They discuss Mitt, McCain, Obama, and Hillary.

From the Hotline's Blogometer:

Conservative bloggers were pleased that Mitt Romney endorsed his former rival McCain:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Romney casts himself in a good light with this move, proving that his personal feelings will not stand in the way of making the decision that's in both his and the nation's interest."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If you believe Senators Obama and Clinton, they fundamentally fail to understand the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq or the contours of the menace in Iran. Neither appears to grasp the jihadist threat. Senator McCain does. Because Mitt Romney cares deeply about the safety and security of the country, he was certain to endorse Senator McCain. That he did so quickly is a testament to the starkness of the choice facing America, McCain's complete commitment to victory, and Romney's understanding of the stakes."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "On one level, Romney is making good on his pledge to unite the GOP and prevent the Democrats from taking the White House in perilous times. However, he is also amplifying the contrast between himself (high-minded GOP loyalist) with the man who may be his competition in 2012 or 2016, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee seems bent on pursuing his quixotic campaign, perhaps to build a political base or perhaps to enhance his speaking fees."

Labels: hotline

Kathryn Jean Lopez talks a little bit about her man (politically speaking), and the culture of political cynicism that was ever suspicious of him:

What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been. Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes.

And I’ll go one step further. I worry about a political culture that is a little too suspicious of a scandal-less, all-American-gee-whiz-this-is-the-American-dream-in-overdrive package. We should be glad that good people — who, while well-off, are not without their share of painful crosses — are willing to subject themselves to the ugliness that politics can inflict. We should be grateful that good families will make the sacrifices necessary to serve — and make those sacrifices with no guarantees they’ll succeed.

Labels: Kathryn Jean Lopez

Rebecca Hagelin has an important column out today revisiting the issue of faith and in particular our man Mitt.

Hagelin refers to the excellent documentary by Brian Hall called Article VI which examines the nexus of politics and religion in great detail:

Part of what makes “Article VI” such a compelling film is that Hall and Donaldson give us historical context. They remind us, for example, that there’s a shameful tradition of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. When Al Smith ran for president against Herbert Hoover in 1928, he was pilloried for his Catholic faith. It was denounced as anti-democratic, monarchical -- not in tune with American institutions. And there’s also an appalling tradition of prejudice against those of the Jewish faith who seek high office. Remember the horrible questions the press asked of Sen. Joseph Lieberman when he ran for president? Some things never change. For many in the media, it seems, Mormonism is the new anti-semitism.

I attended a private viewing of the documentary a few weeks ago and found the subject both compelling and unnerving. Hagelin continues:

Whether it’s Mitt Romney speaking boldly of his Mormon faith, Mike Huckabee as an ordained Baptist minister, or Barack Obama taking the pulpit in churches across the country, the personal practice of deep faith by our would-be leaders must be passionately protected. As Kennedy told the Houston ministers: “Today, I may be the victim. But tomorrow, it may be you.”

In my own opinion Mormonism did indeed play a role in Mitt Romney's defeat which is sad and unfortunate. I hope, like Kennedy's faith that we can overcome these prejudices.

Labels: mormonism

AP broke the news a few minutes ago.

Discussions on Fox News are saying that this makes Romney a favorite for VP (helps with unifying the right and talk-radio folks, helps in Michigan and the west, helps with potenially drawing upon Romney's money).

Also speculation that Romney's delagate going to McCain get him close to the magic 1191 that will be when Huckabee drops out . . . so this could be the move that makes Huck get out of the race . . . ah, sweet justice.

Jeff Fuller

Reported on Fox News and CNN.

Beckel Talking about this setting Mitt up for the VP spot.

Fox reporting announcement at 3:30est in Boston.

Mitt as VP:

Pros:
1. Balances ticket very well
2. Shows Unity in GOP
3. Maybe McCain will agree to one term
4. Keeps Huckabee out

Cons:
1. Will the US ever want 3 GOP presidents in a row?
2. Can a loosing VP candidate come back and win nomination later? I can only think of Ford as the only example.
3. Doesn't help McCain in the south...maybe... I have a feeling if you put McCain's and Romney's numbers together in south, you have a huge majority.

From the Hotline:

Given the choice of Huckabee, McCain, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, 26% of VA GOP voters and 27% of MD GOP voters chose Romney as the most qualified candidate to manage the economy, despite the fact that he suspended his campaign nearly a week ago.

Labels: economy, Maryland, Virginia

Look, she may be a little extreme, but she says what we all want to say in our heart of hearts. Coulter is still hammering McCain and praising Romney:

In fact, McCain and Romney are mirror opposites: As Romney had to tailor his conservative views to the liberal voters of Massachusetts, McCain has had to tailor his liberal views to the conservative voters of Arizona. While Romney's record in a liberal bastion is as bad as it will ever be, McCain's record from a conservative bastion is as good as it will ever be. Which isn't very good.

In the immortal words of -- well, me, actually: Always choose a strong conservative from a blue state over a lukewarm conservative from a red state.

Labels: John McCain

Even for the most die hard Romney fan who is still ambivalent about McCain in so many ways, this quote is really, really good:

“Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country.”

"[But] to encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.”

I heard the audio this morning and it was even better. If someone notices a YouTube of this pop up, send me the link.

There's been a lot of opinions written lately about Huckabee staying in the race. Most of the people that take the time to write something about the topic are pro-Huckabee types. Not that there's anything wrong with that.Personally I'm agnostic about Huckabee's continued presence in the race. However, I thought this piece by George Neumayr over at Human Events deserved some responding to, especially from us Romney Republicans.

Huckabee and Neumayer make the argument that there needs to be competition, as if this were some sort of ongoing marketplace and not an elimination process. Huckabee has been mathematically eliminated from getting the nomination, yet he continues to press forward as if he has not been. Huckabee has countered, notably at CPAC, that he did not major in math (which seems to be stating the obvious), but in miracles. Well, Huck, I cannot deny you a continued faith in miracles, but it seems a poor substitute at this point for an honest self-assessment.

Neumayr also makees the argument that Huckabee's continued presence "stimulates much-needed debate about pervasive liberalism in the party." It seems ironic that Huckabee's presence would stimulate debate about pervasive liberalism in the party. It is true that Huckabee's continued campaign stimulates that discussion, only not in the way that they would like to think. Most conservatives, and especially us Romney Republicans, see Huckabee as a liberal on taxes, government spending, government programs, immigration, and even seems to have those tendencies on foreign policy. Truly Huckabee's campaign does spark debate, but it is about how Huckabee represents liberalism on so many issues.

The truth is that Huckabee's campaign has not about issues. His whole platform has been personality and identity based (I guess you could count the Fair Tax, but that's another discussion). I think the same elements of personality keep Huckabee in the race. It is more about self than about the people.

So, by all means, Huckabee, stay in the race. I do not begrudge you the chance to make your presidential campaign last as long as you like. However, dispense with the false notions that the campaign is about competition or issues. Your continued presence is about self. Just admit it. After all, they say honesty is the best policy.

Labels: mike huckabee

It’s all the rage these days to speculate as to who the VP will be. All sorts of people write about what the criteria are for VP. Many of you Romney supporters are going back and forth (believe me, we get the emails) about whether you want Mitt as a VP pick. Some are for it, most are against it. But, I think that most people are ignoring the fact that the VP has very little impact on the president.

Just think about this: when was the last time the VP spearheaded any major initiative or policy while Vice-President? Dick Cheney has been a little bit of an exception with his role in foreign policy, but even still, his role in making policy seems minimal. Even granting the Cheney exception, the role of the VP is minimal after the election is over. Really, the true role of the VP is to get the President elected. Thus, a President should pick a VP based on who will get him the most votes.

So what does this have to do with Romney? Certainly Romney has proven that he can move votes. However, for those hoping (as I have seen on some blogs) that McCain will pick Romney and let Romney run the domestic policy, don’t get your hopes up. Not that it is impossible that McCain would pick Romney, but don’t start to aggrandize what that means by starting to talk about policy influence of the running mate. That role will be negligible.

Labels: Vice-President

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (they like Mitt), the wheels are already starting to roll:

Turns out that after the applause died, Romney huddled with “some 50 stalwarts of the political right” to discuss making the former Massachussetts governor “the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win,” the Washington Times reported this weekend.

Participants at the meeting included Georgia’s Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, and Jay Sekulow of Alpharetta, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, who served as a kind of liaison to evangelicals for the Romney campaign.

“The movement needs someone of Ronald Reagan’s stature and Romney could fill that role,” the Times quoted Sekulow as saying.

The newspaper reported that American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene presided over the meeting, in the same hotel where the Conservative Political Action Conference was held.

Others at the meeting included radio talk show host Laura Ingraham; former Reagan White House official Donald J. Devine; Indiana Republican National Committee member James Bopp Jr.; Freedom Alliance President Tom Kilganon; former Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri; Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis; Human Events editor-in-chief Tom Winter; conservative activist Bay Buchanan; Ann Corkery, a Catholic activist; and Rabbi Nate Segal, a Rush Limbaugh associate. Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich listened in via phone.

Mitt Romney referenced the 1976 Republican National Convention when talking at CPAC about his supporters wish that he continue on. He then went on to discuss how 2008 is different than 1976 because we are at war.

Following up on Beth's post below, I wanted to talk about this reference. Romney drew a parallel, and then let the impression it conjures resonate. This allows us to think about what it means and draw our own conclusions.

What is the parallel? In 1976, the Republican convention pitted incumbent Gerald Ford against California Governor Ronald Reagan. In many ways, Ford represented the Washington establishment and more importantly, he represented the continuation of Richard Nixon's presidency to many who wanted change.

In 2008, there will be some similar dynamics. Critics of George Bush 43 have attempted to paint him as Nixonian. The democrats will attempt to pigeonhole McCain as merely a continuation of Bush's policies. Many people do want change.

Ronald Reagan nearly captured the nomination in 1976. But he fell short. President Ford invited Reagan to speak to the convention. When he arose, he zeroed in on the singular most important topic on his mind; the threat of nuclear destruction.

In explaining why he was stepping aside, Romney zeroed in on the biggest threat we face as well; the threat of attack from terrorists.

Romney's reception at CPAC eclipsed John McCain's in many ways, just as Reagan's reception exceeded President Ford's. Like Reagan, Romney's speech left many Republicans wondering whether they had chosen the right person.

Our country has problems. I hope we can overcome them. If there was ever a leader to fix problems in Washington, it is Mitt Romney. Like Romney though, I realize we are facing a major threat to our existence. After much internal struggle, I am throwing my support behind John McCain. I will vote for him.

Many, many readers have emailed us saying they would not vote for McCain. I think that may be shortsighted. I understand the impulse. There is certain pleasure to be derived from denying someone who spited the party so many times. I really want the border problem fixed and I don't think McCain has the desire to get the job done. I have serious concerns about the economy. McCain will not be able to use the bully pulpit as effectively as Romney could have on economic matters. Nevertheless, I prefer McCain beat either of the Democrats.

If for some reason McCain doesn't win, I will be prepared to help Romney win in 2012. I know Romney will be ready to lead, just as Reagan was after the disastrous Carter years.

Take Away

Romney did the classic "take away" at the CPAC Convention. I've been in sales for a long time and the "take away" is a very effective way to get people to want the product you are offering.

I don't know if Romney did this purposefully, but it is effective. He "took himself away" from the Conservatives -- just when they were beginning to endorse him and recognize that he was 'their man.'

"The first step in getting people to take immediate action is for them to perceive your product or service as being in demand or in limited supply. People want what is "hot" right now.

Psychologists have proven, people find more value in things they have a difficult time obtaining. If you're told you can't have something, you want it even more."

http://www.fromtheheartsalestraining.com/persuasion-technique.html

Remember Kenny Rogers' song -- "You've gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em.

Mitt knew.


Aikido

Another brilliant move that Romney made in his CPAC speech is this:

John McCain has been using his real and perceived strength in the War on Terror (surge, etc.) to put Mitt down.

As for the War on Terror another thing that Mitt did at CPAC was sort of an aikido move:

"Aikido focuses not on punching or kicking opponents, but rather on using their own energy to gain control of them or to throw them away from you. It is not a static art, but places great emphasis on motion and the dynamics of movement." http://www.aikidofaq.com/

Mitt Romney, in one inspiring speech, took McCain's major strength and used McCain's energy on the subject to gain control of McCain and throw him away from himself.

When Mitt said that he was stepping aside for the greater good - the War on Terror -- he trumped McCain.

Whether any of this was intentional or not, I don't know.

But I would never underestimate Mitt Romney's understanding of human nature and his ability to negotiate to achieve success.

This guy -- our Mitt Romney - is a genius. But it is not his time right now.

His time is coming.

Stay tuned!