormon appeals to me, but what's MORE appealing is that he views the issues the same way I do and has the same ideas I do about how to fix them.
Harry Reid is Mormon too...and I wouldn't be caught dead voting for that crapsack.
Below is the only mention of the GOP caucus in Nevada by CNN this morning and writes Romney's vote off as a "Mormon Vote". Incredibly inaccurate and once again showing the media's reluctance to give Romney any repect he deserves.
CNN article:
Nevada Republicans will also hold caucuses Saturday, and Romney is campaigning hard there, while the other Republican candidates have kept their focus on South Carolina. Even though the Republican party cut in half the number of delegates the state party can send to the national convention as punishment for moving its caucuses to Saturday, Nevada has more delegates at stake than South Carolina.
In a presidential race that's increasingly coming down to who has the most delegates, a win could help Romney, who is expected to benefit from Nevada's large Mormon population.
Mike Huckabee has pulled a neat trick.His appeal so far has been limited exclusively to evangelicals, yet the press has taken him seriously as a new populist force in the Republican Party who could at any moment "break out" to appeal to lower-income voters.
Who knew a candidate of Christian identity politics would be afforded such respect? But Huckabee has managed it, which is one reason why he should open a strategic-communications firm the day after he leaves the presidential race. The ability to gull analysts into making so much from so little is a rare and potentially lucrative talent.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I saw CNN and Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris got together. Chuck Norris is famous Movie star. He was talking about each Candidates comments about from him. If you say Mike Huckabee is Potentially Lucrative Talent, then what kind of profit from Chuck Norris you think? Mike Huckabee knows lot of tricks, isn't it? It is neat trick he has...I always wonder about it. What do you think Mike Huckabee want to do for Country? You think Paster can change the Country? I do have lot of question about him. Well, this is my comment today.
About 15 minutes into FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume yesterday honored veteran political journalist of The State in SC, Lee Bandy said (direct quote from re-watching it on my DVR):
"What the voter says here . . . I don't think there's gonna be any clear winner. So, this time around, South Carolina is not going to pick the winner. Somebody else may do that this time."
Most pundits and South Carolinians will be quick to remind you that the winner of SC has been the eventual nominee since 1980. Not this time . . . at least according to someone a lot more "in the know" than just about anyone else.
Jeff Fuller
UPDATE: YouTube Obtained!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Check out AP reporter Glen Johnson badgering Mitt Romney in South Carolina. He's slouching in a chair like Jabba the Hut. pecking at his laptop, and being as obnoxious as he possibly can. Go to the every end where the man tells him to just "be professional," which he certainly was not.
If you want to read some of Johnson's "objective" stories on Romney, here's a good example. Once a reporter uses the verb "rail" when characterizing a politician, you know where he stands.
And here's an "analysis," which is newspaper speak for "I get to say any damn thing I want." Too bad you don't see this kind of AP coverage of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
And here's a cute one trying to smear Romney with the polygamy practiced by his great-grandfather. (Sorry, but the link to the original story seems to be bad.)
It must have killed him to have to report Romney's win in Michigan. Check out his tortured lede (emphasis added):
Mitt Romney scored his first major primary victory Tuesday, a desperately needed win in his native Michigan that gave his weakened presidential candidacy new life. It set the stage for a wide-open Republican showdown in South Carolina in just four days.
UPDATE: If you want to know what AP's agenda is, read this piece of drek from Ron Fournier.
The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents' record and continued to show why he's the most malleable — and least credible — major presidential candidate.
And it worked.
More proof that liberals hate achievement, I guess. And then he added:
The man who spoke hard truths to Michigan lost.
That man, according to Fournier, is John McCain, the liberal media's favorite Republican.
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Responses to "This is why people hate the media, especially AP"
To the depths with ABC for making me defend Romney, but I've watched the video twice, and as best I can tell, the only two words in that heading that are accurate are "Romney" and "reporter." Romney did not show anger, he wasn't riled, and if that's what ABC defines as getting ripped, they wouldn't last five minutes on the sidelines at a Pee Wee football game.
If anything, Romney looked incredulous and annoyed that anyone could be that dense. A more accurate heading would have been "Dunderhead! Rude reporter badgers Romney."
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I just sent info@ap.org an email complaining about Glen Johnson's obvious bias, and how this reflects poorly on Associated Press. They might not care, but I don't think they like to be in the spotlight either. Speaking out is how things like this get fixed.
Based on some extended video of this, I think Glen Johnson’s elevated lack of professionalism was a product of his increasing realization that not only was Romney the man who could beat whatever liberal is nominated but that conservatives are recognizing (what Johnson has already known) that Romney was the strongest conservative candidate. Someone at this conference suggested that Rush Limbaugh had endorsed Romney. Eric Fehrnstrom had to correct this statement because while Rush has been talking up Romney and down Huck and McCain for about 1 week solid, he endorses nobody. I think it most likely that Johnson’s semi-unprofessional behavior became radically unprofessional because he does not want the liberal candidate to face Romney in the general. As Rush has been saying the media’s love of Huck and McCain and their dislike of Romney are strong indicators that conservatives should look away from Huck and McCain while looking toward Romney. This is just the spill over reaction of a fairly unprofessional journalist as he saw the writing on the wall. I think those who have already seen that Romney is the best candidate should encourage others to view this as an unintentional endorsement of Romney as the liberal media’s (Glen Johnson’s) greatest fear. Thanks, TOm
Interesting... while watching CNN this morning, they showed highlights from each of the campaigns... Hill, Barack, John and Huck speaking in front of enthusiastic crouds....
but for Romney? Well, they showed a 10 second piece of his argument with the reporter selecting only the most angry portion and cutting off his voice when he started to make his argument.
That was all they showed on Romney. Does that seem balanced to you?
Here is the Boston Globe’s take on Rush Limbaugh’s “endorsement” of Romney that I claim Glen Johnson is railing against. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/18/limbaughs_praise_for_romneys_run_heard_loud_and_clear/ I think it would be good to get this article some more intention. My father told me 2 weeks ago that Romney will not win because the Conservative establishment will not let it happen. I told him of the National Review and Novak’s endorsement which tempered his position a little. That being said, I think the truth is that the national media has presented an anti-Romney case that an increasing number of folks are seeing through. Committed conservative journalists like Novak have endorsed Romney. Rush’s support is just the latest manifestation of conservatives trying to support the best candidate despite who the media thinks conservatives should support. I think this Boston Globe article should receive some more attention. I work so I hear Rush for 15-30 min a day at the most. I was aware of his attacks on Huckabee and McCain, but it was through the net that I found how much positive he has said about Romney. Thanks, TOm
Are there any plans to remove Glen Johnson from covering the Mitt Romney campaign?
It is obvious to any observer that he has lost any objectivity as demonstrated by his heckling of Mitt Romney during his press conference in South Carolina.
I am not completely familiar with professional journalistic conduct, but I understand that it is inappropriate for journalists to comment or question during a press conference until (or even if) the offer for questions is given. Anything otherwise can be considered badgering or heckling as in this situation.
It your statement on "News Values and Principles" (http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html) you state
"we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action."
and that
"Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously."
I think it has been well established that Glen Johnson's ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by anything has been compromised and I hope that you will take this seriously to avoid any loss of credibility.
Everyone here seems to be of the opinion name calling is a good thing. I detest that behavior in all forms by anyone.
Glen, for whatever the meaning, voiced what he believed bad information. There was some truth in it, Romney expressed the details and explained how Glen was wrong.
I was disappointed with the Romney and especially with his handler. It seemed like strong arm tactics.
One section says in bold letters: "Romney provided taxpayer-funded abortions." That's unfair and misleading at best and certainly leaves a false impression. Romney never pushed for taxpayer funding for abortions. The state law he signed provided greatly expanded state-subsidized health insurance for low-income residents, but it left decisions about what should be covered to an independent body, the Commonwealth Connector. It was that body, not Romney, that ruled that abortions would be covered.
In truth, the state had little choice but to cover abortions. The state Supreme Court had ruled in 1980 that the Massachusetts Constitution confers on Massachusetts women an even broader right to abortion than does the U.S. Constitution. It restated in a 1997 decision that the state must pay for medically necessary abortions if it pays for all other medically necessary procedures including services in connection with childbirth.
It is possible to argue (and some have done so) that Romney might have put up a public fight to narrow the abortion coverage had he chosen to do so, or that the Commonwealth Connector decided to cover more than is "medically necessary." But it is simply false for McCain to claim that "Romney provided taxpayer funded abortions" when taxpayers had been ordered by the courts to pay for them long before Romney took office.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This is the kind of stuff you do when you can't win on your own merit. By the way - I would've LOVED to have seen the McCainiac in an exchange with the reporter at the SC Staples yesterday. Now THAT would've been news-worthy!! "Blood spilled at Staples!"
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of South Carolina’s Republican Presidential Primary shows that John McCain and Mike Huckabee are tied at 24%. In a race that has already seen four different candidates with the lead, much could still change in the coming days--7% of voters have yet to make up their mind, 10% say there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and another 24% might change their mind.
Mitt Romney attracts 18% support and Fred Thompson 16%. Those figures are little changed from the previous survey. Both Romney and Thompson have led in South Carolina at some point over the past several months. The latest survey was conducted the night after Mitt Romney’s victory in Michigan. Ron Paul attracts 5% support and Rudy Giuliani 3%. Giuliani is betting his entire campaign on a strong showing in Florida, where he is now tied for the lead with three others.
Kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? Whether or not it strikes your fancy as a word, it should as a substantive matter. One thing that has become clear from the Michigan primary is that voters trust Romney on the economy, and rightfully so. One reason is background and personal history. There is one Republican candidate that has actually worked at creating jobs: Romney. The other candidates are former lawyers, lobbyists, preachers, and servicemen. As honorable as those professions are, they teach little if anything about what it takes to succeed in the free market. Romney spent his professional life looking at and evaluating business opportunities. He then went in and implemented a plan to make those opportunities succeed. To do so successfully, Romney needed a broad knowledge of the economy, both in the US and globally. Thus, part of the trust voters have in Romney on the economy is biographical.
The other reason is Romney’s economic policies. Romney has advocated conservative answers along with realism and pragmatism. Cut corporate rates. Reduce regulation. Cut marginal rates. Eliminate taxes on savings. Eliminate the death tax. All of these proposals are both sound policy and politically feasible. They are reachable goals that will make a significant difference in the health of the economy.
The combination of personal history and sound policies lend not only credibility to Romney on economic matters, but make him the best suited to lead our economy in the years to come.
I’m not a reporter, nor do I pretend to be one. I read most of what is written about Mitt and comment when I feel like it. My political bias is very evident – I make no claim to objectivity. With me, what you read is what you get.
Most MSM reporters at least attempt to make a window dressing claim to objectivity. A lack of bias – whether perceived or real – is critical to their claim to be the honest broker about what they cover.
Very few reporters are very good at this. NBC’s David Gregory, for instance, has made somewhat of a career playing journalistic judo with White House Press Secretaries. He did fairly well at it until Tony Snow came to town. Tony Snow ate David Gregory’s lunch on a daily basis. That was high quality entertainment.
The AP’s Glen Johnson covers the Mitt campaign. He makes somewhat of an attempt to feign objectivity. Sometimes he’s successful. Most times he is not. Today he failed in spectacular fashion and picked a fight with Mitt over just who runs the Mitt campaign. Maybe this has happened before but this is the first time I’ve seen it reported. Maybe Glen Johnson didn’t buy ABC’s Matt Stuart a beer one night. Who knows?
A reporter’s job is to report the facts, not make the news. Mitt said the following during the “media availability” where the brouhaha occurred:
[Washington needs a leader who]… will fight to make sure we resolve the issues rather than continuously look for partisan opportunities for score settling and for opportunities to link closer to lobbyists. I don't have lobbyists running my campaign. (Emphasis Added)
To which Glen Johnson retorted:
That's not true governor. That is not true. Ron Kaufman's a lobbyist. How can you say that you don't have lobbyists? (Emphasis Added)
You’ll note the obvious trap set by Johnson. Mitt never claimed he didn’t have lobbyists. Mitt stated that lobbyists don’t run his campaign. Mitt immediately threw a smackdown on Johnson:
Did you hear what I said? Did you hear what I said Glen?
Of course Johnson heard what Mitt said. Johnson’s automatic “gotcha” filter just took out what Johnson didn’t want to hear. Johnson replied:
That you don't have lobbyists running your campaign.
Wow. Maybe Johnson can hear after all. Mitt then explained that Beth Myers, his campaign manager was the one running his campaign. Johnson, obviously unfamiliar with the job description of a campaign manager, continued his disrespectful accusation that Mitt was lying about who is actually running his campaign.
Fox News' Shushannah Walshe has the rest of Mitt's Glen Johnson Smackdown. Johnson continued his diatribe on Ron Kaufman's role in Mitt's campaign. Said Johnson:
So Ron’s just … window dressing. He’s just a potted plant?
Sigh. Mitt answered:
Ron is a wonderful friend — an adviser. He’s not paid. Hes an adviser like many others. But I do not have lobbyists running my campaign. Glen, I appreciate that you think that’s funny, but Ron Kaufman is not even in on the senior strategy meetings of our campaign.
Johnson then uttered something inaudible. Mitt answered the inaudible question thusly:
Excuse me, Glen. He is not in on the senior strategy meetings of our campaign.
Johnson, still tilting at windmills, tried a different tack:
Is he in the debate sessions at all? Any time-
And finally Mitt had enough and unloaded on Johnson:
At any time? Has he ever been at a debate session? Sure. Is that a senior strategy meeting? Is that a senior strategy meeting of our campaign? No. Let me go back and complete the point I was making. My campaign is not based on Washington lobbyists. I haven’t been in Washington. I don’t have lobbyists at my elbows that are arguing for one industry or another industry. And I do not have favors I have to repay to people who have been in Washington for years nor scores I have to settle. And I’m going to Washington to make things happen. And somebody doesn’t put the kind of financial resources that I've put into this campaign and the personal resources I’ve put into this campaign in order to do favors for lobbyists. I’m going to Washington to help the American people, and that’s what this campaign is all about. (Emphasis Added)
Maybe life on the campaign trail is getting to Glen Johnson. Maybe he’s been relegated to a middle seat in the back of the campaign trail. Whatever the reason may be, his behavior in this situation is disgraceful. You don’t see this coming from Liz Sidoti, Michael Luo, or any of the other MSM reporters assigned to cover Mitt. While each of them may have their own personal bias and issues, at least they keep them to themselves. Last time I checked, the job of a reporter is to report, not to challenge a candidate to a verbal duel. Regardless of that fact, Johnson lost this duel.
Memo to Glen Johnson: Words mean things. Mitt means what he says when he tells you who runs his campaign. It’s his campaign organization – you don’t have better insight into it than he does. It’s called a vacation. Consider one. End Memo.
Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent, Howlin' Mad Howie Dean's Head Mitt Hit Man Damien LaVera is back. I was beginning to get worried about that guy. I'm sad to say his absence hasn't improved his press releases. At least the DNC changed the moniker they were using to Millionaire Mitt. Memo to Damien: At least Mitt made his money the old fashioned way. The same cannot be said of Her (Less Than) Inevitableness.
Glenn needed to back down when Mitt won. He did win. he was right. Glenn was wrong to accuse him of being dishonest about it. He could have pointed out that there are people who help with the campaign who are lobbyists and ask if that was a problem but instead he insisted on trying to vindicate his original attack.
The best part of the whole Mitt/Glenn exchange was the last 2 seconds of the show-down when a woman in the crowd said to Glenn, "YOU ARE RUDE AND UGLY!!!!" Amen sister!!
Did you also hear Chris Matthews?? Totally going after Mitt for being rude to the poor reporter!!!! What IS it with the MSM???? I heard one of them say today that they thought Mitt Romney is a sociopath!!!!
Mitt was shaking and stuttering, he got called out on the carpet, there wasn't 15 people in the room because no one cares about this guy not even his hair dresser, Mo had a better hairdo, money dosn't buy good taste, Mitt go home...... as for the woman who said Glen was rude, shes a hanger on and a wannabe, she should have respected Glen for standing up to "The Candidate" ..... Go Glen you got my vote!
The media won't look at this win esotericly as a win for Mitt and racking up more delegates. They'll second guess why he spent time in a state he was expected to win and give up on SC. I wish I was seeing a good uptick in the polls for Mitt in SC. Why this is disturbing is that the people in SC still support McCain and Huck despite all the stuff coming out against both .I'm keeping my fingers crossed anyway that when folks go to the polls they'll wind up supporting the real republican. I'm also sickened that Tom Colburn endorsed McCain.If he really wanted reform in Wash. he should have gone to Mitt. Oh well at least Mitt has Ross Perot.Huck is ticking a lot of people off in SC pandering to the religious vote and anti-illegals.The guy is too unstable to be Prez.
I too was hoping to see Romney polling higher in SC. He still might do well (competitive second or a miracle – he has good organization and likely some faithful supporters), but a 10-15% showing in 4th place will result in joyful condemnations by the media. I think it would be interesting to see Romney return to SC Friday afternoon and evening because Nevada is pretty well sealed up, but I do not expect this.
One thing that could have happened if Romney fought in SC is that he could have lost to a group of very religious but not overly political folks who voted for Huck, but he could have knocked down McCain enough that Huck won. Without Romney, McCain beats Huck, and Huck gets little bounce going into Florida.
Then in Florida McCain and Giuliani pull from similar pools of voters and hopefully Huck’s “very religious but not overly political folks” become disillusioned (remember, Huckabee was nowhere 4-5 weeks before Iowa even though he was just as much a seemingly nice Baptist minister). This leaves Romney competitive with McCain and Giuliani taking 1/3 to ¼ of their pool, but standing alone among conservative and very conservative folks to win.
This all reminds me of the game Risk. 5-6 generals march around the world trying to secure territories. You want to win, but it is impossible to do so by defeating everyone else all at once. You must count on others fighting each other so you can then go after the winner one on one while you are stronger and they are either stronger (or better yet injured). Romney was fighting everyone else all at once in Iowa and New Hampshire. It was clear that McCain and Huckabee ganged up on him. It seems unlikely that both McCain and Huckabee will emerge from South Carolina strong (and while I do not expect Thomson to win, I think he will soften up both of them). Of course there is much Risk and no guarantee that all goes according to plan. Thanks, TOm
Lizzy, I'm not shocked. The entire MSM is anti-Romney,even Fox. I thought Carl Cameron was going to cry in Micigan the other day when Mitt won. Mort Kondrake is very pro-McCain not surprising since he's been a long time lib..Fred barnes is a Weekly Standard neo-con type who loves McCain also. I'm also tired of hearing the electibility issue. What's gained to sell your soul just to win an election. Thats' what the dems do. They vote for the (D) next to the name regardless.There's a lot of feeling going around that if MCain is the nominee people will sit out or vote for the dem. If Dem policies are going to ruin this country I don't want GOP fingerprints on it. The MSM are all in a collective pant over McCain winning SC.If Mitt can't win there even though I'm hoping for a surprise,I hope Huck pulls it out to knock McCain out of possible.
The MSM were talking about Mitt's probable win in NV and chalking it up to "the high percentage of Mormons that live there...." I just get so tired of it.......
Amazing. The Washington Post's David Broder, liberal wiseman political commentator, writes about the Democrats' Résumé Gap. (In comparison to Republicans, most notably Mitt.)
UPDATE: Ross Perot supports Mitt. Newsweek. (and slams McCain) He's still a character.
UPDATE: CBS News reporter interrupts Romney with hostile questioning. (CBS is the most liberal old network, no question. Once I watched their regular news show after years of moving away, and it was barely news, just liberal agitprop.) Mitt must really be getting to them. Heh.
But this is what he has to deal with. A hostile press. They still love John McCain. They think Huckabee is a disaster waiting to happen for Republicans if he's the nominee, so they won't lay a glove on him. [Note: correction, it's an AP reporter. ]
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Yup, I'm no lawyer but isn't the expression: "Asked and answered" appropriate in this video? Mitt kept crushing the guy with information and the reporter kept asking the same question.
If there's one thing you can say about this primary season, it's that it sure as heck is fun. I love a bloody fight to the finish, I feel like Kilgore in Apocalypse Now, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
Boxing matches with AP reporters inside Staples stores is just more cream in the pie.
The best part is at the end when the woman (just a bystander) was like "You are rude and ugly!" to the reporter who was way out of line. Totally awesome. GO MITT!
I thought the reporter was out of line and his tone was unnecessary. Mitt did fine. I really liked the little old lady sticking up for Mitt at the end: "I think you are rude . . . and ugly."
This interchange made me laugh. Mitt handled it exceptionally well. He answered his question satisfactorily several times. The reporter was just trying to ruffle his feathers, and it didn't work. In fact he got more ruffled and unprofessional than he should have with the man who is going to be the next president! What a poor loser.
The CBS link says that the AP reporter who was 'rude and ugly' is Glen Johnson. If I am not mistaken this is the same guy who was involved in the infamous AP article 'Romney EDGES McCain to win Michigan' By LIZ SIDOTI and GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writers Wed Jan 16, 9:15 AM ET
I can hardly image the frenzy of cries of bias and foul play were someone from FoxNews to challenge some point Clinton or Obama made from the supposed audience as Glen Johnson challenged Romney. It is quite obvious that Romney’s point is absolutely true. Lobbyists will have little ability to influence his administration and he will not owe them favors. That a supposed reporter has a problem with Romney is obvious. Perhaps had he listened rather than jumping at an opportunity to attack he would have saved himself from making a mistake. Of course that Glen Johnson continued indicates that instead of being ashamed he feels he has a point. Remarkable.
This my favorite add so far and I think I've seen'm all. The message of change is so powerful and inspiring. The whole undertone of Mitt's message has transfomed since after New Hampshire. I like the positive energy and the strength he portrays. This is the message Republicans, Democrats and Independents can get behind.
Republicans haven't had much national electoral success of late, and for that they have only themselves to blame. In the 14 years since the Gingrich revolution, too many Republicans have embraced the beltway culture and abandoned the very principles upon which their success with voters depended -- smaller government, low taxes, free markets and personal liberty.
Nevada Republicans on Saturday should examine their choices through precisely such a filter. Each GOP candidate can make -- and has made -- a reasonable case that he's best suited to ensure the party again embraces the ideas and concepts that made this nation a beacon of freedom and economic opportunity. But in our opinion, the viable candidate most likely to lead Republicans in such a direction is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.
Mitt, I think, needs to hit his competitors on cherry-picking. NO ONE is campaigning actively in SC and NV...nobody! (maybe Ron Paul, but you get the picture)
Why can't the other candidates do this? Are they incapable? Don't care? The unfortunate thing is the media is already drumming up a "NV was unimportant, SC was the real jewel to be won and if you're a Republican and can't win in the south, you're in trouble."
Mitt should turn the tables and say, "if you can't campaign successfully in more than one state at a time, you're in trouble."
I am going to donate $25 today to Mitt Romney's campaign. Who is going to match me?
Fortunately for Mitt, the economy has suddenly become the leading issue in the campaign. By starting at $25, I feel that just about everybody should be able to participate. If you are really bold and want to make this a bit more fun, you can enhance the challenge by donating an amount for every person who accepts this challenge.
For each person that matches me, I will add another $5 up to a total of $100.
UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who accepted my challenge! I was great to see the starving students and first time contributors get involved. We had 9 people accept the challenge so that puts me in for another $45. My $70 plus the $230 donated by others makes $300 for Mitt. Not bad for one little blog post. I may just issue another challenge before Super Tuesday! I hope to get an even bigger turnout.
ok - here from Illinois - I took you up on your offer (actually I have contributed before). Nice challenge and hopefully, it will get people involved to help elect the best person for the next President of the United States!!!
I donated $25! And loved it! It's good to feel like I did something. I am a student and don't have much cash to throw around, but I wanted to put my money where my mouth has been for the last year- supporting Mitt all the way! GO MITT!!
Thanks! Sometimes donating $25 by yourself doesn't seem it will make much of a difference, but if we do it as a group, we can have a big impact. Who's next?
From Miami Florida - I'll be donating $25 today. I'm currently a registered ind. trying to figure out if I can vote in the repub. primary. My wife is reg. repub and both of us will be voting for Romney.
Just donated $30 a few minutes ago... My fourth contribution to the Romney campaign in the past year. If I weren't a graduate student drowning in student debt I would contributing to the max.... GO MITT!
sweet idea ... have contributed 8-10 times since last fall but this is the first time theres a match! In South Dakota here, our primary isn't until June - willing to help Mitt out anyway possible 'cuz we need him to be the next President of the United States!!!
Based on Exit polling from MI, NH, and IA (as well as real vote tallies from the three states):
Total voters thusfar: 1,226,000
Total "Evangelical/""Born Again" voters: 465,150
Total non-Evangelical voters: 760,850
Evangelical Numbers
Percent of total votes cast that were from Evangelicals: 38%
Evangelical Voters by candidate:
Huckabee -- 31%
Romney -- 31%
McCain -- 21%
Thompson -- 6.4%
Paul -- 5.5%
Giuliani -- 1.6%
I think many would be surprised to find out that as many Evagelicals have chosen to vote for Romney as they have for Huckabee. Romney has definitely proved that he can get the "Evangelical vote."
Non-Evangelical Numbers
Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 62%
Yes folks . . . the appeal for Huckabee to non-Evangelical voters is LOWER than Ron Paul's. OUCH!! Huckabee definitely HAS NOT proven in any contest thusfar that he can get non-Evangelicals to support him in large numbers. This does not bode well for Huckabee from Feb 5th onward (let alone how he could compete in a general election).
For all the talk of who can unify the three legs of the conservative base we are seeing living evidence that someone already is. Romney's supposed weakness among religious social conservatives/Evangelicals isn't bearing out in the votes cast thus far.
Roughly 1 out of every 3 Evangelicals who have cast their vote thus far have cast it for Romney.
Roughly 1 out of every 13 non-Evangelicals who have cast their vote thus far have cast it for Huckabee.
And therein lies the difference.
Mike Huckabee's sole purpose in this race right now is to dilute Romney's access to social conservative voters so that McCain can win and choose him as VP. There, I said it.
Jeff Fuller
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Jeff - Shhhhhh.. Don't tell the rabid FredHead or Ronulan that only by adding Rudy+Fred! votes can they equal Paul's Non-Evangelical totals. Heads might explode!
As you know, it will favor Romney if the campaign moves toward Fall and the voters become more concerned about jobs, taxes and the economy.
Here’s a quotation from Winston Churchill that illustrates the “tax and spend” difference between Romney and his Republican and Democrat competitors who’ve never accomplished anything in the private sector – but don’t mind milking it.
“Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.” – Winston Churchill
Major parts of the economy are ailing. With international competition from China and other countries looming on the horizon, America needs someone who knows how to fix the horse.
If politicians continue to attack the horse or attempt to milk it, it will weaken or kill the horse. Who then will pull the wagon?
I know that Ann Coulter is a controversial figure (whether or not she’s dropping three-letter “f” words). She’s sometimes shocking to the point of distaste, but she has unquestioned conservative credentials. It’s not just that she’s outspoken. She is a deep thinker and articulate in pushing conservative ideals. Naturally, she has joined the chorus of core conservative public intellectuals who see Romney as the best conservative candidate:
One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain.
This point was already extensively covered in Chapter 1 of "How To Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)": Never take advice from your political enemies.
The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide.
If the GOP has any hopes of keeping the White House, Mitt Romney is the one. With his family ties to Michigan, that is one blue state with a large amount of electoral votes that just may turn to red. Also, since he was the Governor of Massachusetts, a few New England states may come on board.
The Romney Victory Party was brimming with Campaign and GOP stars. I had the opportunity to interview three heavy weights: Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden.
Saul Anuzis:
Congressman Hoekstra:
Kevin Madden
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
The media's over-emphasis on "who wins a given state?," while ignoring cumulative delegate count, makes the nomination look like a tally of 1 vote per state, where the winner will be the first to get a majority of the States.
It's nonsense, for several reasons.
First, some states are much bigger in delegate impact. Michigan is 3x bigger than New Hampshire in the delegate totals and 10x bigger than Iowa.
Second, the most recent financial campaign finance reports show something like
Clinton - $90 million Obama - $80 million Romney - $60 million Giuliani - $45 million
(and I don't know how recent those numbers are).
In the big picture, we still have an electorate where registered Republicans are in the minority and in need of cross-over Independents and Democrats to win in the electoral collage. In other words, we need the Reagan coalition or the numbers work totally against us.
That means that the best Republican nominee will be one who shows he has the voter appeal, money and the organization to win in many states - not "cherry pick" where he wants to run. (That's a sign of a weak candidate, isn't it?)
If only 4% of the delegates have had a chance to vote so far, it's still way too early to predict the most successful candidate. However, when one candidate has competed well in all 4 states and put together a sizable early lead in total delegates and popular vote, it should be reported accurately = not ignored, as in the media's "who won the state" myopia.
Finally, with such a long campaign ahead, every delegate counts. The media basically ignored Wyoming as if it did not exist, because it was not hotly contested. The media is thinking about exciting ratings, not covering the marathon.
It is a marathon, and Romney does not need to place first or second in every State to be the ultimate nominee. If he keeps picking up votes in each State, and then wins a few of the all or nothing States, he may not have the necessary number to win on the first ballot, but he'll be in a competitive position in the convention.
The Electoral College math forces the winner of the election to combine enough big States, with enough small States -- and to take enough of all of them away from the other party.
That's why a candidate who shows broad appeal, and the energy, deep pockets, and intellectual capacity to compete in all States, will be a force to reckon with.
Cumulative totals of delegates won, after only 4% of the national primary/caucus votes are in, is not much of a base to make a final prediction. However, if the leader has done so by doing well in each State, it's a good sign.
What happens between now and Super Tuesday will also be important, because solid showing and broad appeal will impact the perceptions of those who vote on Super Tuesday.
The result of inaccurate poll after poll will be in the ash heap, as more and more real voters will have spoken.
Maybe after Nevada, South Carolina and Florida the lightest of the light weight candidates will be watching from the bleachers, so that the Super Tuesday voters can concentrate on several candidates with sustainable campaigns.
We're gonna need a sustainable campaign when facing the Democratic money machine in November.
My money is on the guy who is building his sustainable campaign, brick by brick without "cherry picking" or hoping for a grand slam home run in only large states, because after the convention, the Electoral College will kill a candidate who cannot broadly compete in large and small States.
As an aside, my mother was born in Wyoming. If I was a resident there, I would find the East Coast mentality that my State doesn't matter patronizing and arrogant. I suspect that a lot of other "inconsequential" States feel the same way.
In a tight race for the nomination and the Electoral College, it may be that there are no "inconsequential" delegates.
Thanks for recapping the cumulative totals on delegates and popular vote.
Mitt Romney was already ahead of the popular vote before Michigan. Now he is enjoying a solid lead. While other candidates were busy trying to cherry pick a particular state, Romney was building support in all of them.
With four states down, here are the numbers and percentages:
It obviously looks really bad for Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani to be losing to Ron Paul at this point. It also doesn't help Huckabee that more than twice as many people have voted for Romney than have for him. Romney is proving to be the full-spectrum conservative and not just the candidate for a single issue.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I really think Mitt should slam this message home to the voters about how his competitors are ALL CHERRY-PICKING these primaries. I would like to hear Mitt say:
"I won't give into that Washington pessimism of giving up on a single job, and I won't give into that same type of pessimism of giving up on a single vote or a single state, no matter who is voting, no matter where that state may be. I want to bring together all 50 states and all americans behind the 3 pilars of conservatism: a strong economy, a strong military, and a strong families. I know I can represent all these pillars, and that's why I am campaigning and will continue to campaign in every single primary and caucus."
It's just so obvious- 1. He's been in 1st in two and 2nd in the other two. (check) 2. He's the only one who's seriously competed for EVERY state 3. He isn't and won't cherry pick any states regardless of how well he'll do in votes as his competitors are ("no votes and no states left behind") 4. Point #3 shows that the other candidates either don't care about those other states, don't think they can win them, or don't have the organizations to go out and try to win every single state and every single vote they can (no broad base appeal, guys?).
Sorry to post this here, as it may be a bit off-topic, but I need some information. As a Romney supporter in Ohio, I have been trying very hard to locate any kind of campaign or organization in this state. I know that the Ohio primary is not until March 4, but I do know that at least a base campaign staff has been put together here and I am trying to get in touch with them because I want to be involved. If anyone has any information, or could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. I have a strong feeling that Ohio could be THE pivotal state in the fall, and I want to do everything in my power to make sure it stays red. The Dems have made some big gains here in recent years and I am worried that a weak GOP turnout might tilt it the other way.
Here's some thoughtful analysis about what happened in Michigan. First, the guys at Powerline:
First, the pervasive commentary over the last week to the effect that Michigan was do-or-die for Romney was, I think, nonsense. Even if Romney had lost narrowly to McCain in Michigan, which is not a winner-take-all state, he still would have been the overall leader in delegate count and would have received more votes from Republicans than anyone else so far.
The next event, in South Carolina, will most likely be won by neither Romney nor McCain. The fact is that the Republican race is wide open and could well result in a open convention. The media should stop trying to pressure candidates to drop out every time they don't win a primary, and Republicans should value a candidate like Romney who is willing and able to compete not just here and there, but effectively across the country.
In looking at the exit polling at CNN, the surprise is in how broad Romney's victory was. He won most of the demographics in the exit polling, with McCain only winning a handful. McCain won among those who back a path-to-citizenship policy for immigration, but only by 5 points over Romney. That suggests that immigration was not as big an issue for Michigan Republicans despite a bad economy and job competition. Romney won pluralities among both conservatives and liberals, with McCain winning among moderates. Strangely, McCain won pluralities among those who disapprove and strongly disapprove of the Iraq war. Mitt handily won among those who support it, even though McCain has been one of its strongest advocates.
Two primary wins, two seconds. No one else has been as broadly competitive so far. He has the most delegates and the most money in the bank, and he’s back to campaigning in South Carolina for Saturday’s primary. He’s in a statistical tie for second there. With four primary contests and three different winners, there isn’t a solid front-funner in the GOP but there is a front-runner for now, and that’s Mitt Romney.
Am I the only one breathing a sigh of relief that the front-runner coming out of Michigan isn’t McCain or Huckabee?
Is it just me, or are the ARG polls wacked out? It seems every time I see them compared to other polls, the ARG poll is the outlier. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the result, but I am not sure how reliable it is. Has the ARG ever consistently predicted any race?
Also, did pollsters just stop polling republicans in Nevada? This is the first poll I have seen in like a month on the Republican side!
The story in that poll is the nearly reciprocal movement between Huckabee and McCain. Huckabee polled at 23% last month while McCain garnered only 7%.
Two possible explanations:
1) Republicans outside of the traditional evangelical stronghold states have done their due diligence on Huckabee and reached a reasonable informed conclusion. I have said before that Huck is like a box of glazed doughnuts. Eat one and you are hungry for more, but eat more and you start getting sick, and sicker and sicker the more you eat.
2) McCain is still riding the bump from NH as Republicans started looking for a familiar, somewhat consistent face to nominate and came home to John McCain thinking he was the only viable option come November. I believe Mitt's very strong win in Michigan may send a clear signal to those voters that they don't have to settle for McCain.
Either way, Romney maintains his 28%, and it would appear this time that he is less susceptible to a McCain or Huckabee surge. Thompson won't surge enough to overcome him as any Thompson bump will come largely post S.C. (if at all).
Assuming this poll is correct, and without analyzing the internals, it appears Mitt is in a solid position for NV.
When the NV voters realize that the other candidates have once again written their primary off (ala Wyoming) and that Mitt WILL NOT write off their votes and their state, he'll win in a LANDSLIDE...especially building off of his MI momentum.
I don't know about the polls, but I think with Mitt's organization, advertising capability, and the fact he'll actually pay attention to NV (unlike the other cherry-pickers), he'll kill in the caucuses there.
I posted on another blog, if NV might effect SC? They are on the same day, however NV's caucus will start at 9am that means results might come out on the east coast by mid-afternoon. If Romney wins strong in NV, it could help in SC. Granted the fact that vote day is on a Saturday will cause most votes to be cast earlier; without the after work effect. Still word on Saturday afternoon that Romney wins in NV might help his numbers a little.
I agree that Romney, who is going to NV on Thursday will help with the NV ego which has felt overlooked.
When McCain won New Hampshire by 5% (37% for him vs 32% for Mitt) the AP headline read: "McCain wins in New Hampshire, where he bet it all" (incidentally, if you look at the top bar of your Internet browser it reads "McCain Triumphs Where He Bet It All."
The contrast . . . When Romney won Michigan by nearly 10% and nearly 100,000 votes the AP headline reads: "Romney Edges McCain to Win Michigan" And if that's not bad enough, check out the lead paragraphs to those AP articles . . .
McCain:
John McCain rode the Straight Talk Express straight into first place in New Hampshire, and back into the thick of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
''I hate to use to the word kid, but I think we showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like,'' the Arizona senator told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday, savoring victory . . .
CONDORD, N.H. (AP) — Arizona Sen. John McCain won the New Hampshire Republican primary Tuesday night, completing a remarkable comeback and climbing back into contention for the presidential nomination.
"We showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like," McCain told The Associated Press in an interview as he savored his triumph. "We're going to move on to Michigan and South Carolina and win the nomination."
The Arizona senator rode a wave of support from independent voters to defeat former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a showing that reprised his victory in the traditional first-in-the-nation primary in 2000.
It was a bitter blow for Romney, who spent millions of dollars of his own money in hopes of winning the kickoff Iowa caucuses and the first primary — and finished second in both.
Now the contrast to the AP article linked to above about Romney's Michigan victory:
DETROIT (AP) - Mitt Romney scored his first major primary victory Tuesday in his native Michigan, a win he desperately needed to give his weakened candidacy new life and set the stage for a wide-open Republican showdown in South Carolina in just four days.
Romney was the third Republican victor in the first four states to vote in the 2008 primary season, further roiling a volatile nomination fight that lacks a clear favorite.
No agenda there, eh?
Then they have the audacity to give McCain the last word in the AP article about Romney's win!
McCain said he had called Romney to congratulate him ``that Michigan welcomed their native son with their support.''
``Starting tomorrow, we're going to win South Carolina, and we're going to go on and win the nomination,'' McCain declared, also in an AP interview.
Yes folks, McCain got more quoted words/sentences in the AP article about Romney's MI win than Romney himself did. Shameless.
I've blogged before that McCain's resurgence in NH and nationally has been a completely media created, directed, and propagated affair. I repeat my questions here:
Which do you think will have a better chance in the general election . . . the one who's a front-runner DESPITE the MSM coverage or the one(s) that's a challenger BECAUSE of the MSM coverage? I think the answer to that is clear. I'd want the guy who's truly battle-tested.
Lest there be any doubt, that guy is Mitt Romney!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Wow, that is unbelievable (or at least would be if I hadn't been seeing this over and over again for the last few weeks). But EXCELLENT work on showing the bias so clearly. I really, really think you should get this over to Fox News and see if they will bring it to light. They love this stuff, and I think they are beginning to really warm to Romney. Seriously, let's get this out there so at least the conservatives can see how the media operates.
Yeah the media is in a tizzy this morning over Mitt's win. Why are they sayng his win has thrown the nomination process into chaos? What's it's done is thown the media intochaos because they thought they had McCain in the bag already. The outlier ridiculous poll the other day has McCain at 32 natinally because it was an effort to brainwash Michigan to vote for McCain. McCain himself is spinning the win as Romney being the 'favorite son". Romney has won every state with non evangelical republicans. Now all he has to do is get some evangelicals in SC. Congrats to the people of Mich.for rejecting the MSM candidate.
I remember when McCain went up, like, 2% in the NH polls and the media suddenly started falling over themselves heralding the McCain "surge" and gushing about McCain's "straight talk" over Romney's "phoniness." It was only after the media's McCain love-in that his poll numbers really started to rise.
So I guess a FIVE-point win is a "trimph" for McCain in NH and a TEN-point win is "edg[ing] past McCain" for Romney in MI. Someone needs to tell the AP that their writers are in desperate need of a remedial math course.
That is so frustrating! I've obviously noticed the bias before, but to see it so blatantly really angers me. Notice how the MSM glosses over WY. (Mitt is the 3rd candidate to win in the first 4 primaries... yeah, and he won 2 of them!) I am forwarding this post to everyone I know.
What is even more frustrating is that if he wins in NV it will be completely ignored just like WY, and SC will be the focus. If Romney can't win SC, I am praying for Thompson because if Huck or McCain wins it the MSM will be all over it like white on rice. And then Romney can slip in "under the radar" and grab the most delegates while the MSM pronounces his campaign dead.
Right now cnn is showing that Mitt has 52 Delegates, 5 more than everyone else combined. Whose biased? I am glad that atleast Hannity tried to stick up for Mitt about the delegates last night.
Another thing... McCains New Hampshire win was made possible only by democrats and independents crossing over. Of course, the press omits this. Michigan is the most representative state of republican voters. I regret to say that Fox news is apparently pro-McCain as well. They're always minimizing any Romney success.
Yep, the media bias is obvious. Just using psychological warfare to manipulate the outcomes for all of us poor Americans that cannot think for ourselves! Sign me up to combat it. I'm in.
I also noticed that in an interview this morning that was featured on yahoo, the interviewer tried to snidely link Romney with corruption and Fat Cats by calling him the CEO candidate.
This kind of stuff is infuriating to me.
I certainly don't trust any of the talking heads on any of the Main News Channels.
I think, that, when looked at in a vaccuum it does look like Mitt is getting the short end of the stick. However, when you look at the last year of the republican primary, it tends to put the story in a little more perspective. I wonder, were you complaining about bias against McCain back in the spring/summer of '07 when all the Mainstream media had labeled his campaign as dead and over while practically handing the nomination to Guliani?
Despite urging from some activists like Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas that Michigan Democrats vote for Mitt Romney over John McCain, CNN exit polling indicates the Arizona Republican won the liberal vote.
McCain captured 41 percent of Democrats who voted in the Republican primary, 10 points more than Romney. Mike Huckabee meanwhile, only captured 14 percent of Democrats.
Once again the attack machine is in full swing. Just because Romney is nice to homosexuals and treats them like people, and some judges made decisions while Romney was governor, suddenly he's pro-gay marriage and a flip-flopper and a liar and blah blah blah...none of these things are true! They're scared of a conservative president. That's why they prop up Huckabee and McCain, because they know A) They're not conservative, and B) The Democrats can beat them, because of A.
Congrats to Mitt and his team tonight. Good luck in So-Car and Nevada.
Mitt Congratulation for winning in Michigan Primary. I am happy that you did. Good Luck to all of the people helping out Mitt Romney...to be president of United States. Make him go all the way ok? From MM
John McCain lost a sizeable lead in Michigan lead and with it the MSM momentum.
Mike Huckabee threw everything trying to recreate the Iowa upset and fell far short, and has now wounded himself with the argument about amending the Constitution to reflect "God's law." (See Andy McCarthy's short but devastating commentary.)
And Mitt Romney has now re-established himself as the candidate to beat over the very long campaign.
The key? As Rush said this morning: A McCain or Huckabee nomination would be a disaster for the GOP because they are not Reagan conservatives. Republicans are now voting in large numbers, and they are voting for the Reagan conservative. There is no reason to believe that John McCain will be able to recapture his New Hampshire moment or Huck his Iowa surprise.
CNN and Fox are projecting Romney wins Michigan. On to Nevada and South Carolina.
Romney will beat Huckabee by more than double. I think Huckabee is facing a do or die in South Carolina. He has shown no ability to compete outside of Iowa. If Huckabee comes in second in South Carolina, that will be a problem for him, because that is his natural base, to the extent he really has one.
Romney is also on pace to trounce McCain soundly as well. This is a huge defeat for McCain. They can try and play down Mitt's win in Michigan, but the fact is McCain won Michigan big back in 2000 against Bush. McCain couldn't attract the independants and democrats to support him like he did before. In short, he is losing his appeal.
Finally, Giuliani may end in single digits tonight. That is really bad for him. I am not sure he can fend off the onslaught of candidates into Florida after Saturday. Romney will likely be winning the delegate count soundy, clearly winning the popular vote, and have one of his signature issues to campaign on, health care.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This is HUGE! To be ahead in every category to date, have the latest win, having exceeded expectations, and with resources and energy moving ahead, gives him real momentum.
Mitt won among everyone, age, gender, ect. Of course the MSM is already downplaying it "he is the native son blah blah blah" man it is so irritating! But Mitt won fair and square and he will win in Nevada as well! He is the front runner whether or not the MSM will admit it or not! If he pulls out a win in Florida the nomination is as good as his!!! GO MITT GO!
All I'm seeing around the blogosphere is rumor and conjecture, but the mood feels different than the last two times around. Of course, it doesn't seem as though anyone wants to give Romney credit, if it is indeed a win here. From my vantage point, the media seem somewhat annoyed that Romney is still competing. They wanted to kill his campaign after Iowa, even more after New Hampshire and want to discount Michigan as some sort of homefield advantage. Don't believe the home field advantage hype. Romney hasn't lived in Michigan in years and his father was the governor back in the 60's (Quick, name all the governors you know from the 60's).
If Romney wins tonight, it will be because of message.
Along with Jason's eye witness reports from the field, we want to hear from you if you are in Michigan, explaining why you voted for Mitt or what is happening on the ground. We will post your thoughts here. Email us at info@mymanmitt.com.
Cue the fat lady for Huck and McCain. The former can't get above 15% with a huge effort, and McCain can't win in an open primary state, one crucial to the fall, even when the Dems take a bye?
Of course, these aren’t the final numbers. After getting burned in both Iowa and New Hampshire, I now am extremely cautious about putting value on outcomes.
But, isn’t this leaked exit poll data encouraging? We’ll see how it goes throughout the evening.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I posted about this elsewhere a few days ago (hoping for a win in MI), but his win will be discounted for the following:
1. "Home court" (where was that advantage a week ago? what about all the pundits who said if he can't win NH he's dead?) 2. He has too much money for campaigning (he doesn't feel your pain even though you voted for him and he's created jobs for people like us) 3. The weather (how were those dems and dem-leaning indies supposed to propel McCain to another open primary win if it SNOWS?!?) 4. Mitt pandered to MI (by telling them how he'd help revive their economy...gasp! Perish the thought at a well-thought-out solution for individual states in a recession!) 5. The MI voters didn't want to put their stamp of approval on NH's vote, and want to leave the primary open for the rest of the state's primaries to fairly decide this national party nomination (yes, normal voters think on this level of complexity...oh, wait, they really only care like normal people about their own problems) 6. Huckabee and Thompson have been mostly campaigning in MI (true for one state wonder Thompson and not so true for Huckabee-vote-for-me-I'm-your-buddy-and-p astor-in-chief)
Lost in all this will be the fact that McCain is already going super negative on Romney in SC mailers (abortion and taxes...the irony!) and saying it's not negative (no MSM coverage on the hypocricy), and that Huckabee will place a distant 3rd today...where's his national swell of support again? Ah, yes, back at the pulpit on Sundays. All the while, the MSM will now say the following to keep Mitt down:
1. NV is "home court" because there are 12-15% mormons and he has momentum from his MI win (on his other "home court" wait...can there be two home courts?) 2. He's giving up on SC because he can't win there so he's not a national candidate (que spike in irony meter for Thompson, Guiliani, McCain, and Huckabee) 3. His money's STILL an unfair advantage...rich people SHOULDN'T run for government office!
Go Mitt! I hope this gets him in the driver's seat to the nomination, and at least kicks Hucka-crit and McLame out of the way. I'd way rather have Thompson somehow win (unlikely) or Guiliani make it (more probable, not great, but better than the first two).
YEEEEEAAAAHHHHH baby break out the VERNORS and party!!!! Man I hope you aren't just leading us on. I'm not even going to pay ATTENTION after this because this was ALL Mitt needed to seal the deal, in my uninformed mind. It's over. Huckabee can go back to DJ heaven and McCain can finally invest in that Winnebago he's been eyeing.
So far this election season, exit polls for the Republican primaries have been indicative of the winner. I'm hoping that these MI exit polls keep the trend...and McCain's "lowering of exptectations" (read "I have now lost all momentum") make me think that Mitt's got this big win in the bag...it might not be a crushing blow, but then he'll have free press for a week and no more "he has to win" garbage.
Go Mitt! On to NV (and a good showing in SC) and FL! On to Super Tuesday!
P.S.- I'm expecting VERY little buzz on a Romney win, though he deserves 100x more than the IA and NH ballots. Why? The MSM doesn't want him in the race and everyone had counted him out. Those who counted him out in MI will say he pandered, was on home court (where was that home court 1 week ago?), etc. but he came back and won a big won today.
Mitt's winning in exit polls because REPUBLICANS decided their own primary! That's TWO golds now!
Go Mitt! I hope he cleans house. Aside from the win, some nice benefits:
1. McCain has NO momentum, cash, or credibility on the economy 2. Huckabee, for the 3rd straight state without a majority of evangelicals, comes in a distant THIRD 3. SC is now WIDE OPEN, even for someone like Thompson...which will leave... 4. NV for the taking for Mitt... 5. ...leaving FL wide open for taking, too...
...who's the "COMEBACK KID" now? Who was counting his candidacy as dead in the water?
I hope Mitt gives a great victory speech, and discounts the pundits, and Washington insiders, and focuses on the economy and how the PEOPLE, and his PARTY, got him the win and how they want an OUTSIDER for the presidency.
I just finished a visit to the polling location at Henry Hoover Middle School in Livonia, Michigan. The turnout seemed lite, but after speaking with the captain of Precinct 17, she assured me it was actually a little larger than normal. But she cautioned, that a lot of the people who had turned out early this morning were people who normally vote in the evenings (I think she has done this for years.) The precinct aptain had already voted via absentee a couple weeks ago.
So far, she reported, about 133 people have voted, and people keep trickling in at a steady pace.
The way it works is this: she is precinct captain in charge of her precinct. There are two precincts at this specific polling location, but the precincts are not affiliated with a specific party. Working under her are election inspectors, who hand out the ballots and make sure all the rules are followed properly. All are paid positions.
I asked her, how many Dems vs. Rep's ballots had been cast, and she replied she wasn't allowed to report this. I asked her, if people who were around during George Romney's era remember him fondly and if their memories left them more or less likely to vote for Mitt- she was an elderly lady. Her reply to that was that most of them do remember him fondly, but she couldn't say how it would effect their votes.
A couple other observations, today I have seen a near drop off of ads from the Romney and McCain camps on TV. I have seen plenty of Mike Huckabee ads, including about 5 repeats of Trust Huckabee showing videos of Romney in 94 and 2002.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Go Mitt, Go! I've got my fingers, toes, legs, arms, and eyes crossed! I desperately want Romney to win today so that the MSM and Huck both shut up. Huck latest shot at Romney ("It's not like I can just throw my Dad's name around") just reinforces what a horrible choice he would be for the nomination. If he somehow pulled it off, I would seriously consider voting for a Dem (or independent... Bloomberg are you listening?)
Any word out of Michigan? This is a HUGE day and it's been several hours since seeing a post. What's the scoop? Any internal polling data? Keeping my fingers crossed!
Most Romney supporters were pretty peeved about how the media has downplayed his WY victory. (a recent Newsmax story addresses this) However, I can see how it was easy for the media to ignore WY results since it's the least populous state and due to the odd caucus system they used (mostly party insiders and/or major activists.) However, their 12 delegates were as many as NH awarded, and Mitt actually got more delegates out of WY (8) than McCain got out of NH (7).
But that's in the past already . . . but NV looms in the future and we need to insist that it should count. Sadly, we're already seeing how downplayed NV is in the national media coverage.
Even though the the media is covering NV pretty heavily for the it for the Democratic side, they're relatively ignoring it for the GOP. My paranoid side says: "Figures, since Romney stands a good chance of winning it . . . of course the MSM will downplay it." I'm actually convinced that Romney will win it (and if he wins MI, Romney will win NV BIG). Unfortunate timing has the NV caucus on the same day as the SC primary (which is monopolizing the media's coverage.)
But is SC inherently more important than NV for this nomination?
OK, so we know that in recent history, no GOP candidate has won the nomination without winning SC. But this year is very different with at least three candidates still with very credible claims to taking it all, and two others who are still considered "top-teir" candidates. Usually, someone has established themselves after IA and NH and races into SC with the mighty momentum. Or, in the past, the race has been winnowed down to two people already and SC has been the final elimination round for one of them. Not so this year. Some are arguing that FL may play the role this year that SC has played in the past.
NV: 34 delegates up for grabs SC: 24 delegates up for grabs
NV: Important swing state/purple state (i.e. we need someone who can show/run strong in such a state for the general election) SC: Solid Red state . . . whoever the nominee is will win SC and most of the south no matter what.
NV: First western state on the docket (and much of that region are swing states) SC: First southern state primary . . . and the south is pretty much locked up for the GOP.
Objectively, NV looks MORE important than SC to me!
Romney supporters need to start trumpeting the importance of NV relative to SC. Let's get this message on blogs, in comment sections on important blogs/articles/etc . . . I encourgage people to forward this message to your friends/contacts. It would be great if we could get an email campaign together focused at news organizations/journalists/prominent bloggers and asking them why it's being ignored so much . . . demanding that it get fair coverage (at least as much as their giving to the Dems in NV. I don't think any of us want another of Romney's wins to be written off like WY was. LET'S MAKE NEVADA COUNT!
Jeff Fuller
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Honestly I think that Romney might want the media to continue to discount Nevada. If all eyes are glued to South Carolina, than Romney could as he did Wyoming win Nevada in more than convincing fashion.
If he wins Michigan tomorrow than his numbers in South Carolina will improve and he might even sneak into second place there as well. I am not holding my breath. However a victory in Michigan and two stealth victories in Nevada and Wyoming could see him push ahead in Florida.
Huckabee winning South Carolina will turn it into a two man race as McCain will surely be dead politically by than having not won a single of these three states.
If the media makes two much noise, than Nevada could be in play which is something the Romney camp would prefer it not be. Stealth politics right now would mean that the more the media ignores or denigrates Romney's strength the more easily he can win in States that are not getting any love from the media regarding their Caucuses and Primaries.
Big Tuesday will be difficult since the media will be spending its time oogling over states that have Giuliani and Huckabee fighting it out. The funny thing is that when the dust settles the media could find itself even more embarassed as Romney secures a commanding lead in number of delegates.
Honestly I think that if Romney wins Michigan and takes Nevada, he will finally be considered a legitimate candidate by the MSM. They will continue to throw crap at him in order to make him look bad, and they will do their best to prop up Rudy who has all but lost any momentum he has had. Once McCain fizzles and dies, the media will begin their Rudy Momo campaign by throwing Huckabee under the bus.
I just got an e-mail from Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post and in it he states that if Romney were to win in Michigan, we would have three different Republicans winning in the first three states.
I quickly replied to him that we already have three different Republican winners in the first three states - you remember the home state of our Vice President.
I agree about NV and the importance it could have for Romney. I also agree that the media will overlook any Romney victory. NV is very huge whether Mitt wins in MI or not. A NV win after a MI win helps to create more momentum and offset any negative from a SC loss. A NV win after a MI loss would be huge also (however a win will be hard after a MI loss)
I would urge Romney to go to NV after MI and campaign. Many in NV are apparently feeling overlooked by the Republicans with so much effort on SC. An appearance would help greatly, given Mitt's past success with the Republican base.
I am in rural Northern Nevada and haven’t seen a lot of Mitt here. There are Ron Paul commercials, Obama and Clinton commercials, and Mitt radio ads. The latest poll on the news today shows McCain first, then Guiliani, Huckabee, and Mitt in 4th. We all know the danger of believing polls, however, Mitt has definitely slipped here. That could very well all change today after Michigan. The other issue is that the Saturday caucus comes over a long weekend - kids have Friday and Monday off. A lot of people I know who would have voted for Mitt are going away (of course I’ve pleaded with them to stay and vote, then go skiing …). I guess normal people aren’t as obssessed with this as I am; go figure … I think, depending on the results today, tomorrow morning’s news will show us where the focus of the media will be. If Mitt does well in Michigan, I expect he will focus full-throttle on Nevada, as his chances here are probably still better than South Carolina. If so, I am totally up for doing everything possible to get the media out here. We’d have to give them a reason to be here, instead of South Carolina, which could be tough. I think the only way to do that is to ride the Dem’s media exposure. There will be media here covering that, since the Dem’s S.C. primary is later on the 26th (I think). The Dem race here is turning out to be nasty, which is what the media loves. So whatever happens in Michigan, I don’t think Nevada will turn into another Wyoming for the GOP winner, whoever it is. Still, it wouldn’t hurt to try and do what we can to ensure Nevada gets the media play Mitt needs. Of course I could be way off on all of this! I just know that I’m committed to doing just about anything to help Mitt get elected.
After a couple days in Michigan, it’s tough to detect the same excitement that was in the general electorate of Iowa and New Hampshire. In the neighborhood I am staying in, I see only one yard sign, and it’s the one on my cousin’s lawn for Romney.
Around town you see a few Ron Paul signs a couple Romney signs, but beyond that, sign sightings are far and few between. The front pages of the local papers are filled with news about the Auto Show (who refused to give me credentials today- Drats!) and little bit of news on the primary. I assume tomorrow may be different.
I had an interesting talk with a local lady here who is self employed. She is a McCain supporter, who likes Romney as well. She works cleaning houses, pays over a $1000 a month for health insurance for herself, and takes care of two elderly parents who are both in bad health. When I asked why she liked McCain her answer was because he’s been around for a longtime, and it would be good to have some experience. When I asked why with all her concerns about Health Care she wasn’t on board with Romney, she had no idea Mitt had done anything on Healthcare. This lady was very emphatic about voting as well.
It surprised me actually. She had also complained about getting negative mailers from McCain that seemed bent on “trashing Romney” but she still liked him. Like it or hate it, the average voter is not informed. I don’t mean to imply if she had only been informed she would have switched to Mitt, I mean to say I was certainly surprised that for someone who was so concerned about health care, she had no idea about the candidates respective positions on the issue.
The other point is messaging. Romney seems to be winning. A friend of mine talked to one of the pollsters here in Michigan, whose polls have been widely discussed the last couple days. This pollster will tell you that McCain had a good day Friday, then after that, it has been all Romney since. Tomorrow his poll will drop off Friday’s numbers and it will be interesting to see where the numbers land.
But the fact remains, McCain has run a negative message here. Not so much because of his attacks on other candidates, but the fact his message for Michigan is telling 50 year-old out of work assembly-line workers that they need to retrain to another profession. It’s not going to fly. Now maybe McCain is being honest. When you consider his economic ideas and abilities he probably is. The same argument for McCain’s honesty on this issue is equally applicable. After hearing Mitt’s detailed speech outlining his plans for Washington’s response to Michigan’s problems it was quite obvious, if the Automobile industry could be saved, it wasn’t going to happen under a guy who wants to regulate with CAFÉ standards and retrain workers in another industry. McCain’s honesty on this issue does not preclude Romney being honest.
So what will tomorrow hold? I am hopeful. I think Romney will probably win. I think indies will break for McCain, but I think the late undecideds will go in Mitt’s favor. Why? Because if you were looking at layoff, who would you want? A guy whose promises and plans result in certain failure or the guy who promises success with a plan to achieve it?
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
I'm sorry, but I don't think any president can bring the auto industry to what it used to be. Are people in Michigan hoping for Romney to do that? Bring back the auto industry? LOL! hahaha. Sorry, maybe I need to move to China or something because people here are unbelievably slow to catch on. "They took our jobs!." The global market is here to stay, and market forces are moving into equilibrium. Why pay you double the wage of someone in another country? I can't wait for the N. American Union to happen so all my whiny fellow Americans will see how well off they used to be when they complained. You'll have something to whine about then! LOL!
Along with Jason's eye witness reports from the field, we want to hear from you if you are in Michigan, explaining why you voted for Mitt or what is happening on the ground. We will post your thoughts here. Email us at info@mymanmitt.com.
I live in Michigan, and I have been calling republicans to get out the vote for Mitt. I have not yet talked to a McCain supporter, but most people I talk to are either already Romney supporters or undecided but leaning Romney. Cross your fingers, and go Mitt! Most people I talk to view him as deeply committed to Michigan and love that he is from here.
I know this is in favor of Michigan, but just to keep your hopes up about Nevada...I was home tonight and a pollster called for my mom (the millionth one this week). Said she was from the Romney campain, so I didn't hang up. Mom took the call and all was well...she told the lady Romney had her vote, along with the vote of her son who answered the phone. She was ecstatic.
You poor people. What connection does Mitt have to Michigan? Hello, he is in Mass. morons. And has another residency in Utah. Ohhhh, he was born in Michigan back in 1947. Oh, yes, I see now.... You know what, I hope he does win. I used to believe in liberty, but now I believe in corporatism. Most Americans are too proud for no reason, and feel privelaged when you're really overpaid third world laborors. Bring on the remainder of the globalist movement! Put these americans in reality check.
One of the things that makes apparent McCain’s lack of understanding on the issues is his quick resort to the emotional plea. Tying policy to emotion is generally employed to hide deficiencies. If the policy is sound there is little reason to resort to sob stories about one or two individuals. Thus, McCain’s repeated use of soldiers in Iraq whose parents are illegal immigrants is a crutch to prop up a policy that lacks for sound substance. He can tell the story of a soldier whose parents are here illegally until he is blue in the face (or, as his tendency is more, red in the face) and it still does not address the fact that his policy encourages more illegal immigrants to come here. That McCain’s knees buckle at the thought of enforcing the law against otherwise good people does not make him look compassionate but unjust and unwise. Would he refuse to send a soldier’s parent to jail for murder? Would he refuse to send a soldier’s parent to jail for rape? Surely McCain would enforce those laws, but somehow he wants an exception for a crime against our national sovereignty. This seems hopelessly foolish and an affront to the common sense of justice that we all share. Indeed it makes me wonder what other crimes McCain wishes to not enforce. This kind of shallow emotional pandering is one of the lowest forms of politicking and should be rejected.
McCain once again gets a pass from the MSM and his followers. He got booed on the issue because he won't say this "straight talk" idea on immigration: "After securing the border, we'll get the other 10 million illegal immigrants visas to get in line for citizenship after they pay a fee." He will NEVER say this because he'd get killed, so he'll just say, "I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm not deporting the parents of a soldier! [the <0.1% of illegal immigrants]"
Go Mitt tomorrow! Come on MI voters! Let's take MI and NV and on the way to the nomination.
We can only hope people vote on optimism and a plan rather than the media driven straight talk depressed message of McCain.I swear I dislike this guy more than the Clintons and that's pretty bad.I put a very high premium on loyality and McCain's sucks as far as the party goes.But you know if McCain won straight up without the media backing him it would be a lot easier to accept. I've been following this race since last January and they've done nothing but trash Romney.They finally stopped bashing his religion after the speech. All these newspapers are cowards taking the easy way out to back McCain while not pointingut all the problems republicans have with him.
The survey of 582 likely Republican Presidential Primary voters was conducted January 10, 12 and 13, 2008. The survey has a margin of error of +-4.1% at the 95% level of confidence.
Steve Mitchell has been the most accurate pollster in Michigan in the last four presidential campaigns. Polling for the Detroit News in the 2000 MI GOP Primary, his final polling correctly had John McCain winning over George W. Bush. Polling again for the Detroit News in the 2004 MI Dem Primary, his final polling correctly showed the top four candidates in the order they finished and had John Kerry at 52%, his final margin. In the 2000 General Election, his final poll had Gore leading by 5% in Michigan, he won by 5%. In the 2004 General Election, his final polling had Kerry leading by 2% in Michigan, he won by 3%. In his final national poll for WDIV-TV in Detroit, he had Bush winning by 4%, he won by 3%.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
it does take into account, I believe. They are asked if they planned to vote and on which side. The key is how many indy's/dems vote on the Republican side. They are using past models for crossovers; if they are correct great, if the number is larger than expected than Mitt is in trouble.
Some how everything just feels right here. Most of the cars you see here on the road are mad here in the good ole USA, Verner’s is the best Ginger ale in the world.
Wildest dreams joke, poor guy has to tell is about 50x, still gets a big laugh.
If I am elected the Pres. of this great and, I won’t need a compass to tell me where MI is.
I’ve got cars in my blood stream (that’s gotta hurt).
Michigan is in one state recession, problems exacerbated by Lancing’s raising of taxes. What has Washington done to help? Not much at all.
Washington has dropped another Anvil on MI, higher CAFE standards.
Michigan is bell weather for US economy. Canary in the mind.
China accounts for 1/3 of our trade imbalance.
Accustomed to measure Natl. security with missiles, a better measure is the health of economy, Cannot have 1st tier economy with 2nd tier economy. MI economic worries should be nations economic worries.
If I am president, I will not rest until MI comes back! (Big cheer)
I am convinced MI can lead worlds auto industry. Needs change in DC by...
Honest about problems, tackle head on. Roll up sleeves, Mitt will bring together, industry, state and congressional leaders to develop plan for auto industry. Plan will work for MI and Automakers. Rectify enormous capital cost problems. Legacy, CAFÉ, etc.
Plan includes increase funding for auto research. DC, should not be benefactor, be a partner. Stop loading Detroit down with fuel mileage standards, uncoordinated with manufacturers.
Stop DC unilateral energy cost on manufacturing sector. McCain Leiberman Bill is an example (interesting name drop). Costs 300,000 jobs.
Placing caps and taxes on US alone drives manuf. to China. Global Warming.
More Healthcare cost on Auto, than skill costs. Mass Health Plan.
Fix Tax code.
5 fold increase from 4 billion to 20 billion to fuel science , auto tech, energy research.
Lead the world in Defense and medical, If we invest in heath care and space why not invest in fuel efficiency ,etc.
Personal accounts for on the job training. 40 different. Workforce training programs. Replace it with individual ownership and personal responsibility.
Treat teachers like real professionals. Better teachers should be better paid. Evaluated, promoted. Education of children ahead of interest of teachers union.
Shape US trade policy to open market to our goods and level playing field. Any nation tht unfairly man. Curncy, dumps usafe goods, etc. will face very aggressive president across the trading table.
When playing field is level America can compete with any nation
My whole life taken complex situations, and tackled them head on. Only candidate with that kind of experience. Frankly it’s the kind of experience MI needs in the white house.
Some people think there is no future for dom. Auto Indus. Jobs are gone, they are wrong.
We need new leadership in Wash. and they need lift the burdens.
Pessimist says jobs lost forever are gone foever. Nothing an be done. The pessimist are wrong, they don’t have to be lost, I can work to transform the industry and solve the problems. Next time I visit the auto show, I hope it will be as president of the US.
Questions,
Negative campaign between McCain and him?
MCain is a hero, someone I respect. A little advice, don’t run against Ted. K in MA. (lots of laughter) We have difference. MCCain voted against Bush tax cuts, I like them, they kept us from a deep dive. I love legal immigration, I don’t like illegal immigration. No amnesty. He an I disagree on that. I spent my life in private sector consulting venture capital, Turns companies around. I don’t know any exec. Who likes layoffs, means there are problems in the company. I know what it is like to sign payroll, and have to worry about layoffs. I understand economy, it’s in my blood.
Subprime issue, how did we miss this, what should be done, were we wrong to put Bernanke?
How did it happen? OFEO, resp. to mortgage product have no undue risks, They’ll be given more money, they ought to be fired. Highly risky products put together for safety, very risky idea. Fix OFEO, Lowering interest rates, very aggressive effort to help mortgages to stay in homes, to keep mortgages to from bing dumped on market. Washington needs leadership here. I’l likely put out stimulus package in the future, rehashes his savings program.
When are president, how will you concur congressional spending w/out line item?
Line item, single most effective tool pres has. Fight for new rules to fight for these rules. Real problem is entitlement challenge, (60% is entitlement spending, up to 70 in next eight years.) Ultimately it could lead to 100%. We have to have entitlement reform.
Put Medicaid on sound footing. Block grants to state. Medicare, reform entire system.
Governor Romney, how do we compete with Asia?
We really are in a global competition between four competitiors. Nothing as vulnerable as entrenched success. 120,000 to keep a soldier in uniform. 1200 to keep a Chinese soldier in uniform. Recognize the innovative spirit.
Gov. Romney, more troops less troops or troop withdrawal?
Time mag made big mistake in putting Putin on cover, should have been petreaus. NPR reporters laugh in a mocking tone.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Mitt a friend of the US manufacturing worker? It’s as if the guy has no shame, no self-awareness whatsoever. He has the gall to hammer McCain on statements about job losses in Michigan and South Carolina when everybody, including Romney himself, knows that those jobs aren’t coming back. How do Mitt and his handlers expect that all but the most ignorant of Republicans will bestow upon him a shred of credibility on this issue when Mitt, through his position at Bain Capital, was responsible for the loss of thousands of US jobs in downsizing measures, many resulting from plant relocations offshore?
The jobs lost in the Auto industry are being lost due to simple competition. The Asian carmakers can simply build cars less expensively than we can. There is no malice involved, no grand plan to put people out of work, its simple economics.
At Bain Capital however, the intent was quite different, there was a grand plan to put people out of work, it was all part of their strategy. And though the message was, then as now, delivered with a smile from the well-coifed, well-dressed Romney, there was in fact plenty of malice involved. Mitt was a corporate predator--and a good one. Bain would acquire a company and aggressively re-structure it in an attempt to “find efficiencies,” a sanitized euphemism for corporate downsizing through which thousands lost their jobs. In the Auto industry as with many of the other manufacturing sectors that have suffered job loss, there are macroeconomic issues at work; it’s hard to pin the blame on a single company, a single person. With Bain however, it’s easy to locate the people responsible for costing you and your co-workers their jobs, it’s Mitt and the rest of those smiling guys in expensive suits, the same guys who, once they have gutted the company, will sell what’s left at an enormous profit--for themselves.
So now, in an Orwellian twist, Mitt portrays himself as a friend to the US worker, a corporate savior instead of a corporate raider. Like so much about the man, this re-focusing of the realities of his record makes for good marketing, but it only obscures the truth. He’s no friend to the US worker; any worker who believes he is does so at their peril. In like manner, anybody who chooses to trust Mitt based on his current position on gays, immigration, abortion, the economy etc. does so at their peril as well. The history is clear; the only way for Mitt to win in Michigan is if enough people ignore that history. It will indeed be a sad moment for the people of Michigan (and the rest of us as well) if they choose to do so.
Ah Phil, your point is good. Sure jobs were lost when Bain Capital worked with other companies, but think how those companies have since expanded and brought jobs back in to the US. To say that Bain Capital is only responsible for taking jobs is a half truth- most of the companies that they worked with are now stronger, and as a result can sustain more jobs.
In China alone with an account of 1/3 of our Trade imbalance (inequality)Michigan economic worries should be nations economic worries. If Mitt Romney will be president "he will not REST until Michigan comes back." He will do more Globally ever. He will convinced Michigan can lead worlds Auto industry. So he need change in Washington. Mitt will bring together, industry, state, and congressional leaders to develop plan for Auto industry. Plan will work for Michigan and Auto makers. I hope Mitt has lot of ideas globally. We need new leadership in Washington and they need lift the burdens. Etc., from Mike Miyake
border="0" alt="" />
January 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Are you sure Johnson was typing? He was dressed to play virtual Dungeons & Dragons.
And Fournier has had some odd columns in his day.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Right now ABC News video (via Yahoo) is advertising the video under the heading: "Riled! Angry Romney rips reporter."
To the depths with ABC for making me defend Romney, but I've watched the video twice, and as best I can tell, the only two words in that heading that are accurate are "Romney" and "reporter." Romney did not show anger, he wasn't riled, and if that's what ABC defines as getting ripped, they wouldn't last five minutes on the sidelines at a Pee Wee football game.
If anything, Romney looked incredulous and annoyed that anyone could be that dense. A more accurate heading would have been "Dunderhead! Rude reporter badgers Romney."