Steve Schmidt, campaign manager for John McCain had this to say on last night's Hugh Hewitt show talking about the 2012 Presidential campaign:

If I had to bet money on it, if I had to bet money on it today, you’d have to say that the people that I think look very good, very strong right now are Governor Romney, Governor Huntsman. I think Newt Gingrich, should he run, is going to be a very formidable, very formidable candidate. But the history of the Republican Party nominating process is that it almost always goes to someone who’s been around the track once before. And in that instance, in this instance, it would be Governor Romney. I thought he was a very scary opponent looking from the other side of the table in that he was almost like a learning organism at the end. He just kept getting better week by week by week, and kept becoming stronger. And I think these national campaigns are very unique, and I think most people learn a great deal with they go through them. And I think one of the reasons that President Bush was able to make it through the process the first time, unlike most people on the Republican side, is because he had been up close and personal through a couple of national races. And I think Mitt Romney is a candidate, is a far stronger candidate, prospectively, for the ’12 race because of his experience in ’08 than he was heading into the ’08 race.

Labels: 2012, mitt romney, steve schmidt

Here are some direct quotes from people who were close to the Romney campaign:

"Its possible. Its very, very possible"

"I put his chances at 55%... that's up from 35% two months ago"

"The situation is very tight. I haven't heard anything new this week"

Then there's this exchange on MSNBC:

Labels: mitt romney, msnbc

Labels: mitt romney

Matt Lewis points to a Huckabee motive. David Brody has a headache over this thing. But I see another motif at play here.

Am I blowing smoke about the hidden anti-Mormon agenda of many of the signatories who signed onto the God Not Government post?

Well, let's review. Granted, these excerpts don't come anywhere close to equating Mormonism to Homosexuality, but even I was a bit shocked by some of these quotes.

My main point is this: if you want your egregious arguments to hold any water at all... don't include anti-Mormons on your list of adherents.

• Matt Barber, Policy Director, Concerned Women for America quoted here as helping a reformed homosexual who converted to Mormonism find "scripturally-sound" evangelical churches to attend.
  
• Ted Baehr, Author of Culture Wise Family, on the September 11th film: "What [the character of] Brigham Young does in the movie is talk about…that you have to have blood atonement... This is going to be an issue [for Romney]. ”
• Janet Folger, President Faith2Action, See here: "Romney, as a Mormon, doesn't believe Jesus was God's only Son (Lucifer, they claim, was his 'brother'). Nor does he believe in the virgin birth. Instead, Mormons believe God the Father had physical sex with Mary. The word blasphemy comes to mind. A bit more than a mere 'denominational difference,' don't you think?"
• Gary Glenn, President AFA, Michigan, played the "religion card" in his GOTV efforts for Huckabee
• James Hartline, Founder and Publisher, California Christian News: "San Diego Republican Party Hits New Low - Invites Cult Member As Christmas Party Guest Of Honor" - "Mormon politics is more about promoting the economic interests of the Mormon Church and its wealthy members rather than any pseudo Biblical beliefs."
• Linda Harvey, President Mission America: "He used his Republican and Mormon identity to push through radical policies on gay marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual school programs that Ted Kennedy always dreamed about." - link
• Gregg Jackson: Writes here in an article entitled: "Is this the end of Evangelicalism in America?": "A cornerstone of the Mormon Church, Grudem writes, is the classic heresy of Saint Paul's day – angel worship. In his book, Grudem insists that an orthodox Christian must practice the theology he reads. So why would he step forward to become part of the Mitt Romney propaganda blitz trying to mislead evangelicals into doing what would shock most evangelicals in American history: elect a Mormon for president? "
• Peter LaBarbera: "The sponsor of a homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” bill in Utah is hailing the support of two Mormon-owned media organs, signaling the neutrality of the powerful and socially conservative church on an issue that is seen by many family advocates as the first step in the wider 'gay' agenda."

And I'm only half way through the list. In my mind, many of these people are hiding behind silly political pot-shots because they have theological angst against the Mormon church.

Am I wrong here?

Labels: evangelicals, mitt romney, mormonism

Today, John McCain on Letterman, the Weyrich waffling, Gentry Collins
on the move, and zodiac signs predict who?


MP3 File

SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST CLICK BELOW:




OR use our feed:

XML Podcast Feed

Labels: david letterman, John McCain, mitt romney, mittcast, paul weyrich, zodiac election

Here's the setup.

Lowell Brown, the savvy legal eagle over at the Article VI blog, links to this article by Warren Smith. (Lowell and crew are masters at surveying the current intersection of politics and religion. Its an important post which we will discuss at some later date but Smith's claim is the issue at hand.)

In his WorldMag article, Smith alleges that Paul Weyrich (noted conservative Christian leader who endorsed Romney last November) now openly regrets his endorsement. Quoting Weyrich: "Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong." Smith continues:

In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.

Lowell thinks Smith is spinning. I'm not convinced. Its difficult for me to claim spin with that direct quote from Weyrich. Still, context is everything.

My sources tell my that Weyrich (like many conservatives) was not a little miffed about Mitt's endorsement of McCain. I understand his sentiment but disagree with his reasoning.

The gist of the meeting, which Smith says took place in early March, lambastes leaders for not getting behind Huck. Its hard to justify this thinking. I could use the same logic in my corner to berate Iowan Evangelicals for not getting behind Mitt (which is the demographic move that started the whole McCain ball rolling after all).

From my perspective Mitt's McCain move was calculated but completely logical. McCain has always been the snubbed candidate from most sides of the conservative playground. But today, he's the only guy left to be picked for the kickball game. With the anti-Bush electorate so vocal, McCain may just be the best guy. This is what Mitt sees and what I hope our readers will see as well.

To wit: conservatives who oppose McCain for political reasons are essentially "kicking against the pricks" - a rough venture when the alternatives are President Clinton or Obama.

Still, Weyrich is expressing a certain bewilderment and understandable angst which many conservative Christians are feeling about McCain. Another source who is deeply connected in Evangelical circles expressed his dismay that McCain isn't reaching out to them.

A third source confirmed this feeling but indicated that its mostly par for the course. "McCain is coming to these conservative events but mostly just to check the box that says he was there. He holds no private meetings, no meet and greets and never lingers to mix with the crowd."

I hope he's wrong. Its going to take more than the facade of placation to placate these masses.

Still, context is everything. While Weyrich in early March was miffed at Mitt I'm told he's also a bit perturbed about Huck's defense of Reverend Wright. What goes around comes around.

Labels: endoresements, evangelicals, John McCain, mitt romney, paul weyrich

Alert:
Rush Limbaugh just said that Time Magazine is saying Romney may concede in his CPAC speech later today.

Update:

Romney has suspended his campaign.


Hopefully Romney has just cut a deal to be McCain's VP.

Just in case this doesn't happen:
Romney basically needs to win all the remaining delegates to get the nomination. This is mostly because Huckabee is holding many delegates that may go his way. He is mathematically eliminated but refuses to drop out to keep control of his delegates. However, if Huckabee stays in the race, there is a chance McCain will not win enough delegates and end up in a brokered convention. Perhaps there will be a scenario where McCain will need to make a deal with Romney if Huckabee does not have enough delegates to get over the top. In that case Romney has good leverage to become Vice President.

Labels: mitt romney

I just cast my ballot in Birmingham, Alabama for Mitt Romney. Come one Alabama, let's win this state for Mitt. Remember, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. If you are conservative and McCain is not in your top two, you simply can't vote for Huckabee. I know ideally you should vote for who you think is the best candidate, but let's be realistic, Huckabee has no shot at all. None. You are not only throwing your vote away, you are helping John McCain win the nomination. Huckabee is single handedly ruining the conservative movement by staying in the race to gain favor with McCain for VP or some other position. How can you vote for someone who puts his personal ambition above the good of the party and the country?

Go Mitt!

Labels: election, mitt romney

Courtesy of Degree of Madness:

The Candidate Who Can See the Enemy, Can Defeat It.  Dr. Phares makes a compelling case for Mitt Romney:

Probably I am among the few who see the clouds gathering around theglobe and thus have been urging leaders to act fast, decisively andearly on to avoid the future Jihad –that has began already. Had what Isee wasn’t there I would be fully excited -- like any citizen -- toargue forcefully about the crucial matters of our existence: health,environment, nutrition, scientific discoveries, animal protection, andwhy not space exploration. Had I not realized that all that debate washinging on what Bin laden and Ahmedinijad were preparing, I would havebeen looking at a whole different roaster of Presidential candidates.But that is not the world I see ahead of us, in the immediate future.

Hence,I’ll leave the debate about the best economic and technologicaldirections to their experts and I would postpone the social andphilosophical dreams to better times. Right now and right here I aminterested in who among the candidates can simply understand the tragicequation we’re in and may be able to use the resources of this nationto cross the bridge ahead of us. President Bush was elected before 9/11neither on the grounds of avoiding the Jihadi wars nor winning them.Very few even knew that we were already at war. He was reelected on theground of being a better choice than the defeatist politicalalternative. This year I suggest that Americans deserve a more daringchoice. They need to see and certify that the next occupant of theWhite House lives on this Planet, at this age, knows that we are at warand above all knows which war we are fighting. The margin of error istoo slim to allow hesitations.

By 2012 the Jihadists may recruit one million suicide bombers and couldalign two nuclear powers. By 2016 they would deploy 10 million suicidebombers and seize five regimes equipped with the final weapon. In thenext eight years NATO’s European membership could be battling urbanintifadas and US task forces lacking shelters worldwide. To avoid theseprospects of apocalypse the offices on Pennsylvania Avenue must catchup with the lost opportunities as of next winter.

Thus, andunlike traditional commentators in classical US politics I am notlooking at who said what and who flipped flopped when. Frankly, itdoesn’t matter at this stage if it is a he or a she, of this or otherrace, of this or other church, and if the President is single, has alarge family or has divorced twice. The stakes are much higher than thesweet but irrelevant American usual personality debate. I want to knowif the candidates are strong willed, smart, educated about the world,informed about the threat, can define it, can identify it, can fightit, are not duped by their bureaucracy, cannot be influenced by foreignregimes, have the right advisors, can run an economy while commanding awar and still see the threats as they handle daily crisis and takedrastic measures as the hard times are approaching. I want to know ifthe candidates are very specific when they inform their public aboutthe menace. Yes, it is indeed a vital function of national securitythat we need to insure for the next few years, so that all other issuescan be addressed thoroughly. In short I don’t want to see the fall ofConstantinople being repeated on these shores in the next decade ortwo. Humanity will not recover from such a disaster.

Dr. Phares discusses the qualifications of the four remaining contenders for President, two Democrats, two Republicans.  "I am looking at the scariest item on any Presidential agenda and check out if they are conscious about it: national security."  Here is his conclusion:

This is why I have come to the conclusion that -based on what wasprovided to the public by the four leading candidates- Governor Romneyhas the capacity of managing the counter strategies against theJihadists, only because he stated to the public that he sees the enemyas to who they are. And if a President can see them, he can defeatthem. His Republican contender, now leading the polls, can sense thembut haven’t shown them. The leading candidates on the other side aremaking progress in the opposite direction: One wants to end the Warunilaterally and the other wants to make Peace with the oppressors. Inshort, if elected, Romney will try to destroy the mother ship, McCainwill supply the trenches, Clinton will pull the troops back to thebarracks and Obama will visit the foes’ bunkers.

Hence, asis, I have recommended Governor Romney for the Republican Primaries asfirst among equals while considering Senator McCain as a genuineleader. If Romney is selected I believe America may have a chance totry new strategies. If his contender is selected, we will have four oreight more years of the past seven years. On the other side, I havesuggested to counter-Terrorism experts to help Democratic candidatesrestructure their agendas on national security in line with the realityof the enemy: For I would like to see both Parties presenting a unitedvision of the threat while differing on how to confront it. That wouldbe the ideal situation America can be in and a response to the deepestwill of the American public.

I would add that considering John McCain's position on illegal immigration he is not serious about national security.  He gets A+ on the war in Iraq but national security goes way beyond that.  He has a blind spot when it comes to our borders. 

McCain has also said he would close Guantanamo Bay on his first day in office.  His reasoning for closing Gitmo is reason enough to derail his "Straight Talk" Express: because "there's a lot of anti-Americanism" around the world.  According to John McCain we should bring a bunch of terrorists to the United States (Ft. Leavenworth to be exact.  Are Kansas voters listening?) so everybody will like us again.  Call it the Mealy-Mouth Express:

John Weaver, Sen McCain's chief strategist, confirmed his plans for amarkedly more conciliatory foreign policy. "The next president willhave to work extra hard to unite our friends and divide our foes. Sadlythe opposite has occurred in recent years," he said, as Sen McCainaddressed a crowded hall in the farming community of Cedar Falls.

"John believes that you can accomplish a lot more in this world bysticking to your principles, while adopting a much more humble tonewith your partners."

Humble with your partners?  I guess John McCain doesn't consider U.S. citizens his partners. 

The endorsement by Dr. Phares is significant:

Inshort, if elected, Romney will try to destroy the mother ship, McCainwill supply the trenches, Clinton will pull the troops back to thebarracks and Obama will visit the foes’ bunkers.

Yes, John McCain is a war hero.  That does not automatically make him the best choice for President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

Labels: Endorsement, mitt romney

Yesterday at a doctor's office, I was talking to the receptionist, who is a friend, about politics.

Me: Have you decided who you are voting for?

Her: I like Huckabee.

Me: Oh that's interesting. I always wonder why people like Huckabee.

Her: Well I don't have any particular reason other than we share the same religion and that's important to me.

Me: Using that criteria, you'd also vote for Jimmy Carter.

Her: That's true. I do like McCain too.

Me: Do you like Ted Kennedy?

Her: No he's terrible.

Me: Did you know McCain is friends with Ted Kennedy?

Her: Really?

Me: Have you heard of the McCain/Kennedy Immigration/Amnesty Bill?

Her: I really need to do more research.

Unfortunately I think that there are too many voters like her making uninformed decisions. Get the word out about Romney. Don't let people form their views from the bias of the mainstream media.

Labels: mitt romney

...in each of the Feb. 5th states. Find your state's video here.

Labels: mitt romney

During the CNN Republican Debate last night, McCain took a cheap shot on virtually every question to insult Romney. He went after "flip-flopping". He accused Romney of laying people off. He called Romney unqualified to be Commander in Chief. He looked like a fool continuing to insist that Romney wants a time table for troop withdrawal when it was completely clear to everyone there that all the evidence showed otherwise. He used class warfare tactics by telling Romney to spend every dime he had on the election. He complained about all the Romney "attack ads" when it was clear that he was the only one attacking last night. There were so many insults, I can't remember them all.

The most important factor in the debate last night was that Romney rose above the puerile tactics of McCain. Romney looked Presidential and McCain looked like a cranky old man. Romney defended himself quite well without responding in kind. I commend Romney on his poise and urge him to continue this approach. Romney clearly won the debate last night.

Labels: debate, mitt romney

I'm sure you all got this from Mitt today.

"I just want to thank you for being an early supporter of my campaign.

You recognize the importance of electing a Washington outsider with the experience, vision and values to confront our nation’s challenges, and with your help, your fellow Americans are quickly joining our effort.

With Mayor Giuliani’s disappointing finish in the Florida primary – a state where he dedicated most of his time and resources – this race has come down to a contest between me and Senator McCain.

And with victories in Nevada, Michigan, and Wyoming, and strong second-place showings in Florida, Iowa, and New Hampshire, it’s clear that I’m the only candidate with the broad-based support to unite the coalitions within the Republican Party.

You have come through time and again, and now, I must ask for your support at this exciting time. We’ve done so well in the early states, but in just one week, we will face an unprecedented challenge – 21 states will hold their nominating contests!

That’s right. I need the resources necessary to take my message to 21 states in just one week.

If you can contribute $500, $250, $100, $50, even $25 or any amount you can afford, it will be so appreciated and go a long way to clinching the nomination … and then the White House.

I have the energy and the right combination of business background and strong family values and leadership experience. It’s going to take a strong, determined approach to ensure liberal initiatives fail and conservative principles prevail, and our nation heads in a positive direction.

Can I count on you today? Any amount you can give will be so helpful.

Thank you so very much,


P.S. Please contribute $500, $250, $100, $50, even $25 or any amount you can afford. Also, you may ask your friends and family to contribute as well. There’s no better time than the present to make history and keep American moving on a path to strength and prosperity. Thanks again."

I'm not all gloom and doom about Florida. I was really impressed with how much support Romney picked up in just the last week to make it that close. Sure McCain has a few more delegates at the moment, but Mitt is gaining momentum. Super Tuesday is coming and so are the Red States. Mitt hasn't had a chance to shine in truly conservative areas yet.

I once again repeat my challenge. Super Tsunami Nuclear Tuesday is coming and this is where we go all in. Mitt needs our help. Again, I ask everyone to match my $25 donation and I will give another $5 for everyone that matches me up to $100. If you can do more than $25, please don't let me hold you back. Feel free to increase or match my challenge.

We all know that this country needs conservative leadership, not the best friend of Bill, Hillary, and Ted Kennedy. If you believe in Mitt's leadership the time to act is now. Don't just sit back and enjoy the ride. If Mitt can donate millions of his own dollars, the least we can do is chip in $25 of our own. Let's leave it all on the field. It will take a lot of money to counter the mainstream media who are rooting for McCain, and Romney can't do it all himself!

Labels: fundraising, mitt romney

Romney's position on Iraq Benchmarks and Timetables, in April of 2007:

"There's no question that the president and (Iraqi) Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."

Clearly, any competent military commander will have a way to measure progress and success. To execute any operation without clearly defined goals, benchmarks, and timetables is to be flying blind. Yet, for the reasons Romney mentioned, it's important that such a plan not be public information for the enemy.

McCain is now attacking Romney for supporting of private benchmarks and timetables. This is galling in that McCain knows as well as anyone why such private benchmarks currently exist, and will continue to exist with any future operations. And in characteristic form, McCain goes on to smear Romney's position as advocating for withdrawal from Iraq.

"If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher."

Were this simply a case of McCain misrepresenting Romney on an issue, it would be any other day of the week. But consider that at this time last year, McCain embraced the very same thing for which he is attacking Romney today. To quote from the article:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.
...
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

And to put the final shock and awe on this already remarkable display of hypocrisy, what is McCain's response to Team Mitt's demand for an apology on the misleading attacks?

"I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform, that we will not let them down in hard times or good. That is who the apology is owed to."

Indeed, apologies are due. To the Romney campaign, for knowingly distorting his position. To the public, for turning a military strategy debate into "gotcha" politics for McCain's political advantage. And to the American soldiers whom McCain is using as pawns in his decade long quest for the Presidency. Disgraceful.

Labels: iraq war, John McCain, mitt romney

From Drudge:


FLASH: RASMUSSEN Florida poll to be released: Romney 25, McCain 20, Giuliani 19... Developing...

Stay tuned!!!!!

Labels: mitt romney, Polls

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.

Labels: mitt romney, primaries

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.

Cross-posted at Blogs For Mitt

Labels: Glen Johnson, mitt romney

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.

Labels: donate, mitt romney

Come on Michigan, make it happen!

Labels: mitt romney

Senator John McCain, by his own admission, is not the sharpest tack in the shed on economic issues. So when McCain attacks Romney via mailers in Michigan accusing Romney of raising taxes by $700 million, it's a good idea to check the REAL numbers.

$260 million -- Romney's fee hikes on targeted services...like highway billboards, duplicate copies of driver's licenses, bar exams, registering a boat, installing underground water tanks, filing a court case, transporting hazardous waste, etc. This represents less than 10% of the $3 billion deficit Romney closed in his first year.
$240 million -- Fee hikes that were passed PRIOR to Romney's first year in office, yet did not take effect until Romney was IN office.
$210 million -- Romney closed corporate tax loopholes...for example, banks that did some real estate as part of their business were claiming to be "real estate lenders" as their primary business and were thereby qualifying for a major tax shelter. Closing the corporate tax loopholes are simply enforcing existing tax code as it was intended...to call this a tax hike is like calling it a sentencing when you send an escaped convict back to prison.

Add all three up, and there's your $700 million. Romney's contribution is only about $470 million, NOT $700 million, and NONE of it can honestly be considered tax hikes.

Furthermore, the $260 million of fee hikes that Romney approved were more than offset by various TAX CUTS he implemented...in other words, better than a "revenue neutral" shift of taxes to service fees, which any conservative should like. The service fees were generally in line with national and local inflationary trends, as well as making the prices more reflective of the actual costs. Fees generally make accounting in government more transparent, as you can see where the money is going...and there's really no good reason to subsidize a service cost below its market value anyway.

Romney's fiscal record on cutting spending is unimpeachable. And here's the list of Romney's tax cuts, the biggest of which was his reversal of the $250 million retroactive capital gains tax in 2005.

CAPITAL GAINS TAXES
INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
2004 SALES TAX HOLIDAY
2005 SALES TAX HOLIDAY
BIOTECH MANUFACTURING JOBS TAX REBATE
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TAX RELIEF
COMMUTER TAX RELIEF
VETERANS TAX RELIEF
HOME HEATING OIL DEDUCTION/ENERGY EFFICIENT CREDIT
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
FIRE SAFETY TAX DEDUCTION
CONFORMITY TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE
MEDICAL DEVICE TAX CREDIT
MOTION PICTURE TAX CREDIT
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT EXTENTION
HISTORIC REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT

Labels: fees, massachusetts, mitt romney, Taxes