Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt

Kudos to Mike Huckabee who gave an excellent speech and was able to win the local straw poll. Congrats to Mitt for winning the overall straw poll with online savvy.

Couple of thoughts here:

Here's a quick genesis of how things happened from the Romney side of things. Over a week ago the Romney camp caught wind that over 1000 people had already voted in the straw poll. I guess Romney can count better than the other candidates (j/k) and quickly realized that this thing was going to be won online. In short: if 2500 people were attending the straw poll and 1000 people had already voted... anyone who didn't make an online showing would lose. They called up supporters and asked them to email their personal lists about the opportunity. We held the news from our blogs until Thursday night so as not to tip the other candidates (who apparently didn't put 2 and 2 together - again j/k) and the race was off.

600 attendees actually voted online.... so the 952 votes is misleading. I'm not saying Romney won... but the seeming on-site rout for Huckabee needs a little context.

The big losers as Erick and Politico point out are Fred and Rudy. The former came in behind Romney and the later came in second. Second, that is, in the least acceptable candidate group.

Talking to numerous people at the convention... the flurry of Romney endorsements didn 'tnot go unnoticed. Many people came up to me asking numerous questions about Mitt. At one point a prominent radio host asked me to come over and explain where Mitt stands on stem cell research to another fellow news maker.
Here's a better contextual look at why Huckabee is a great guy... but won't be able to make it happen:

Labels: frc, huckabee, mike huckabee, mitt romney, straw polls


	3 Comments: What the heck is Huckabee saying???? If you don’t vote for him, because he is authentic, then Faith as we know it is destroyed???? If that is his rationale for running, then I think Huckabee has a few screws loose!!! http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1007/The_Values_Voter_straw_poll.html Huckabee took a more fiery approach. After talking about protecting freedom and family, Huckabee said: “Faith is also threatened, and let me share with you how. I believe that there are many who will seek our support. But let me say that it’s important that people sing from their hearts, and don’t merely lip-synch the lyrics to our songs. I think it’s important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue, and not a recently acquired second language. It’s important that a person doesn’t have more positions on issues that Elvis had waist sizes.” By Anonymous, at October 20, 2007 at 11:23 PM Thanks for the inside scoop on how this came about. Facinating, but not surprising that Mitt's team would pick up on the early signals of how this would go down and mobilize effectively to meet the challenge. Charles Mitchell over at Evangelicals for Mitt also has some interesting insight here. http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/you_guys_dont_get_it.php By Mr. Dern, at October 21, 2007 at 10:08 AM What I thought most interesting about Charles' input is the fact that people weren't able to vote after mitt's speach because the voting booths were already closed for the night, wereas huckabee spoke early the next day and people were able to vote immediately after. I won't try to predict what the outcome might have been if people had voted after mitt but before huckabee spoke, but the energy present coming away from a good speach is powerfull, and after a night sleeping, people fall back into wait and see mode. And people seemed to realy like MR speach, so likely many would have voted for him that didn't if they were able to immediately following his speach. By IZ, at October 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM Post a Comment

I just received a very strong email from the Family Research Council calling into question the veracity of Rudy since yesterday's remarks:

Giuliani Can Run--But He Can't Hide:

Although presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani is quick to say that he "hates" abortion, his recent choice of words shows little enmity for the practice. In an interview with CNN, the former New York City mayor reaffirmed that he supports taxpayer funding for abortion. "I'm in the same position now that I was 12 years ago... which is, personally opposed to abortion, don't like it, hate it, would advise [women] to have an adoption rather than abortion." He went on to say, "But it is your choice, an individual right. You get to make that choice, and I don't think society should be putting you in jail." American women have not been at risk of jail under past abortion laws, nor are they in the future. This canard is what the radical feminists have long said in an attempt to frighten and mislead. Referencing a 1989 speech, in which Giuliani said, "There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," the CNN interviewer asked if he would maintain that same position as president. Giuliani replied, "Probably." Then he added, "Ultimately, [abortion] is a constitutional right, and therefore... even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure that people are protected." That is an odd formulation, since Roe v. Wade is notable for withdrawing the protection of human life. And if abortion is a "private" act, what business does the government have funding it? If it is hateful, what other hateful things merit tax subsidies? Giuliani assured a crowd in Iowa that he would appoint conservative judges who will "interpret the meaning of the Constitution." Yet Giuliani's opinion of what the Constitution guarantees offers little comfort to the vast number of Americans who count themselves among the ranks of the pro-life.

Labels: abortion, frc, rudy


	2 Comments: Shame on Rudy and all those who make apologies for him. By Anonymous, at April 5, 2007 at 6:52 PM Giuliani has "clarified" that he prefers that states be the ones that subsidize abortions. He says that he doesn't want federal funding except "as the law requires." At worst this is just a weaselly way of reaffirming that he thinks the constitution requires federal abortion subsidies. At best, this means that Giuilani thinks the constitution requires states to subsidize abortions. Will a Giuliani Justice Department sue states that don't pay abortionists? Giuliani still refuses to promise that he will veto any repeal of the Hyde amendment. By Anonymous, at April 6, 2007 at 9:04 AM Post a Comment

Some thoughts on the straw poll

FRC Action Alert: Giuliani Can Run--But He Can't Hide: