Friday, November 30, 2007
A Vote for Huckabee is a Vote for Hillary
Casting a vote for Huckabee is the best way to ensure that Hillary becomes our next president. It's time for Huckabee supporters to get over the novelty and look at the facts. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani are the only two candidates with enough money, experience, and ground organization to beat Hillary. Political insiders know this, and so does Hillary. Why do you think Hillary is so tickled with Huckabee's latest rise in the polls?Huckabee takes votes away from the only two candidates who have a chance of keeping the Democrats out of the White House. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Hillary.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Mitt's Quiet Service, Minus the Press Cameras
I was thoroughly delighted and unsurprised by this San Diego man' account of how Mitt Romney and his sons helped him dig out from the recent wildfire disaster in California. They performed their service without reporters and without cameras. It was not a publicity stunt, just a genuine effort to to help those in need. This is exactly why I think Mitt Romney has the kind of character America is seeking in a president. My favorite part is the photo of Mitt digging out a big tree root. To read the man's first-hand account and see the photos click here.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Huckabee Shamelessly Capitalizing on Anti-Mormonism Among Evangelicals
Okay, I've tried to be civil in my previous posts about the inexcusable anti-Mormonism that Mitt Romney's candidacy has exposed. It stops now. Hot of the press from the New York Times is this little gem from a 54-year-old Iowa woman named Barbara Heki, an evangelical and zealous supporter of one Mr. Michael Huckabee:
“Mormons spend two years of their lives as missionaries, preaching an anti-Christian doctrine,” she said. “I don’t want someone out there, if I can help it, who’s going to be acting on an anti-Christian faith as the basis of their decision-making.”
And then this zinger, from Danny Carroll, another evangelical Christian and co-chairman of Huckabee's Iowa campaign team. Carroll was formerly (are you kidding me?) the speaker pro tem of the Iowa House:
“I think [Mitt Romney's Mormon faith] causes some uneasiness as to how somebody is going to respond when heavy responsibility is placed on them.... I think the Christian would like to know that the person has a strong anchor and prays to the God of the Bible.”
Finally, we are treated with this piece of "wisdom" from Glenda Gherkey, yet another evangelical from Iowa and fervent supporter of Huckabee:
“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues.... I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.... [And I'm not sure Mitt Romney's prayers would] even get through."
Okay, how in the world could any individual with a good heart and a normal IQ make any of the above three statements? All three are so ludicrous as to not even merit a rebuttal. It is absolutely disgusting that someone would use any of these reasons as a basis to select a president. Some might say, "Hey it's America. People can vote for whoever they want." And you know what, that's right. And maybe this is just the problem with our political system. Even idiots can vote. But you know what, as a Mormon who is the target of these obscene comments, I'm not going to stand idly by and let these bigots spew their religious hatred without saying something. I'm not going to be play nice and let their poisonous rhetoric slide by the wayside. These people need to be called to the carpet and sharply criticized for their ignorant, mean-spirited comments. Of course I know that these bigots do not represent all evangelical Christians. I am acquainted with several fine evangelicals who would never even think such foolish thoughts. Nevertheless, I am concerned that these comments represent the thinking of a large number of evangelicals, perhaps even a majority.
I think it's obvious by now that I am extremely upset with this kind of rhetoric, not because of any political agenda, but because, as a Mormon, this kind of talk is deeply hurtful. It's impossible not to take it personally. When someone says I could never be trusted to hold a position of political responsibility because of my faith, that's hurtful. When someone says that my life doesn't have a "strong anchor," that's hurtful. When someone says that God won't listen to my prayers, that's hurtful.
I get the impression that the only suitable candidate for these people is another evangelical Christian who believes exactly the same as they do. In their minds, nobody else could possibly do a good job. How ridiculous is that? It scares me to death that bigots like this actually have a voice in our political process. But what scares me more is that these venomous comments will go largely ignored by the media, the same media who would absolutely crush any voter or political candidate who made disparaging comments about blacks, gays, Jews, or women. For some inexcusable reason picking on Mormons is still acceptable. And let me be clear: it is inexcusable. People might think they have good reasons for bigotry. But that's what the lynching mobs thought. That's what the Nazis thought. That's what the anti-suffragists thought.
You would think that the presidential candidates themselves would harshly condemn such crazy talk. I guarantee that if people started criticizing Mr. Obama because of his skin color that Mitt Romney and the other candidates wouldn't tolerate it for a minute. But when Romney's religion is attacked so viciously nobody says a thing. I don't see Rudy condemning it. I don't see Hillary condemning it. Yet perhaps most surprisingly, I don't see Huckabee condemning it. I mean, here's a man who claims to be a Christian, a former pastor for goodness sake, who just stands there and lets his supporters (even his own campaign managers) spew this garbage. What's worse, Huckabee is actually using the anti-Mormon sentiment among his evangelical supporters to benefit his political ambitions. Of all things! Are you kidding me? What kind of a Christian is Huckabee anyway, or is he? Listen to what The Huckster says here, from the same New York Times article:
Sneakily drawing a contrast between Romney's supposedly bizarre religious views and his supposedly "Christian" views, Huck says: “My views are what they are. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden where they come from." Nice job Huck! Way to criticize Romney's religion, implying that he's embarrassed of it, while slyly exalting your own! You even did it without actually stating your intentions explicitly. This kind of subtle trickery has found its way into Huck's TV ads in Iowa, where he brands himself "The Christian Candidate." Here again Huck is appealing to those suspicious of Mormons, implying that he is the true Christian candidate while Romney, as a Mormon, is just a pretender.
Huck tries to claim that he is above the fray, that he will refrain from mudslinging. But comments like these show that he's just another politician playing the game. Sometimes he'll even let his guard down and reveal his true colors. Acknowledging the anti-Mormon comments from one of his supporters, he actually had the nerve to joke: “I’m glad you’ve made your choice for me. I don’t care why. I’m just glad you did” (emphasis added). That's the equivalent of Hillary Clinton saying she's happy to accept the Ku Klux Klan vote even though she knows it's based on the hatred of Mr. Obama's black skin.
Shame on you Mr. Huckabee. Anti-Mormonism is not funny. Using it to benefit your political ambitions qualifies you as a genuinely shady character. You are certainly not presidential material. And you certainly may not call yourself a Christian.
For the full text of the New York Times article click here.
“Mormons spend two years of their lives as missionaries, preaching an anti-Christian doctrine,” she said. “I don’t want someone out there, if I can help it, who’s going to be acting on an anti-Christian faith as the basis of their decision-making.”
And then this zinger, from Danny Carroll, another evangelical Christian and co-chairman of Huckabee's Iowa campaign team. Carroll was formerly (are you kidding me?) the speaker pro tem of the Iowa House:
“I think [Mitt Romney's Mormon faith] causes some uneasiness as to how somebody is going to respond when heavy responsibility is placed on them.... I think the Christian would like to know that the person has a strong anchor and prays to the God of the Bible.”
Finally, we are treated with this piece of "wisdom" from Glenda Gherkey, yet another evangelical from Iowa and fervent supporter of Huckabee:
“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues.... I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.... [And I'm not sure Mitt Romney's prayers would] even get through."
Okay, how in the world could any individual with a good heart and a normal IQ make any of the above three statements? All three are so ludicrous as to not even merit a rebuttal. It is absolutely disgusting that someone would use any of these reasons as a basis to select a president. Some might say, "Hey it's America. People can vote for whoever they want." And you know what, that's right. And maybe this is just the problem with our political system. Even idiots can vote. But you know what, as a Mormon who is the target of these obscene comments, I'm not going to stand idly by and let these bigots spew their religious hatred without saying something. I'm not going to be play nice and let their poisonous rhetoric slide by the wayside. These people need to be called to the carpet and sharply criticized for their ignorant, mean-spirited comments. Of course I know that these bigots do not represent all evangelical Christians. I am acquainted with several fine evangelicals who would never even think such foolish thoughts. Nevertheless, I am concerned that these comments represent the thinking of a large number of evangelicals, perhaps even a majority.
I think it's obvious by now that I am extremely upset with this kind of rhetoric, not because of any political agenda, but because, as a Mormon, this kind of talk is deeply hurtful. It's impossible not to take it personally. When someone says I could never be trusted to hold a position of political responsibility because of my faith, that's hurtful. When someone says that my life doesn't have a "strong anchor," that's hurtful. When someone says that God won't listen to my prayers, that's hurtful.
I get the impression that the only suitable candidate for these people is another evangelical Christian who believes exactly the same as they do. In their minds, nobody else could possibly do a good job. How ridiculous is that? It scares me to death that bigots like this actually have a voice in our political process. But what scares me more is that these venomous comments will go largely ignored by the media, the same media who would absolutely crush any voter or political candidate who made disparaging comments about blacks, gays, Jews, or women. For some inexcusable reason picking on Mormons is still acceptable. And let me be clear: it is inexcusable. People might think they have good reasons for bigotry. But that's what the lynching mobs thought. That's what the Nazis thought. That's what the anti-suffragists thought.
You would think that the presidential candidates themselves would harshly condemn such crazy talk. I guarantee that if people started criticizing Mr. Obama because of his skin color that Mitt Romney and the other candidates wouldn't tolerate it for a minute. But when Romney's religion is attacked so viciously nobody says a thing. I don't see Rudy condemning it. I don't see Hillary condemning it. Yet perhaps most surprisingly, I don't see Huckabee condemning it. I mean, here's a man who claims to be a Christian, a former pastor for goodness sake, who just stands there and lets his supporters (even his own campaign managers) spew this garbage. What's worse, Huckabee is actually using the anti-Mormon sentiment among his evangelical supporters to benefit his political ambitions. Of all things! Are you kidding me? What kind of a Christian is Huckabee anyway, or is he? Listen to what The Huckster says here, from the same New York Times article:
Sneakily drawing a contrast between Romney's supposedly bizarre religious views and his supposedly "Christian" views, Huck says: “My views are what they are. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden where they come from." Nice job Huck! Way to criticize Romney's religion, implying that he's embarrassed of it, while slyly exalting your own! You even did it without actually stating your intentions explicitly. This kind of subtle trickery has found its way into Huck's TV ads in Iowa, where he brands himself "The Christian Candidate." Here again Huck is appealing to those suspicious of Mormons, implying that he is the true Christian candidate while Romney, as a Mormon, is just a pretender.
Huck tries to claim that he is above the fray, that he will refrain from mudslinging. But comments like these show that he's just another politician playing the game. Sometimes he'll even let his guard down and reveal his true colors. Acknowledging the anti-Mormon comments from one of his supporters, he actually had the nerve to joke: “I’m glad you’ve made your choice for me. I don’t care why. I’m just glad you did” (emphasis added). That's the equivalent of Hillary Clinton saying she's happy to accept the Ku Klux Klan vote even though she knows it's based on the hatred of Mr. Obama's black skin.
Shame on you Mr. Huckabee. Anti-Mormonism is not funny. Using it to benefit your political ambitions qualifies you as a genuinely shady character. You are certainly not presidential material. And you certainly may not call yourself a Christian.
For the full text of the New York Times article click here.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Who does Rex Kwan-do endorse?
By David Alvord
Has everybody seen this ad? The one with Chuck Norris? LINK TO VIDEO
This has to be the crappiest campaign ad I have ever seen! Are these guys for real? This ad could have been cool for a high school class election...maybe.
Question: Does Huck actually think Chuck is cool? Or, does Chuck know that those jokes are mocking him? If you watch the video a few times, I think that you will notice, like I did, that Chuck looks a little bit sad. Like he knows he's a joke...
I have to admit that the ad is hillarious! But I come away from it asking: What office is this guy running for? Would Ronald Reagan or Winston Churchill have ever thought of running an ad like this? Would Romney or Giuliani or even Clinton take a chance on an ad featuring, say, Peewee Herman at this stage of the election? If this is really what America values then Mitt might have to bust out with fellow-Mormon Napoleon Dynamite!
I take it as a sign that even the Huckster himself doesn't think that he has a real shot at it.
But the one thing the ad may accomplish is that it may give the press something new to write about. Instead of the press asking: Is America ready for a Mormon President?, they can ask: Who does Rex Kwan-do endorse?
Has everybody seen this ad? The one with Chuck Norris? LINK TO VIDEO
This has to be the crappiest campaign ad I have ever seen! Are these guys for real? This ad could have been cool for a high school class election...maybe.
Question: Does Huck actually think Chuck is cool? Or, does Chuck know that those jokes are mocking him? If you watch the video a few times, I think that you will notice, like I did, that Chuck looks a little bit sad. Like he knows he's a joke...
I have to admit that the ad is hillarious! But I come away from it asking: What office is this guy running for? Would Ronald Reagan or Winston Churchill have ever thought of running an ad like this? Would Romney or Giuliani or even Clinton take a chance on an ad featuring, say, Peewee Herman at this stage of the election? If this is really what America values then Mitt might have to bust out with fellow-Mormon Napoleon Dynamite!
I take it as a sign that even the Huckster himself doesn't think that he has a real shot at it.
But the one thing the ad may accomplish is that it may give the press something new to write about. Instead of the press asking: Is America ready for a Mormon President?, they can ask: Who does Rex Kwan-do endorse?
Huckabee, the False Conservative
New article by Robert Novak here.
Some excerpts:
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.
Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate.
There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent...
Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.
Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.
Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak." Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism.
Some excerpts:
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.
Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate.
There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent...
Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.
Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.
Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak." Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
That's what politicians do...
Two items to be thankful for this Thanksgiving (and some great conversation items over turkey):
1. Be thankful for the primary schedule, now finally ironed out:
Jan. 3 - IA (caucus)
Jan. 5 - WY (convention)
Jan. 8 - NH
Jan. 15- MI
Jan. 19- SC, NV (caucus)
Jan. 29- FL
Feb. 2 - ME (caucus)
Feb. 5 - Super Tuesday
Romney is leading or polling well in all six of the pre-florida states. Romney is now polling in second place in Florida...and you have to admit that five or six victories has to give the guy a bounce. Watch for a possible win in FLORIDA!
2. Be thankful that many voters will soon start to see it like Leon H. Wolf has (read full story here):
Speaking on the issue of abortion, Wolf writes:
"For a while, the Fred Thompson campaign gave me hope for someone who might be a little more solid on the issue, but looking at the polling right now leads me inescapably to the conclusion that Fred Thompson is toast. He's not polling any higher than third in any state right now, and Romney has even moved into second in the crucial state of Florida. I just don't know that Thompson has what it takes to get back up off the mat right now. And while I feel a lot better about supporting McCain than I did a year ago, I still just can't make myself trust him at all. I made it a special point to get on McCain's conference call last week so that I could hopefully get just that little assurance I needed to sway me into his camp - and in my estimation, he blew the question. Like I said, I could get behind McCain a lot more easily than I could at this point last year, but he still isn't my first choice. As for Huckabee? Well, let's just say that I lived in Arkansas while he was governor, and my state tax burden was higher than my federal tax burden. And also that I worked on Jim Holt's 2004 campaign. I hope that explains why I have never seriously considered voting for him."
"You know, I think one of the things about blogs and the internet is that it's made it a lot easier to go back and nitpick what people have said and that doesn't always do us a service. We're not always going to get a guy who's been a doctrinaire conservative from birth, although the internet has made it so that we expect that. And if it appears at times that Romney is a relentless triangulator - well, for Pete's sake, he's a freaking politician. That's what politicians do. And if the end result of their triangulation is that they pretty consistently come down where you are, then I guess it's time to be happy about that."
"In the end, if I had to choose between seeing Romney and Rudy standing, it wouldn't even be a close call. When I examine the field, I see only one candidate left standing with a reasonable shot of winning the White House who would govern as a conservative, and that candidate is Mitt Romney. So from now on, I'm tossing in with him, for better or worse."
Better late than never, Mr. Wolf! Welcome aboard.
1. Be thankful for the primary schedule, now finally ironed out:
Jan. 3 - IA (caucus)
Jan. 5 - WY (convention)
Jan. 8 - NH
Jan. 15- MI
Jan. 19- SC, NV (caucus)
Jan. 29- FL
Feb. 2 - ME (caucus)
Feb. 5 - Super Tuesday
Romney is leading or polling well in all six of the pre-florida states. Romney is now polling in second place in Florida...and you have to admit that five or six victories has to give the guy a bounce. Watch for a possible win in FLORIDA!
2. Be thankful that many voters will soon start to see it like Leon H. Wolf has (read full story here):
Speaking on the issue of abortion, Wolf writes:
"For a while, the Fred Thompson campaign gave me hope for someone who might be a little more solid on the issue, but looking at the polling right now leads me inescapably to the conclusion that Fred Thompson is toast. He's not polling any higher than third in any state right now, and Romney has even moved into second in the crucial state of Florida. I just don't know that Thompson has what it takes to get back up off the mat right now. And while I feel a lot better about supporting McCain than I did a year ago, I still just can't make myself trust him at all. I made it a special point to get on McCain's conference call last week so that I could hopefully get just that little assurance I needed to sway me into his camp - and in my estimation, he blew the question. Like I said, I could get behind McCain a lot more easily than I could at this point last year, but he still isn't my first choice. As for Huckabee? Well, let's just say that I lived in Arkansas while he was governor, and my state tax burden was higher than my federal tax burden. And also that I worked on Jim Holt's 2004 campaign. I hope that explains why I have never seriously considered voting for him."
"You know, I think one of the things about blogs and the internet is that it's made it a lot easier to go back and nitpick what people have said and that doesn't always do us a service. We're not always going to get a guy who's been a doctrinaire conservative from birth, although the internet has made it so that we expect that. And if it appears at times that Romney is a relentless triangulator - well, for Pete's sake, he's a freaking politician. That's what politicians do. And if the end result of their triangulation is that they pretty consistently come down where you are, then I guess it's time to be happy about that."
"In the end, if I had to choose between seeing Romney and Rudy standing, it wouldn't even be a close call. When I examine the field, I see only one candidate left standing with a reasonable shot of winning the White House who would govern as a conservative, and that candidate is Mitt Romney. So from now on, I'm tossing in with him, for better or worse."
Better late than never, Mr. Wolf! Welcome aboard.
Monday, November 19, 2007
A CEO in the White House?
What? The question isn't "is America ready for a Mormon in the White House?" Well done Fred Barnes! You are asking the question America should be asking. Is America ready for a CEO in the White House? Is Washington ready to be scrutinized and over-hauled by someone with vast experience in the private sector?
See his excellent article here.
Friday, November 16, 2007
To Ron Paul Supporters
This was an email that I sent a friend who is a Ron Paul supporter, but who also is considering Romney:
Great to see you involved politically! I would love to see either Romney or Paul take our country in a new direction. I was glad to see that your endorsement included Romney. I hope that Paul, if not nominated, doesn't run as a third-party candidate. That could be Ross Perot all over again: with the similar result; a Clinton Presidency.
I really think that Romney would get our house back in order. Our national debt is very concerning. Our energy dependence is also frustrating. Time magazine had a fantastic article about the way Romney was able to find a solution to the Health care problem in Massachusetts. What he found, once he collected all the data, was that most of the uninsured in Mass, were not poor single women or minorities, but were in fact, middle-class single men! With that information, Romney was able to come up with a plan to get those guys insured and lower the price of health-care for everyone.
It is that kind of data-collecting and problem solving that I look forward to in a Romney presidency. Romney has a talent in that he can take a lot of data and find solutions to practical problems. And the war? I think that Romney will take a more Reagan-like approach to foreign relations; More show, and less go. But he can't talk about it right now. You know, speak softly but carry a big stick. I think that he would increase the military, but not use it. Bush, carried a big stick and used it! I think that he was right to do so...Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon in an unstable part of the world...and we DO rely on the middle east for oil. Was Iraq a scapegoat for the attacks of 911? Maybe, but now that terrorists know how the united states will react (or over-react) to a major terror attack...maybe they'll think twice? Anyway, I know that you might feel differently, but just keep in mind that I do not believe that a Romney presidency would be a continuation of a Bush presidency.
Oh and by the way....Go Utes!
Dave
Great to see you involved politically! I would love to see either Romney or Paul take our country in a new direction. I was glad to see that your endorsement included Romney. I hope that Paul, if not nominated, doesn't run as a third-party candidate. That could be Ross Perot all over again: with the similar result; a Clinton Presidency.
I really think that Romney would get our house back in order. Our national debt is very concerning. Our energy dependence is also frustrating. Time magazine had a fantastic article about the way Romney was able to find a solution to the Health care problem in Massachusetts. What he found, once he collected all the data, was that most of the uninsured in Mass, were not poor single women or minorities, but were in fact, middle-class single men! With that information, Romney was able to come up with a plan to get those guys insured and lower the price of health-care for everyone.
It is that kind of data-collecting and problem solving that I look forward to in a Romney presidency. Romney has a talent in that he can take a lot of data and find solutions to practical problems. And the war? I think that Romney will take a more Reagan-like approach to foreign relations; More show, and less go. But he can't talk about it right now. You know, speak softly but carry a big stick. I think that he would increase the military, but not use it. Bush, carried a big stick and used it! I think that he was right to do so...Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon in an unstable part of the world...and we DO rely on the middle east for oil. Was Iraq a scapegoat for the attacks of 911? Maybe, but now that terrorists know how the united states will react (or over-react) to a major terror attack...maybe they'll think twice? Anyway, I know that you might feel differently, but just keep in mind that I do not believe that a Romney presidency would be a continuation of a Bush presidency.
Oh and by the way....Go Utes!
Dave
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Huck isn't the story
The real story is that Giuliani is in third place in Iowa. Huckabee is in second place...because he is strong on one of the three legs of the conservative stool. He is the flavor of the week...but after voters have a little more time to examine him...they will find the other two legs missing.
But just imagine if Obama was leading in Iowa...and Clinton couldn't even get into the second spot. That is the story we have with the Republicans. Mitt's on top, Huck is second...and Giuliani is way down there:
Strategic Vision Iowa Poll:
Mitt Romney 30% (27%)
Mike Huckabee 19% (12%)
Rudy Giuliani 12% (13%)
Fred Thompson 11% (10%)
John McCain 7% (5%)
Ron Paul 5% (4%)
Tom Tancredo 2% (2%)
Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
Undecided 13% (22%)
CBS Iowa Poll:
Mitt Romney 27%
Mike Huckabee 21%
Rudy Giuliani 15%
Fred Thompson 9%
John McCain 4%
Ron Paul 4%
Tom Tancredo 3%
But just imagine if Obama was leading in Iowa...and Clinton couldn't even get into the second spot. That is the story we have with the Republicans. Mitt's on top, Huck is second...and Giuliani is way down there:
Strategic Vision Iowa Poll:
Mitt Romney 30% (27%)
Mike Huckabee 19% (12%)
Rudy Giuliani 12% (13%)
Fred Thompson 11% (10%)
John McCain 7% (5%)
Ron Paul 5% (4%)
Tom Tancredo 2% (2%)
Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
Undecided 13% (22%)
CBS Iowa Poll:
Mitt Romney 27%
Mike Huckabee 21%
Rudy Giuliani 15%
Fred Thompson 9%
John McCain 4%
Ron Paul 4%
Tom Tancredo 3%
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
For Romney, the outliers come first
by David Alvord
Today's Rasmussen Report puts Romney in second place nationally. See link here
This is the first time that the National polls are starting to catch up with what Mitt Rocks! has been making the case for these past six months!
Some may say that this is an outliers poll, but I have observed that whenever Romney shows higher on any poll, the others will soon follow. It has to do with the trends of Romney's campaign. And finally, people are starting to get to know Mitt. Had Sept. 11 happened to Massachusetts during Romney's term, we'd all be asking "Giuliani who"? The press loves to criticize the Romney campaign's spending. But how else would a candidate become known? Mitt is a self-made politician. He did not star in a prime-time television show. He was not Mayor of a city that was hit by one of the most horrific and visually stunning attacks in modern history. No, Mitt's success has come by hard work, sacrifice, and brains. I have to wonder, had Romney been mayor of New York, would the twin towers have already been rebuilt?
Look out Rudy, the socially conservative Republicans are split between Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee. But soon, they will coalesce around the most viable candidate: Mitt Romney.
Today's Rasmussen Report puts Romney in second place nationally. See link here
This is the first time that the National polls are starting to catch up with what Mitt Rocks! has been making the case for these past six months!
Some may say that this is an outliers poll, but I have observed that whenever Romney shows higher on any poll, the others will soon follow. It has to do with the trends of Romney's campaign. And finally, people are starting to get to know Mitt. Had Sept. 11 happened to Massachusetts during Romney's term, we'd all be asking "Giuliani who"? The press loves to criticize the Romney campaign's spending. But how else would a candidate become known? Mitt is a self-made politician. He did not star in a prime-time television show. He was not Mayor of a city that was hit by one of the most horrific and visually stunning attacks in modern history. No, Mitt's success has come by hard work, sacrifice, and brains. I have to wonder, had Romney been mayor of New York, would the twin towers have already been rebuilt?
Look out Rudy, the socially conservative Republicans are split between Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee. But soon, they will coalesce around the most viable candidate: Mitt Romney.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Speech or No Speech?
If Romney dedicates an entire speech to his faith, what will happen? I believe too much of anything isn't good. But would it be too much? I say that is Mitt's call. Romney's advisors don't recommend it. However, Romney says he likes the idea. I too feel that given the right timing and intent, a Mormon speech will enhance his solid candidacy for President.
-David McEntire
Excerpts from the Salt Lake Tribune Article:
"Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor who studies religion and government, said Romney is the strongest and most qualified candidate, "the perfect candidate for this moment in time" compared to his rivals. "
"Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no - it's not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone."
-David McEntire
Excerpts from the Salt Lake Tribune Article:
"Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor who studies religion and government, said Romney is the strongest and most qualified candidate, "the perfect candidate for this moment in time" compared to his rivals. "
"Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no - it's not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone."
Friday, November 9, 2007
Rudy's third-place showing in Iowa
So, the big news lately has been Mitt's strong poll position in the three early states. But it is Rudy's third-place status in Iowa that has gone largely unnoticed.
According to a November 7 Zogby poll:
IOWA
Mitt Romney: 31%
Mike Huckabee: 15%
Rudy Giuliani: 11%
Fred Thompson: 10%
What? The so-called front runner is running in third place in the first contest? Giuliani thinks that he can skip Iowa and wait for the "big" states to hold their elections. The problem I see with that logic is that the media (and America) are going to be following the election in Iowa very closely. With Obama and Hillary duking it out in Iowa, Americans will be watching closely for the results of that election. One can only assume that the result of the Republican election would hardly go unnoticed. A third or fourth place showing in Iowa could be not only embarrassing to Rudy, it could be fatal.
According to a November 7 Zogby poll:
IOWA
Mitt Romney: 31%
Mike Huckabee: 15%
Rudy Giuliani: 11%
Fred Thompson: 10%
What? The so-called front runner is running in third place in the first contest? Giuliani thinks that he can skip Iowa and wait for the "big" states to hold their elections. The problem I see with that logic is that the media (and America) are going to be following the election in Iowa very closely. With Obama and Hillary duking it out in Iowa, Americans will be watching closely for the results of that election. One can only assume that the result of the Republican election would hardly go unnoticed. A third or fourth place showing in Iowa could be not only embarrassing to Rudy, it could be fatal.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Romney Winning in Supposedly Unwinnable South Carolina
Mitt Romney has accomplished something few thought possible: He's winning in South Carolina. Many had supposed Romney could never carry South Carolina, primarily because he is Mormon. But Romney is winning anyway. "I would say that if he didn't have the Mormon issue that he would be the clear front-runner and the race would be almost over," said Beltram, the Spartanburg County [South Carolina] GOP chairman. This quote comes from a recent CNN story highlighting Mitt Romney's dramatic rise in South Carolina.
The story contains an all-too-frequent flaw, implying that Mitt's rising popularity is due to his money rather than the way his message is resonating. But other than that the article is a good read. I was saddened to see, yet again, that blatant discrimination against Mormons is still politically correct in some circles. Can you imagine, for instance, if the state GOP chairman of Florida said something like, "Wow, if this candidate weren't black he'd already have this election in the bag." I'm sure the chairman was just stating the facts. But the fact that so many in South Carolina would base their entire vote on a candidate's religion is utterly ridiculous, especially when that religion happens to be a respectable faith like Mormonism. But I suppose this just shows how much growth we have ahead of us as a country. The growing pains are particularly hurtful to we Mormons, but if that's what it takes to move past the discrimination of the past 177 years then I guess that's reality.
But for now at least, people in South Carolina are taking Romney seriously. And that's a good thing, because if Romney captures Iowa and New Hampshire (both states looking pretty good at this point), then a victory or even a strong showing in South Carolina will propel him to the nomination. For the full text of CNN's article click here.
The story contains an all-too-frequent flaw, implying that Mitt's rising popularity is due to his money rather than the way his message is resonating. But other than that the article is a good read. I was saddened to see, yet again, that blatant discrimination against Mormons is still politically correct in some circles. Can you imagine, for instance, if the state GOP chairman of Florida said something like, "Wow, if this candidate weren't black he'd already have this election in the bag." I'm sure the chairman was just stating the facts. But the fact that so many in South Carolina would base their entire vote on a candidate's religion is utterly ridiculous, especially when that religion happens to be a respectable faith like Mormonism. But I suppose this just shows how much growth we have ahead of us as a country. The growing pains are particularly hurtful to we Mormons, but if that's what it takes to move past the discrimination of the past 177 years then I guess that's reality.
But for now at least, people in South Carolina are taking Romney seriously. And that's a good thing, because if Romney captures Iowa and New Hampshire (both states looking pretty good at this point), then a victory or even a strong showing in South Carolina will propel him to the nomination. For the full text of CNN's article click here.
Romney Leads All GOP Candidates in Congressional Endorsements
Mitt Romney is the top choice for the GOP nomination among current members of the U.S. Congress. As of November 8, 2007, Mitt Romney leads all Republican candidates with 33 congressional endorsements. These endorsements are highly influential, not only because members of Congress have heavy sway in their own states, but because the support from political insiders shows heavy confidence that a candidate can get the job done. To see an up-to-date congressional endorsement list click here.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Romney Better Off Without Robertson's Endorsement
Yippee! Pat Robertson decided to endorse Guiliani rather than Romney. This is a major boost to Romney's campaign. Pat Robertson has consistenly shown a mean-spirited unwillingness to tolerate those with values different from his own. He has also proven himself time and again to be among the worst critical thinkers of our time. Mitt's got to be glad he won't be associated with crazy-man Robertson. Phew!
Monday, November 5, 2007
Rasmussen Poll Shows Romney Closing the Gap on Guiliani
A poll released today by the highly respected Rasmussen Reports shows Mitt Romney quickly closing the gap on Rudy Giuliani. Whereas 61% believe it is very likely or somewhat likely that Rudy will get the Republican nomination, 43% percent now believe it will be Romney. McCain (32%) and Thompson (30%) are now a distant third and fourth. These new numbers demonstrate a huge increase in support for Governor Romney, who until recently was considered by some to be a long shot. Romney is already leading by a wide margin in the early voting states of Iowa of New Hampshire. With momentum gained from those early victories he could easily surpass Giuliani in the next few months. Rudy should brace himself for what could be the biggest battle of his political life. Mitt Romney is for real. To see the full text of the report click here.
Huge Endorsement for Romney
Today has been a great news cycle for the Romney campaign. Read here to learn about Romney's latest get.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Extrapolation is fun!
Just discovered some wonderful graphs from Pollster.com (The rising brown line - yeah, the one that was basically zero 18 months ago - is Mitt Romney)
Click on the graphs for more detail.
Look at the general trends and extrapolate where things will end up in a few month's time...
Click on the graphs for more detail.
Look at the general trends and extrapolate where things will end up in a few month's time...
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Help Wanted! Aptitude results for the candidates...
by David Alvord
As a soon-to-be entrepreneur, I am in the process of hiring a new staff for my dental clinic: Oquirrh Mountain Dental. This has allowed me to reflect upon what personality attributes are needed for the respective positions in a dental office.
So, what are the personality attributes of the leading presidential candidates, and where would they most appropriately serve?
The following are what Mitt Rocks! think would be the job most suited to each leading candidate:
Rudy Giuliani: President of the Yankees baseball club.
Rudy is hilarious, likable, and a true New-Yorker. Rudy is a man's man and would find himself at home in the sporting world. The fact that Giuliani is weak on family values wouldn't be a problem to the Yankees fans. Just win games and the people will love you. Not quite a Republican, not quite a Democrat, Rudy would find common ground with almost all New Yorkers.
Fred Thompson: President of the NRA or some other conservative special-interest group.
Are the rigors of a presidential election too demanding? Try a special interest group. Fred is also likable and truly wants to make a difference in the political world. But Fred is not getting any younger and his new baby and wife need him at home to help with the diapers. The demanding schedule of president might break him. Instead, Fred needs to find something that is part-time but still fulfilling. A job that he can feel good about, but also leaves him time for his family and for his 2 o'clock naps. Charleton Heston, a former actor, was president of the NRA too.
Hillary Clinton: U.S. Senator
Hillary is one of the few candidates who has actually already gotten it right! As a senator, she can truly represent the people. Depending on which way the wind blows, Hillary can vote in that direction. Does the country favor war with Iraq? She can vote for that. Do Americans want the war ended? Hillary can do that too! So it would seem that Hillary is already in the right place. She can give speeches, pursue a career in politics, and avoid the icky task of actually leading the country.
Huckabee: Pastor/leader of evangelical political coalition
Huck gives great sermons. Huck is a kind and decent man. As a pastor, Mike can be an idealist. He can throw out heavenly ideas without the responsibility of understanding the details. After all, God has already worked out the details of His commandments. But the details of the so called "fair tax"? What verse in the Bible supports that? Where Mike Huckabee has been weak on political issues, he would shine on religious ones.
John Edwards: talk-show host
Look out Oprah, because there is a new host in town! Those baby-blue eyes and Breck-shampoo-soft hair are going to waste in politics. That southern drawl and home-cooked appeal shouldn't be taken for granted. The American people deserve to see Edwards daily! And the women? They absolutely love John! The two Americas would both tune in to him as his ratings go through the roof! Besides, he isn't really a democrat anyway! Edwards is a rich guy, with the biggest house in North Carolina and a conservative family. But he would love to be on TV and give strong opinions on social issues. Just like Oprah did, he could have the one America give cars to a studio audience from the other America.
Obama: rock-star pastor (see Mike Huckabee)
The audacity of hope. That sounds like a sermon to me. Again, like our friend Huckabee, Barack is an idealist, but gets lost in the details. His inexperience could be overshadowed by his passion for speaking. But unlike Huck, he is a rock-star. In other words, Obama is a celebrity. People love to throw money at him. Imagine the passing of the plate at an Obama sermon!
Mitt Romney: President, CEO, POTUS, or any other type of leader
If a person was ever born to be President, it is Mitt Romney. The office of President is in his genes. Like his Governor father before him, Romney is a leader in every respect. His personal life is exemplary. His children are raised. And Romney looks like a president! Romney can give speeches, he can analyze data, he can lead, and bottom line...he gets things done. Romney will be a leader that will work hard for the American people...and will probably wear out his cabinet in the process. His experience and education are unmatched in the current field. Romney, like Bush, has an MBA from Harvard...but unlike Bush, Romney has a Law degree from Harvard as well. But most importantly, every organization that Mitt has touched has turned to gold. Why not America?
As a soon-to-be entrepreneur, I am in the process of hiring a new staff for my dental clinic: Oquirrh Mountain Dental. This has allowed me to reflect upon what personality attributes are needed for the respective positions in a dental office.
So, what are the personality attributes of the leading presidential candidates, and where would they most appropriately serve?
The following are what Mitt Rocks! think would be the job most suited to each leading candidate:
Rudy Giuliani: President of the Yankees baseball club.
Rudy is hilarious, likable, and a true New-Yorker. Rudy is a man's man and would find himself at home in the sporting world. The fact that Giuliani is weak on family values wouldn't be a problem to the Yankees fans. Just win games and the people will love you. Not quite a Republican, not quite a Democrat, Rudy would find common ground with almost all New Yorkers.
Fred Thompson: President of the NRA or some other conservative special-interest group.
Are the rigors of a presidential election too demanding? Try a special interest group. Fred is also likable and truly wants to make a difference in the political world. But Fred is not getting any younger and his new baby and wife need him at home to help with the diapers. The demanding schedule of president might break him. Instead, Fred needs to find something that is part-time but still fulfilling. A job that he can feel good about, but also leaves him time for his family and for his 2 o'clock naps. Charleton Heston, a former actor, was president of the NRA too.
Hillary Clinton: U.S. Senator
Hillary is one of the few candidates who has actually already gotten it right! As a senator, she can truly represent the people. Depending on which way the wind blows, Hillary can vote in that direction. Does the country favor war with Iraq? She can vote for that. Do Americans want the war ended? Hillary can do that too! So it would seem that Hillary is already in the right place. She can give speeches, pursue a career in politics, and avoid the icky task of actually leading the country.
Huckabee: Pastor/leader of evangelical political coalition
Huck gives great sermons. Huck is a kind and decent man. As a pastor, Mike can be an idealist. He can throw out heavenly ideas without the responsibility of understanding the details. After all, God has already worked out the details of His commandments. But the details of the so called "fair tax"? What verse in the Bible supports that? Where Mike Huckabee has been weak on political issues, he would shine on religious ones.
John Edwards: talk-show host
Look out Oprah, because there is a new host in town! Those baby-blue eyes and Breck-shampoo-soft hair are going to waste in politics. That southern drawl and home-cooked appeal shouldn't be taken for granted. The American people deserve to see Edwards daily! And the women? They absolutely love John! The two Americas would both tune in to him as his ratings go through the roof! Besides, he isn't really a democrat anyway! Edwards is a rich guy, with the biggest house in North Carolina and a conservative family. But he would love to be on TV and give strong opinions on social issues. Just like Oprah did, he could have the one America give cars to a studio audience from the other America.
Obama: rock-star pastor (see Mike Huckabee)
The audacity of hope. That sounds like a sermon to me. Again, like our friend Huckabee, Barack is an idealist, but gets lost in the details. His inexperience could be overshadowed by his passion for speaking. But unlike Huck, he is a rock-star. In other words, Obama is a celebrity. People love to throw money at him. Imagine the passing of the plate at an Obama sermon!
Mitt Romney: President, CEO, POTUS, or any other type of leader
If a person was ever born to be President, it is Mitt Romney. The office of President is in his genes. Like his Governor father before him, Romney is a leader in every respect. His personal life is exemplary. His children are raised. And Romney looks like a president! Romney can give speeches, he can analyze data, he can lead, and bottom line...he gets things done. Romney will be a leader that will work hard for the American people...and will probably wear out his cabinet in the process. His experience and education are unmatched in the current field. Romney, like Bush, has an MBA from Harvard...but unlike Bush, Romney has a Law degree from Harvard as well. But most importantly, every organization that Mitt has touched has turned to gold. Why not America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
