Mitt Rocks!

Hybrid Healthcare

2011-02-11T10:29:00.000-08:00

by David L. Alvord DDS

Whether it's the Toyota Prius, or Napolean Dynamite's favorite animal, the Liger (they do exist, BTW) we are all becoming more familiar with hybrids.

But not all hybrids are destined for success. While combining peanut butter with chocolate may be a "Reese's dream come true", trying to combine other things, like vegetarianism with Tony Roma's all-you-can-eat ribs may not work as well.

So it is with healthcare. We have two approaches to healthcare: 1) a government run system, or 2) a private or free market system. The United States is trying to run a hybrid of the two.

Yet, the two systems cannot be successfully hybridized, at least not for long. There are several reasons why this unholy alliance is destined to fail. I would like to point just a few of the very obvious contradictions.

Great Expectations

The patients in a free market healthcare system expect to pay for the care they receive. Like any product, the more they pay, the better care they get. The patients may shop around, they may bargain, but in the end, they expect to have to pay their own hard-earned money for the services they receive from the care-giver. There may be a disparity in the level of care, but the patients take comfort in fact that the care they received was equal to the money they paid. Maybe they pride themselves in getting a "good deal", but they still are expecting to pay in the end. If fees are perceived to be too high, they go elsewhere, unless they are convinced that the care is just that good.

The patients of a government-run system expect not to pay for healthcare. They have paid taxes, Social security, or Medicare taxes all their lives, so they expect not to pay any more into it. Money is taken from their paychecks, and so they expect the care to be free.

The expectations of the two patients are not aligned.

Rationing of Care

Healthcare must be rationed. The GDP of the United States is 14 Trillion or so. It's obvious that all 14 Trillion could not be spent on healthcare. So it has to be rationed, or limited in it's expenditures to some extent.

In a free market system, people ration their own care. They decide for themselves just how much to spend on doctors bills. If an aging woman wants to live to see the 2020 Olympics, she can elect to pay for the best care available even if that means leaving no inheritance to her posterity. And if that is her choice, so be it. Another person may try to live as healthy as possible, to minimize doctor's bills. Some may elect to go down in a "blaze of glory" eating as much fried foods and exercising as little as possible, knowing full well that they will have to pay for any vascular problems that lifestyle may imply.

Imagine a family that had to choose between paying for cancer treatment for their 80 year old grandmother, or an organ transplant for a ten-year old boy. In a free market, the family will choose for themselves which to spend the money on. The family may elect to sell some assets to pay for both. But the decision rests with the family. They will ration their own care according to their desires and needs.

A government run system would also have to ration care. Sarah Palin's so-called "death panels" are a necessity in a government run system. Governments, like families, do not have unlimited funds. The State will have to make the terrible decision of who lives and who dies, or who gets treatment and who is put on a wait-list. It may seem like governments have a lot of money, but when you make the government responsible for 300 million people, the money has to be divvied out somehow. Most people will want the care to be equal for all. It takes great faith to trust that the government will be perfectly equitable to all her citizens.

Further, an equal disbursement of healthcare would mean that no matter what you did FOR society, you will get an equal take FROM society. Is that really the definition of equality?

Make no mistake, healthcare is a commodity that must be rationed. The question is: Who will be making those decisions?

A hybrid system cannot reconcile this conflict.

The Grass is Greener

In a hybrid system, the advantages of each system are on display. Each will want the advantage of the other. The people getting socialized healthcare will envy the level of care offered in the private clinics. The people paying high fees in the private sector will envy those who are getting free care. In a hybridized system, taxes pay for those on government care. Use a private clinic and you are not taking advantage of what you paid into. It's like sending your kids to a private school. The grass will seem greener on the other side of the hill. Politicians will work to bend rules and regulations to appease both parties. Arguments that tug at the heart will be presented: "We need first-class care for our veterans", or "Our nation's kids deserve the best". The people receiving Medicare will want to be seen in private clinics and "keep their own doctor". The Mayo clinic is a great place for care, but it costs a lot of money to have a "team of doctors" on your case.

A hybrid system will create an environment where people will want the best of both worlds, leaving everybody pretty disappointed.

How have we managed this hybrid for so long?

America is trying to run a hybrid system. Ever since the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, we have been trying to have both systems. What has kept it alive? Our growing national debt. Politicians have "kicked the can" down the street and no one has really dealt with it. Obama is trying his best to "deal with it", but unfortunately he is trying to push it the way of the government run. He is stacking the cards against the free market and putting 2000 pages of legislation that will eventually drive us away from the private.

Eventually, our nation will have to choose one system or the other. They both can't coexist for long. I hope we choose the free market. It has the potential to provide better care for everybody. Innovators will bring better care for less money. The care will still have to be rationed, but you'll get better bang for your buck if we let people make a profit to invent and innovate new cures and new technogies. The possibilities are endless with capitalism. Socialism offers, at best, equality of care, but not much hope for advancement.

What was Romneycare?

Romney was governor of a State which had the hybridization healthcare already in place. But there were people showing up to the emergency rooms uninsured and basically taking advantage of those who were insured. He found that 95% of Massachusetts' residents were already insured. So what he did was push those 5% to get insurance (private insurance). If you were to look at it like a Toyota Prius, he took a hybrid and put better wheels on it, and made the gas engine run more efficiently. Romney made it run a little more like a gasoline engine. He wasn't in a position to take a sledgehammer to the prius and replace it with a better kind of vehicle. That kind of reform would have to come on the federal level. After all, it was the feds who created the hybrid healthcare economy. His was never the intent to expand the government run system of healthcare. Bottom line: Romney expanded the private sector of healthcare in his State, and did so with the blessing of the super-conservative Heritage Foundation. Since Romney's departure, others have tweaked MassCare a little more back to the socialized side of things. Romney can hardly be blamed for what others have done since he left.

Obama's claim to have emulated Romneycare is politically calculated to harm the primary chances of the President's biggest rival: Mitt Romney. The intent of Romneycare and Obamacare couldn't be more distinct. The intent of the former is to increase the private sector, while the intent of the latter is to increase the government's influence.

Mitt Romney is a man who believes in capitalism and the free market. It is in his DNA. Sometimes you have to deal with the hand that is dealt you. Just because he was handed a Toyota Prius, you can't fault him for wanting it to run a little better for his State. We need a pragmatic problem-solver like Mitt to reform healthcare on a National level. The current system is not sustainable. Romney will use free-market solutions to repair what's spinning out of control here in America. Frankly, don't we need someone with a little experience looking at the problem of healthcare? Obamacare can't simply be repealed, it eventually needs to be replaced with something better. Romney has looked at healthcare in depth and has a good grasp of how to tackle this growing problem.

The can has been kicked down the street for too long and it's time our country dealt with these major problems. We need to undo the FDR entitlements and return to our more pure free market ways. We need to push back against big lawsuits against doctors. We need to encourage innovation. We need to send Mitt Romney to the White House. The freedom to make decisions concerning healthcare should always rest with the people.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare

2010-04-12T09:05:00.001-07:00

by David Alvord

Let's face it. Healthcare was a problem that needed to be dealt with...and still does need to be dealt with. The costs of healthcare are increasing way beyond that of inflation. Not only is Medicare going bankrupt, but there are abuses and waste that are spiraling out of control.

Romney is just the kind of guy who could take all of the data for such an important and complicated problem and make the necessary changes. That's what he did in the private sector. He and his team would look at large businesses and analyze the data to see where there was waste or duplication. He would in essence, turn them around and make them profitable. That's also what Romney did in Massachusetts, he balanced the State's budget in a time of crisis. I believe that he can do the same for America.

The irony is that Obamacare looks a lot like Romneycare.

Or does it? One of my favorite sites, Evangelicals for Mitt, names just four of the important distinctions between the two plans:

see link here

In summary the major distinctions they cite are:

1. RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts; ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all imposition on all states, regardless of their economic condition.

2. RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt balanced the state budget.

3. Mitt created bipartisan consensus while Obama rammed his reform down our throats and against the majority opinion of the American people.

4. RomneyCare is constitutional; ObamaCare may very well prove to be an unconstitutional abuse of federal power.

These are important distinctions, but I feel there are at least two more major differences between the two plans:

5. The democrats plan is designed, in the long run, to destroy private health insurance altogether. When Romney was in office, he brought insurance companies to the table and wrote a bill that they agreed to. Romney never had designs to bring to pass Universal and government run healthcare. This is a guy who is passionate about the private sector and understands the simple truth that the private sector will always outperform the government-run. It is only years later, and in a weakened economy, that the State of Massachusetts has placed price controls and regulated the premiums that now threaten private healthcare insurance in Massachusetts. The democrats have taken over and now so-called Romneycare is morphing into Obamacare. This is a very, very important distinction.

6. Romney was not in a position to fix the major problems that exist in healthcare. If you want to understand why Romneycare and Obamacare do share some similarities, is due to the fact that as Governor, Romney had to deal with the federal mandates that already existed. Romney couldn't address Medicare or Medicaid. Those were Federally run. Romney couldn't address lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. When it came to controlling the rising costs of healthcare, Romney's hands were tied.

The President, on the other hand, had the opportunity to address rising costs by allowing competition between state lines. Obama could have included Tort reform. Obama could have reformed Medicare. Obama could have looked at Medicaid. Instead, Obama has created a trillion dollar program that does nothing to keep the prices down. If the federal government were a business, they'd be bankrupt. But the feds have the ultimate business plan: Pay up or go to jail! The people of Massachusetts obviously could discern a difference between Obamacare and Romneycare, when they elected Scott Brown!

I am convinced that if Romney had the mandate to make Federal Healthcare reform, the result would have been very different from the so-called Romneycare that exists in Massachusetts today.

It is disingenuous to peg the problems in Massachusetts on Mitt Romney. Each of have filed our 2009 taxes. We each have to budget within those parameters. Does that mean we are responsible for the US tax code? Does that mean we are each responsible for the deficits and national debt? Likewise, Romney had to operate in the environment imposed by the Feds. His was a State where 90% already had healthcare. There was a small percentage that were slipping through the cracks that he helped to get coverage, that's all. He wasn't "reforming healthcare". He didn't have the power. You really can't honestly compare the two.

The Republicans now need to tackle healthcare! We need to do more than to simply repeal the law. We need a better law of our own. We need to address the major sources of price inflation, namely, tort reform, entitlement spending, waste, and competition. We need to get a bill that will address Medicare and control the costs. Our country is going to go bankrupt and this new law only speeds that process along. We can't blame Obama solely for the problems in our budget, but the recently passed law has done nothing but fan the flames and add fuel to the fire. Government needs to be regulated and cut. Not the other way around. Romney understands this and I believe that it is a mistake for him to be judged unfairly.

I invite each of you to obtain a copy of Romney's book "No Apology". I have read the book, and frankly, couldn't put it down. In it, you will discover the real Mitt Romney and will, like me, eagerly anticipate his presidency.

Mitt Romney & Religious Intolerance

2009-12-03T14:03:00.000-08:00

Tolerance? We have a ways to go

Exact reprint of USA Today article located here.

Americans still have a bias against Republican Mitt Romney, according to a study conducted during last year’s election. Not a political bias, but a religious one. The good news: When people understood his Mormon faith, the bias melted away.

By David E. Campbell, John C. Green and J. Quin Monson

It's now official: President Obama's honeymoon is over. And right on cue the Republicans are gearing up to run against him in 2012. Sarah Palin's book could launch her campaign, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty just went to Iowa. But the smart money is on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney gaining his party's nomination.

Romney certainly has history on his side: Republicans prefer nominees who have run before. John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush and even Ronald Reagan all ran and lost before they ran and won the presidential nomination. Having run and lost in 2008, Romney is in a prime position to run and win in 2012.

His candidacy, however, faces a major obstacle that should concern all Americans: religious intolerance. Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormon church) clearly hurt him in 2008. Polls showed that anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of Americans openly said they would not vote for a Mormon candidate for president. Mormons are hardly the only religious group to face such overt hostility. Polls show that Muslims, Buddhists and people without a religion are all viewed more warily by Americans. And as America becomes more religiously diverse, we can expect still more candidates from faiths that might be unfamiliar to many Americans, or those who profess no religion at all.

The good news is that accurate information about such unpopular religious groups can help the cause of religious tolerance in America.

What we found

The importance of information is illustrated by a study we conducted during the 2008 presidential primaries and recently released. The study was an online survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of 3,000 respondents. We provided randomly selected respondents with different statements about Romney and then asked whether they would vote for him.

Some were given a boilerplate biography that did not mention religion; others were told that he has been a local leader in his church; others were told he has been a leader in the Mormon church. Still others were told, "Some people say Mormons are not Christians." By comparing reactions to these various statements, we could see how each one affected a person's willingness to vote for Romney, and also how different kinds of people responded to the statements.

The claim that Mormons are not Christians was particularly potent. Indeed, Romney tried to put this issue to rest with a much-discussed speech on religion delivered in College Station, Texas, in December 2007. In it, the presidential candidate said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."

Despite these statements, the results of our study — conducted not long after Romney's speech — suggest that his religion was a liability. When respondents were told about the claim that Mormons are not Christians, nearly one-third said they were less likely to vote for him.

Interestingly, the claim that Mormons are not Christians had virtually no effect on those people who reported a close personal relationship with a Mormon. This news, though, is presumably small consolation for Romney's supporters. There is little they can do between now and 2012 to encourage closer friendships between Mormons and their non-Mormon neighbors.

Our results do, however, indicate that there is something Romney's supporters can do to assuage concerns about his Mormonism. People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism.

Information helps

In other words, our study suggests that Romney's supporters would do well to encourage those who are troubled by his faith to become better informed about Mormonism.

Such a discussion would likely help Romney: Information helps and ignorance hurts his chances. More important, it would help broaden religious tolerance in America.

Romney was not the first and will not be the last candidate to suffer from a lack of knowledge about his faith. Even in 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama suffered a double dose concerning his pastor in Chicago and the false claim that he was a Muslim — delivered as though the mere possibility should disqualify him for the office.

We take no position on whether Romney is right for the Republican Party or for the White House. Similarly, we take no position for or against other Mormon politicians, such as Nevada's Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate. Or, for that matter, on the fitness of any politician — Mormon, Muslim, or Methodist.

We do take the position that the whole country will be better off if there is no "stained glass ceiling" in politics for members of any religion or no religion at all. A good way to break such a barrier is for all of us to really know the Latter-day Saints — as well as all the other kinds of "saints" among us.

David E. Campbell, John C. Green and J. Quin Monson teach political science at the University of Notre Dame, University of Akron and Brigham Young University, respectively. The views expressed are their own and do not necessarily represent those of their institutions.

Romney's follow up Speech to "Faith in America"

2009-10-20T20:54:00.000-07:00

His first speech was historic.

But he gave another great one too, that can be found here.

Huckabee, you've found your calling!

2009-08-02T21:22:00.000-07:00

by David Alvord

I have watched Huckabee's self-titled show on Fox News several times. I have to say, it is actually very heart-warming! I can't believe I am finding myself liking the man who was the hardest on my candidate, Mitt Romney. Just a few months ago, I hated this guy!

I think Huckabee has found his calling. He is a very likeable and heart-warming speaker. He has tremendous skill with timing and eye-contact. He seems so down to earth and presents conservative views with grace and a sense of peace. Contrast that to Glenn Beck's approach, "the sky is falling". I also like Glenn, but after watching him I feel scared. After watching Huck, I feel warm and fuzzy. And then he gets up and plays the bass-guitar for the grand finale! Tonight's show had a song "If ten percent is good enough for Jesus, why isn't it enough for Uncle Sam?". That's good stuff.

During the Republican primaries, Huckabee was the perfect anti-Romney. And Romney was the perfect anti-Huckabee. Where Romney lacked in personality, the Huckster was dripping with it. Where Huckabee lacked in intelligence, Romney answered with his dual-Harvard degree brains. Romney's religion was in the minority, while Huckabee's was in the majority. Huckabee had style while Romney had substance.

I give it as my opinion that those two, Romney and Huckabee, cancelled each other out and left McCain with the victory. Of course, there was Fred Thompson and Guiliani. But those guys didn't show up until after the first states had been decided. The momentum had been established. Huck stayed in the race just long enough to make sure McCain won. He was the Romney antidote and the best friend to the McCain campaign.

Then along came Obama who, as a candidate, had more style than McCain, Huckabee, and Romney combined. The cult of personality had arrived. McCain knew he needed style and so he threw a hail-mary and put in the unvetted and inexperienced Palin. The election became style vs. style...and Obama had boat-loads more of it. America confused the presidential race for "American Idol" and gave it to the ticket they liked the most and who "had the best story", instead of voting for the ticket that was most qualified. McCain had a hard time getting conservative passion...because he had been a "maverick". Well, conservatives held their noses (me included) and voted for McCain, but some stayed home. And a few wrote in Ralph Paul...I mean Ron Nader...and viola, we have President Obama.

I really think that Huck has found his calling. He is the perfect conservative/christain talk-show host. But he dosn't have the brains to pull-off being president with the current problems we face.

I give it as my opinion that if the economy isn't better in the next two years, America will choose substance over style. So PLEASE PLEASE, Huck, STAY ON FOXNEWS! I'll keep watching...

Ouch: the federal budget.

2009-07-04T19:36:00.001-07:00

Obama's finally done something I can agree with...

2009-06-23T21:16:00.000-07:00

by David Alvord

PETA? How about PETABOA? That stands for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals By Other Animals". The way I see it, most animal cruelty is delivered by other animals. A few years ago, (this is a true story...just ask Laura) I saw this bird in my backyard and it was being attacked by our cat. Our cat was messing with it for about an hour. The bird's wing was injured and the cat was just poking it and taunting it. All of these other birds started to swoop down and try to distract our cat, but Lucy didn't care. She went on messing with the poor bird. It was one of the saddest things I had ever watched. Eventually, upon my wife's insistence, I decided to deliver the bird out of danger and so I took a tennis racket and lifted the bird and flung it over the fence (out of the range of our cat). I'm sure that the poor bird died over there...eaten by another cat or something.

That night, as we ate our KFC, I thought to myself about how much nicer we humans are, without even trying, to the creatures that we eat. Our cat would have tortured that little bird for several hours had I not intervened.

So the other day, Obama swats this fly and actually hits it! I was proud to be an American! I can honestly say that this was one of the first things Obama has done as president that I agreed with.

And so PETA actually condemns his actions! Are you serious? Other animals are so much more cruel to other animals than we humans are. Go see the movie documentary Planet Earth, or Earth...and you will see all of these lions attacking a huge elephant. Can you imagine some lunatick human doing something like that? I mean jumping on the back of an elephant and just gnawing on it's back for an hour? The guy who tried that would be considered totally insane and cruel. But when it's a lion doing it, we just watch and do nothing about it! There's some kind of weird double-standard. How many flies are being eaten by frogs and bats as we speak? How many trillions of plankton are being slowly digested in the stomach of the humpback whales as we speak? Did you know that the female black Widow spider eats her male partner ALIVE after her eggs are fertilized? How do you think that makes the males feel?

So, PETA, if you are in the business of decreasing animal suffering, you had better start with the animal kingdom itself...otherwise you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel (not to be taken literally, that would be cruel...see THE NEW TESTAMENT).

Obama: A Timid Advocate of Freedom (NRO article)

2009-04-24T09:14:00.000-07:00

A Timid Advocate of Freedom
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.

by Mitt Romney

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.

The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

— Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

This article appeared in the National Review Online on April 21, 2009

Bailouts Too Much Like Abortion: Do What You Want, Don't Worry About the Consequences

2009-03-22T11:43:00.001-07:00

This morning I read a headline on CNN.com that made me shudder: "US Plan to Buy Toxic Assets Near"

Follow me here. If an asset is toxic for a bank, it means that the bank made a decision to make a bad loan, and is now suffering the consequences of that decision by losing money.

But now the federal government comes in and says, "Oh no! You're having to deal with the consequences of your bad decision. It must be so hard for you, and it's hard on the rest of us too. So listen to us. We have a plan. We're going to pretend that you never made a bad decision. We're going to take away all the consequences so you don't have to feel any more pain. What we're going to do is force someone else to take on your pain, an innocent person who had nothing to do with your bad decisions. Now the innocents will have to deal with the consequences of your decision. You, on the other hand, are totally off the hook. Now just go back to being who you were before, and, by the way, don't worry. If you ever make a bad decision again, we'll be here for you.

Now the absurdity of the above situation ought to be obvious. It's exactly the same message we send when we legalize the killing of unborn children. We're essentially teaching people that the consequences of their actions don't matter, that they can do whatever the heck they want and not accept the consequences of their actions (90% of abortions are performed as a form of birth control; look it up).

Just as innocent children are the victims of abortion, the innocent American taxpayer is the victim of these absurd government bailouts. If the US government were a parent, they might be voted "worst parent ever." After all, what good parent would allow their children to escape the consequences of their bad decisions? It's just plain dumb. When you remove the negative consequences of a bad decision, the person is much more likely to keep making the same bad decisions over and over again.

This much ought to be obvious. But apparently the Obama administration doesn't get it, and the Bush administration didn't get it either. Since when has the free market functioned properly with heavy government intervention? The answer is...never. The only role the government ought to play in a free market is to ensure ethical behavior and create policies that keep government as far away as possible from business, so that the market can operate with as few restrictions as possible. It's that kind of thinking that allowed America to become the world's most powerful country in a ridiculously short amount of time, and it's that kind of thinking that will help get us out of the financial swamp that is now drowning us.

But the Obama administration seems hellbent on making sure we stay in this swamp. With each government bailout, with each company that is "rescued", the taxpayers of America are becoming the shareholders in some of the worst investments in history. I'll ask you, would you, voluntarily, buy stock in AIG right now? General Motors? Citigroup? But wait, YOU ARE buying stock in these companies. The Obama administration is FORCING you. You don't have a choice. You ARE a shareholder in these companies, and there's nothing you can do about it.

These bailouts, which the government is calling "public-private partnerships," are not partnerships at all. Last I knew, a good partnership was something into which both parties voluntarily entered for mutual benefit. Yet I see no benefit at all to the taxpayer in this "partnership", and make no mistake: nothing about this is voluntary. All we get is a bigger tax bill and horrible investment losses. On the other hand, the companies that caused these problems are making off like bandits. The government is telling them that it's okay for them to unload their toxic assets on the citizens, and is basically forcing us to take the blame for the banks' bad decisions. Now call me crazy, but that's no partnership.

But wait, aren't I missing the point here? Once our government forces us taxpayers to buy stock in these poorly-run companies, the companies will surely be in better health, right, and the country back on better financial footing? Not so fast. Who is to say these companies won't continue making the same bad decisions? You've heard the saying, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." Well believe it. When individuals or organizations don't face consequences for their bad decisions, the likelihood of them repeating the same mistakes is very high.

So here the government is, anointing themselves saviors of the economy, the knights in shining armor, when in fact all they have done is encourage the offending companies to keep up with business as usual. Just like the irresponsible individuals who continue to have unprotected sex, knowing they can easily get a government-approved abortion the next day, these poorly-managed companies will keep on making poor management decisions, knowing full well that big brother government stands ready and willing to bail them out, again.

God help us.

Mitt Romney Wins CPAC Straw Poll as Top Choice for 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination

2009-02-28T16:26:00.000-08:00

CNN.com is running on its homepage that CPAC has selected Mitt Romney as its top choice for the 2012 Republication Presidential Nomination. This is the third straight year CPAC has selected Romney as its choice for the nomination. CPAC is often seen as a good barometer of conservative intellectual opinion. To read the full article click on the following link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/cpac/index.html

In Handling of Stimulus, Obama Fails His First Big Test

2009-02-18T12:25:00.000-08:00

During the election, Barack Obama promised not only to make a great effort to solicit opposing opinions, but he promised that he would not push any non-emergency legislation through Congress without first giving the general public a full five days to review it and provide feedback. In ramming this one-party stimulus bill through Congress in about two days (a bill that happens to be the biggest spending bill in US history), he broke both promises in a major way.

If this bill were something minor it wouldn't be a concern. But we're talking about a bill that will saddle American taxpayers with debt for generations to come. Most Americans, and even the politicians who voted for the bill, did not even have time to read it. To me that's just inexusable. This is to mention nothing about the fact that Obama did not help establish clear criterion for what could qualify an expenditure as one that would truly stimulate the economy (remember how the first version of the bill requested millions for Head Start and other liberal wish list items that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy?).

Bottom line: Obama did not show good leadership in the way he managed this bill, and he broke important promises he made during the election. I like Obama. I want him to succeed. But in his first big test he failed miserably.

Stimulate the economy not the government

2009-02-06T13:18:00.001-08:00

Time to Close Ranks, Unite Behind Obama

2009-01-20T09:30:00.000-08:00

Today we will all witness a historic day in America: the swearing in of Barack Obama, America's first black president. But today is historic for more reasons than that. For the first time in decades a new president will take the oath of office at a time when we are not only at war, but also in dire financial straits.

I have been a frequent critic of the liberal agenda, the Democratic party, and occasionally Barack Obama himself. However, as Obama assumes the presidency today, I call on Americans everywhere to close ranks and unite behind him. Now more than ever is a time to put aside partisan bickering and ideological differences. Our country faces tremendous challenges in restoring our weak economy, cutting the deficit, securing Iraq, and healing our wounded relationships with other countries.

Barack Obama cannot do this alone. He will need the help of all Americans: Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, white and black, men and women. America, this is a time for us to stand together and focus our energies on solving the problems common to us all.

Although I strongly supported the GOP candidates in the primaries and the general election, I have always been impressed with much of what Barack Obama has to offer. As he is mostly untested at this point in his career, it is difficult to know what we can expect from him. However, I want him to succeed, and I want him to succeed fantastically. As Obama himself said after clinching the election, he is now everyone's president. So let us now throw our support to President Obama. Pray for him. Support him in our words. Support him in our deeds. Because he's going to need our help.

Barack Obama does indeed have a special aura about him. He seems to have the potential of a great, perhaps magnificent, leader. He is highly intelligent, sensitive to viewpoints that differ from his own, well-spoken, even-tempered, pragmatic, a solid family man, a person of strong character, and a hard worker. I pray to God that these traits which many of us perceive in him are in fact representative of who he really is, and that they will play a major part in how he governs these great United States of America. Obama is not now a great leader. He has not proven anything yet. But I, and I think most people, truly want him to become a great leader. God knows we need one right now.

Americans close ranks. Unite behind President Obama. Unite together to help him solve the serious problems we face. And if we disagree with him at times, let it be as part of the loyal opposition. We can disagree with some of his positions while still supporting and respecting him in his role as the president of our great country. In these perilous times, the need to support our leaders is greater than ever. It is patriotic to express divergent opinions, and we should continue to do so, but we must go forward with an eye focused on supporting those who are trying their hardest to do what they believe is in the best interests of the American people. Even if our support is qualified, it will go a long way toward uniting this country and giving President Obama the moral authority he needs to lead us out of these difficult times.

Mitt Romney's Stimulus Plan: It's Brilliant

2009-01-19T10:29:00.000-08:00

If Mitt Romney had been elected President, what would he have done to get our economy back on the right track?

Now we know.

To read Romney's brilliant stimulus plan click here.

Mitt's the standard-bearer, not Palin

2009-01-09T11:12:00.000-08:00

by David Alvord

Now that the election is over, it is time to weigh-in on Governor Palin. There is no question that the media was not kind to her during the election. Part of it was due to the fact that she had not been vetted. Sarah had not run in the primary election and had little National exposure or experience.

I must admit that I had genuine enthusiasm for having her on the Republican ticket last year. She brought a lot of excitement to the ticket. Yet, now that I have had time to think about it, it was the fact that Palin could win that had me most excited, not what she would do with that winning. All we knew was that she was good-looking, wholesome, a family woman, and who was a rising star. And she still is all of those things, and I'm glad to have her on our side. I feel that McCain did not capitalize on having her be the spokesperson for energy independence. This was one area in which she was a bit muzzled and probably due to the fact that McCain wasn't totally committed to the cause.

On the downside, she did not bring very many new ideas to the party. She was not a champion of a cause that aroused much passion. She was a wonderful messenger, who never really got the message. We can blame McCain for much of that, but she had little to stand on her own.

But, when all things are considered, I still believe Gov. Palin would have been better than either Biden or Obama as President or VP. That said, she is not the best Republican we've got to choose from. That distinction is reserved for our man Mitt. Romney has been vetted. Romney has run a National Campaign. He went from having little name recognition to almost taking the nomination his first try (Something even Reagan could not do). And now that the election is over, many Republicans are lamenting giving the nomination to McCain instead of Romney.

And so, going forward it should be clear that for the Republicans, and for conservatives, Romney is the Standard-bearer, not Palin.

Compassionate Conservatism

2009-01-03T08:04:00.000-08:00

by David Alvord

In a few days we will say Goodbye to President Bush. His presidency will probably be remembered for the Iraq war. Obama's decision to extend the service of Robert Gates is encouraging to me and is a signal that America won't be rushing out of Iraq anytime soon. This must be very frustrating to the anti-war left.

When all things are considered, President Bush delivered on what he campaigned for. He promised to be a "compassionate conservative". When we conservatives first heard the word "compassionate", we worried that Bush was referring to a compassionate government. We worried because, as conservatives, the only compassion we want from the government is to be left alone. Had Bush not heard Reagan say "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"? Probably not.

I hope I speak for most conservatives when I say that we are for human compassion. We simply believe that families, churches, and communities are better at taking care of the poor than the government is. We believe that if the money is left in our hands, we will be more responsible with that money than the government will be. When a family gives financial support to one of it's own, there is accountability involved. The family knows if any individual is abusing the money and will make adjustments accordingly. The family will also encourage eventual self-reliance. Does anyone really think that a social worker knows as much (or cares as much) as the family does?

There may be some reading this who worry that there are some individuals who may not belong to a family who can offer any assistance. This is where churches, charities, and communities can step in. Ironically, one of the reasons families may not be able to take care of their own is due to the high tax rate we currently have. I believe that if you let Americans keep more of their own money, families will be empowered to take care of their own. And, the American people will be much more judicious with that allocation than any government agency can be.

When families have the money, it encourages a society to higher moral standards. For example, imagine a young college student who is considering experimenting with drugs and who is also considering getting body piercing, and tattoos. If Mom and Dad are paying for college, or helping etc, there will be the immediate thought that they may cut him off from that funding if he/she does not live up to the standards of the family. But if Uncle Sam/Uncle Obama is paying for school there will no immediate consequences. In fact, that college student will hit "decline"on his cell phone when Mom calls. After all, who needs Mom and Dad when the government is paying for things? What about the consequences of drugs and tattoos? Governments can run ads on TV warning of the consequences of drug abuse to a young person's body...but we are talking about people who feel pretty immortal. And the consideration of being able to earn a living? Won't those tattoos and piercings put a young person at a disadvantage? No worries...the government will be there for the young person if they hit "rock bottom". They won't have to go to Mom and Dad and hear their lectures, take out their tongue rings and get a job. No.... Pell grants, food stamps, public housing will all be there for them if they really screw up. The result? A decline in the character and morals of the society.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son. In the Parable, a son departs from moral living and spends his birthright on riotous living. When he comes to himself, he returns to his father who compassionately receives him. One of the essential elements of the parable is that the Son hit bottom. There was no government program to bail him out. He basically had no choice but to return and repent. The prodigal had to return to moral living in his father's house. The son is better off in his father's house than if he had continued in riotous living while being supported by some unfeeling sponsor. The father had the means to kill the fatted calf and put a ring on his son's finger because he was not overtaxed. The whole story doesn't work out if we get the wealth redistribution Obama is talking about.

I heard Obama say that if one of his daughters makes a mistake (gets pregnant), he doesn't want her to be "punished" with a child...therefore abortion should be an option. First of all, children aren't a punishment. And at the heart of all of this, is the notion that there should be no punishment for wrongdoing. When you try to take away the consequences of bad behavior, you are, in turn, likely to increase the opportunity for people to behave badly.

Conservatism offers a better way. Let the people keep their money. Empower families to take care of their own. Churches and communities can assist those who are disabled, the Elderly, or those who have made poor choices. There will be accountability when help is given.

Conservatism allows us to be compassionate. Our man Mitt understands this principle. It is my prayer that Obama will see it too.

Let Detroit go Bankrupt

2008-11-25T14:39:00.000-08:00

by Mitt Romney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?hp

He's right again! Although not a candidate, he still rocks!

Glenn Beck Interviews Romney on the Economy: Read it to See Why We Wanted Mitt for President!

2008-09-24T18:46:00.000-07:00

By the Mitt Rockers

Glenn Beck asks Romney to explain the financial crisis and the government bailout proposal. Read the entire transcript to see why Mitt Romney would have been the ideal President for us in these financially difficult times. We support Barack Obama wholeheartedly as our new President. But anyone who thinks Obama could speak as fluently about the economy as Romney is smoking something way too strong:

GLENN BECK: Explain a little bit of what happened last Wednesday [the bank closures and government seizures] in layman's terms. I don't know if America really has a handle on, we were talking about shutting the country off because of nobody was making loans to each other. Nobody trusts each other anymore.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, the challenge all started with exuberance on the part of Republicans and Democrats to give mortgages to people who really didn't have the capacity to pay back the money. Everybody hoped they would but, you know, it was just irrational exuberance as Greenspan used to call it and so all these mortgages were handed out and then the banks, investment banks and other institutions held onto these mortgages expecting to get paid back and when the inevitable happened, when it was clear that people couldn't pay it back and started defaulting, we recognized that these banks and investment banks didn't have as much money as they thought they had and therefore they had to stop lending to new people because they didn't have money to lend. And when you start seeing people having to stop lending, well, then you mean folks can't buy cars, the kids can't get loans for school, that people can't buy homes and you could slam the whole economy shut. And it was that that the Federal Reserve feared and that's why they are proposing such dramatic action....

To read the rest of this outstanding transcript click here.

Congratulations Governor Palin!

2008-08-29T19:49:00.000-07:00

By the Mitt Rockers

This is a high risk, high reward VP pick. It could be a brilliant move by McCain, or it could doom his candidacy since Palin is not vetted on the national stage. We would have strongly preferred Mitt Romney. But Governor Palin is a capable woman. We hope her graceful presence on the ticket is enough to push McCain over the top.

Romney is an extremely capable man and will certainly land on his feet. We think we can expect to see Mitt run for president again in 2012 or 2016.

Onward and upward!

Will McCain take the Presidency?

2008-08-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

Will he pick Mitt?

Stay Tuned...

Three ways Romney would benefit McCain

2008-07-16T12:58:00.000-07:00

by David Alvord

If you are visiting this website, then you must assume that we want Mitt for McCain's VP pick because he'd make a great President. That's a given. But I believe that there are three ways that Romney would benefit McCain's bid for the White House.

Reason #1: Michigan. With Romney on the ticket, McCain would see a blue state turn red. Can you name any other potential VP that would deliver a traditionally democratic State? Sure, there are those who argue that Gov. Crist of Florida could deliver his swing state, but in reality McCain might be able to get that one without any help. But Romney knows how to speak to the people of Michigan and has a plan to save the car industry of America. McCain can't do it without Romney in Michigan.

Reason #2: The economy. Banks are closing. Stocks are plummeting. Gas costs four and five dollars a gallon. China is on the move. America is down but not out. McCain's weak spot is on the economy. Turnaround expert Mitt Romney is strong on the economy. You put Romney with McCain and you have an extremely strong ticket. Foreign policy and Washington experience from McCain and real-world outside of Washington experience from Romney. If they worked together, they could accomplish much. And none too soon. America needs the best she's got if we're going to fix the problems that we are currently facing. Who better than Romney to strengthen McCain's economic policy-making? Huckabee? (HINT: scholarships for illegals won't bring the price of gas down)

Reason #3: The Western United States. Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California and others would be electrified by having Romney on the ticket. There would be passion...and McCain needs passionate supporters. Several Ron Paul supporters have mentioned that Romney would be their second choice. McCain needs an energized base and Romney would deliver that needed energy.

No other choice can deliver so many goods to McCain as Mitt Romney. The two compliment each other well and seem to be strong where the other is weak. Besides, who else can we trust to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Evangelical Extremists Blackmailing McCain: Threaten to Boycott the Election if McCain Picks "That Mormon" Mitt Romney as VP

2008-07-04T14:11:00.001-07:00

It's disheartening, even despicable, that some evangelical extremists are threatening to boycott the election if McCain picks "That Mormon" Mitt Romney as his running mate. I've spent a good portion of this election season browsing political news sites, blogs, and online big-city newspapers. In each of them I've noticed a disturbing trend. The trend goes something like this: if the original news article or blog post makes any mention of Mitt Romney, the ultra-conservative evangelicals come out en masse, posting comment after comment that all have the same theme: Mr. McCain, if you dare choose a Mormon as your running mate, you can expect us evangelicals to sit home on election day--and you'll lose the presidency because of it!

Now folks, let's put this in perspective. Imagine if a large voting bloc in the Democratic party (Jews for instance) were to threaten the Democratic nominee with taunts that they would sit home on election day if that nominee picked a Muslim as his or her running mate. See where where I'm going with this?

These evangelical extremists are trying to blackmail McCain, attempting to use their power as a voting bloc to force McCain to acquiese to their hateful anti-Mormon views.

Now is there anything more un-American than this? No folks, there isn't. This type of perverted ideology is exactly the opposite of the ideals on which America was founded. This ignorant, mean-spirited behavior is wrong. It is immoral. And it is most definitely behavior unbecoming of Christians. No...Jesus would not hate Mormons.

I hope that those in the mainstream media will be responsible enough to denounce this problematic trend among ultra-conservative evangelicals. However I doubt it will happen, because the mainstream media is dominated by intellectual elites, many of whom also seem to enjoy thumbing their noses at Mormons.

And so Mormons are forced to deal with this silliness. God grant them the strength to respond in love.

Romney's right....it's time to back McCain

2008-06-02T18:59:00.000-07:00

by David Alvord

It must've been hard for Mitt to swallow his pride and back the man who, only months earlier, called him a flip-flopper. It must have taken a great deal of humility for Romney to back McCain after he drummed up that fake story about Mitt not supporting the surge. Perhaps the hardest blow to Romney was when McCain won the nomination, not by being the conservative, but rather by being the moderate. The conservatives: Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee, all split their votes (Romney having won most of them). The split of the conservative votes left McCain as the last man standing but hardly the man who most Republicans wanted. It must have been hard...

But Romney has come out for McCain...and it is time that we follow his example. We back McCain not for the man, but for the principles and for how he'd govern.

Why did Romney back McCain? The cynical answer would be that Romney wants to be Veep. Perhaps this isn't necessarily a bad idea. After all, many question whether McCain, if elected, will seek a second term. Romney would be the next in line. Also, if Romney truly believes that conservative principles are what America needs, he would want to be next to the man who holds the nation's highest office. Romney must realize that a conservative Vice President could offer good counsel to the POTUS.

But to back McCain, Romney, and the rest of us, will have to ignore some deficiencies in our candidate. We will have to ignore McCain's global warming pitches. We will have to forgive him for screwing up campaign finance. We'll have to get over all the times he has been a thorn in the side of conservative lawmakers. And we'll have to forget how he treated our candidate of choice.

Why?

When in comes to taxes, abortion, gay marriage, guns, and health care, would we not have a better chance with a McCain presidency than with an Obama presidency?

The appointing of court justices are another big reason to support McCain. Between Obama and McCain, who would you guess would appoint the more conservative judge? And the President is not limited the appointment of court justices, he also appoints innumerable government positions. Would not our flawed candidate do better than Obama?

Romney's reason for supporting McCain is simple: we are at war. Whether or not you think that we should have gotten into Iraq, you should agree that we would be better off with a free Iraq than with an Al Quaeda-run Iraq. McCain has staked his whole political career on Iraq. You have to admire him for that. Iraq is a terrible problem! Any person who wants to take on that war deserves our respect. Can you imagine someone inheriting the civil war from Lincoln? Who would want that job? Yet, John McCain is not only willing to step up to the plate, he is also willing to finish the job the right way.

I urge all readers to carefully consider supporting John McCain for our nation's highest office...if our man Mitt can do it, so can we.

Obama thinks the US has 57 states-Claims to see dead people

2008-05-31T09:58:00.000-07:00

Click here to watch Barack Obama, the liberals' great "prophet", as he forgets how many states are in the US. Then click here to watch a video where at a recent Memorial Day service Obama claims to see dead people!

Why is it that every time a conservative commits a blunder it's played in the news over and over again until it becomes pop fiction lore (think: Dan Quail, potatoe).

But when a left wing liberal makes a similar mistake, for some strange reason it is buried by the media, and you never hear about it.

Do I see a double standard here? Hmmm... You can bet that if John McCain or Mitt Romney had made either of these statements it would be plastered all over the news networks.

Ladies and gentleman, witness the clear political bias of our "grand" US media institutions. Nothing, no nothing, that will hurt their left wing political agenda will ever appear in the mainstream media--even when it's really funny.

Enjoy....

Gosh, I sure "hope" Obama isn't psycho

2008-04-30T11:36:00.000-07:00

by David Alvord

In response to my last article about Sen. Obama, some comments that were posted may have mistakenly assumed that I found everything that Obama said to be wrong...but rather, I was really just pointing out that he was wrongly defending his pastor.

But his idiotic pastor is still running his mouth and now Obama is ready to throw him under the bus. Why didn't you just do that in the first place, Senator?

If the junior senator from Illinois is actually elected to our nation's highest office, all we can hope for is that the Republicans have some strong leadership that can steer the ship from afar. Senator Obama gave an inspiring speech about hope, but with a very limited voting record, all we can do is hope that his presidency would have a leadership vacuum, like that of President Clinton, and that the Republicans can once again fill that void.

OR

McCain can pick Romney as his running mate and restore conservative confidence in the coming election. I think the only way I will feel any sense of security in the coming election is to have Romney on the ticket.

I would rather have more than "hope" that Obama isn't an elitist. I would rather not have to "hope" Obama doesn't agree with his wacko pastor. I need more than "hope" to say that Obama's pulling out of Iraq won't cause genocide and eventually a large regional conflict. Can I "hope" that a man whose middle name is Hussein will prosecute the war on terror effectively?

No, it is with more than hope that I want to vote this fall. I say we let Obama serve a few more terms in the Senate to see what kind of man he is, and just how he would govern. I want to vote with confidence for a McCain / Romney ticket. John, please make it so.

Pro-Huckabee Evangelical Extremists Go After Mitt Again

2008-04-04T22:07:00.000-07:00

As if the anti-Mormon rhetoric from the extreme Christian right didn't hurt enough people during the primary season, it looks like they're at it again--this time trying to convince McCain that he should not pick Mitt as VP.

Several right wing Christian activists and prominent Mike Huckabee backers have published a full page anti-Mitt ad that will appear in cities McCain will be visiting in the near future. Among other things, this ad alleges (falsely) that Mitt is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. It concludes by threatening McCain, stating dramatically that "Willard Mitt Romney is a deal breaker."

Now it's one thing to criticize a person's positions. But it's entirely something else when that criticism is not true. Every single allegation in their ad is refuted by credible news sources. Also, many people in this group have in the past been guilty of unfairly criticizing Mitt's religion and personal character. This bigotry has been cloaked, of course, in the name of the fight for "conservative social values." Such agenda-driven bias makes the petition even more laughable--yet another hipocritical charade of Huckabee and his ilk.

The statement is posted online and contains a petition which supposedly will be sent to John McCain. I encourage Romney supporters everywhere to sign this petition using comments that expose this underhanded effort for what it is. To view the full text of the ad and to sign the petition click here.

Obama's speech made me miss Mitt all the more...

2008-03-19T20:28:00.000-07:00

Obama spent his entire speech making excuses for his pastor! It was pathetic. He added nothing to the national conversation about race or religion. His speech will never be cited or quoted. It just wasn't inspiring!

Here is a particularly uninspiring quote:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Yeah...not so much Obama. I haven't heard anything from my church leaders with which I disagreed. I especially haven't heard anything with which I have strongly disagreed! Stop trying to assume that your weird situation is typical. The fact is, most of us go to church to hear the word of the Lord. Most of us don't hear controversial sermons at church. If we did, we may have to find another church!

I don't think that I will be able to handle hearing this guy give speeches for four years. Thank you Obama...I am now finding some passion for the John McCain campaign.

McCain says Romney Has "Big Role" to Play in GOP: Is it as VP?

2008-03-12T21:20:00.000-07:00

John McCain's most recent comments about Mitt's future role in the GOP, taken from Foxnews.com.

Exeter, NH — Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that former rival Mitt Romney has a “big role to play” in the future of the GOP and would be in contention for “a lot of different roles in a Republican administration.”

“I was very gratified by Governor Romney’s gracious endorsement, asking his delegates to support me, the way he received me after he dropped out of the race,” McCain said aboard his bus today in the Granite State–where McCain dealt Romney a major blow. “There is nothing but goodwill between myself and Governor Romney….(he) has a big role to play in our party. Millions of Republicans voted for him so obviously I think he would be in consideration for a lot of different roles in a Republican administration.”

McCain and Romney fought a bruising, heated battle during the early primaries but the presumptive GOP nominee said that is water under the bridge. “The lesson in politics is you go forward, not back…(once the primary is over) we share the same principles and values of conservative Republicans,” McCain said.

McCain added that he does not believe it is important to select a running mate he considers to be a close friend.

“I don’t think you have to be close friends as much as you have to share the principles, the values, the goals…but also the priorities,” McCain said. “I don’t think you have to have a personal relationship but you have to have a comfortable, professional relationship.”
The questions were prompted by Romney’s comments during a Fox News interview last night that he would be “honored” to be picked as McCain’s VP.

Mitt for VP?

2008-03-12T14:07:00.000-07:00

by Brent Moritz

There has been a lot of buzz over the last few days about Mitt Romney for VP. Read this story from Fox News Hannity & Colmes, where Romney said:

"any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337048,00.html

I, for one, think Romney would make an excellent choice, a good balance to McCain.

Romney has solid conservative credentials. His experience as Governor and in the private sector would help McCain and be a strong ticket. In any case, the national exposure as a VP candidate would be a significant boost to Romney for any future contests.

Americans Complain About Candidates' Lack of Executive Experience. But Who is to Blame for Mitt Romney Being Out of the Race?

2008-03-01T13:28:00.000-08:00

As a strong supporter of Mitt Romney I find it ironic, even twisted, that many Americans are now bemoaning a lack of executive experience in the three presidential finalists (Obama, Clinton, and McCain).

Look at these two recent headlines from USA Today (from Feb 25 and 26, 08 respectively):

"Ready on Day One?: None of The Top Three Contenders Have Ever Run a Government or a Business"

And then this one:

"Obama Now Seen as Most Electable: Only 46% Say He Has Needed Experience"

The first article goes on to state:

"Each [candidate] has scored impressive achievements in life, but none has a run a city or state, a small business or large corporation--or any bureacracy larger than their Senate staffs or campaign teams."

Now folks, honestly, that so many Americans are complaining about this at such a late hour of the election makes me ill--and majorly peeved.

Although I feel sorry for America because we will be stuck with an inexperienced president, I absolutely cannot feel sorry for those of you who voice these complaints and yet failed to vote for Mitt Romney.

I mean seriously, you had the chance to elect Mitt Romney, an ethical man, an intelligent man, an articulate speaker, a financial wizard, one of the world's best executive leaders--and you passed on him. And who did you pass on him for? Candidates with long lists of ethical problems (Clinton, Giuliani, Huckabee). Candidates with dubious intellectual understanding of economic issues (Obama, Huckabee, Thompson, McCain). Candidates who cannot speak articulately (McCain, Thompson, Giuliani). Candidates with zero proven ability to manage and lead complex organizations with multi-million dollar budgets and thousands of employees (Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson).

The fact is, as the anointing hour draws closer, Americans are waking up to the dark realities we face: a brutal economic recession, a government deeply in debt, and a country divided over foreign policy. And if this weren't enough, the GOP is seriously broken, desperately in need of a leader who can unify its warring factions.

To get us through these problems we needed a leader with proven executive experience, solid leadership credentials, high ethical standards, a fix-it mentality, a sharp mind, an articulate speaker, and a touch of financial wizardry.

Folks, we needed Mitt Romney.

But it's too late now. Mitt is out of the race. And who is to blame for that?

When things get tough down the road, and it's obvious our president lacks the experience and skills to handle the problems successfully, I hope that those of you who didn't vote for Mitt Romney will be humble enough to admit that you are partly to blame for the problem.

Rather than whining to others about your case of buyer's remorse, I hope you will spend your energy by helping to get Romney elected in 2012 and 2016. Because when that time arrives, I can guarantee you that we will need Mr. Fixit to clean up the mess that our next Democratic or Republican president is about to cause.

Mitt will return when we need him most

2008-02-17T12:06:00.001-08:00

by David Alvord

As many of you know, I am a dentist practicing in the South Jordan, Utah area. I have been helping people achieve oral health now for the past four years and will soon be opening my own office.

It has been my observation that there are two types of patients:

First, there are the patients who come in regularly for their semiannual exams and allow me to solve their problems while they are small and relatively inexpensive. My radiography and training allow me to detect and cure decay before the patient may even notice that there is a problem. By investing in dental care at regular intervals, these patients will spend far less money for their dental care than those who wait for the big problems to develop...which brings me to our second type of patient.

The other patients are those who wait to visit the dentist only when they themselves notice that they have a problem. In other words, they wait until they have pain, a tissue lesion, or have a hole in a tooth. In almost every case, when the patient themselves can diagnose their own problem, the solution is more expensive (most commonly a root canal and crown).

I think of Romney as a highly trained specialist when it comes to the strength of our nation. He has detected an assault on our families. He has warned us about the competition from foreign nations. He understands that our tax burden must be low and that government spending must be controlled at inflation less one percent. He knows that our military must be strengthened.

Why? Because he has spent his life in the economy. He has spent his life as a religious leader. Romney has also spent his life as a father of five sons. But more than any of these, Romney has spent his life fixing things.

So what kind of "patients" are Americans? Well, while Romney was still in the race, he had a consistent third of the Republican vote...not as good as McCain's thiry-four percent...but impressive nonetheless.

But, it is sad to report than the majority of Americans are the second kind of "patients" (speaking in terms of political choices). It would seem that most Americans did not believe Romney's warnings and would rather wait until they themselves can feel the problems. While there are some who would like to analyze how the Romney campaign could have done this or that differently, I place the responsibility of the election squarely on the shoulders of the voters. I think Romney's message was spot-on.

While I pray that it will not be the case, America may find herself in pain in the not too distant future. Depending on the choices that Americans make in their own families, as well as in the White House, there may come a time that our nation will know for themselves that there are problems to be solved. Unfortunatley, the problems will have grown and have become much more expensive than they would have been if we would have unleashed Romney in '08.

And like the people who wait until they are in pain to see their dentist, there are Americans who will wait until the strength of our nation is on the decline. And then, perhaps, Mitt Romney and conservatism will return when we need them most.

Not inspired...

2008-02-14T19:02:00.000-08:00

by David Alvord

Even with Romney's endorsement today, I am still finding myself uninspired by McCain.

Romney is making the argument that since we are at war, now is not the time to symbolically retreat by electing a democrat.

I reluctantly agree. But as a new business owner, I feel like I will have to brace myself for the next four years no matter who is elected. I am left with the question: Would a President McCain employ conservative policies to keep our economy strong enough that we can afford the war?

I think that we need to finish the war, but in order to do so, America needs to be unfettered by liberal policy. We can't afford a war, entitlements, and universal health care. To try to be all things to all people is the sure way to bankrupt America.

Does John McCain understand this? Is he ready to embrace conservative principles? Obama would cause the war to end by retreating, but McCain may also cause the war to end, not by withdrawing troops but by killing our economy.

Maybe Romney can explain this to us...

Stay tuned.

Let's fix the Republican nominating process

2008-02-12T08:53:00.000-08:00

In November we are going to be forced to decide between the lesser of two liberals. With the nomination of McCain, it is clear that Republicans need to fix their nominating process. Here are some thoughts...

1. Iowa and New Hampshire should NOT lead the process. There is no reason – other than history and big egos – that these states should lead us off each season. I hate to say it, but Iowa caucus-goers are not the sharpest tools in the shed. We can do better. New Hampshire voters, on the other hand, are possibly more intellectual, but suffer from an irrational desire for rebellion. We don’t want party outsiders picking our nominee. It just doesn’t make any sense. It's hard to think of any two lead-off states worse than these.

2. New states should be allowed to lead the process each election cycle. This could be easily implemented by scheduling election days in advance and allowing interested states to apply to be in a lottery. The lottery would then determine the matchup between states and dates. One of the stipulations for admittance into the “early state lottery” would be that only registered Republicans can vote in the primary and the registration process would need to have been completed at least 6 months before the date of the primary.

3. Our caucusing should look more like the Democrats'. We had way too many candidates in the race for way too long. It’s healthy for the candidates to undergo a weeding-out process wherein supporters of candidates with less than 10 or 15 percent of the caucus vote are required to either leave or affiliate themselves with another candidate. This would have eliminated the likes of Tancredo, Hunter, and T. Thompson early on, thus allowing us to focus on realistic candidates in debates and future primaries and caucuses.

4. Plan a couple of “frontrunner debates” during the cycle. Agree upon specific criteria beforehand and at key dates during the process facilitate a debate between the TWO frontrunners. This could happen once after 3 or 4 states have voted and again right before a major event like super Tuesday.

5. Let’s agree to a window of time wherein no elected Republican officials are allowed to endorse candidates. This would force politicians to actually do some homework and risk some political capital if they are going to endorse a candidate (instead of just sticking their finger in the wind like the creepy Governor Crist). Perhaps “endorsement silence mode” could kick in two weeks before the first state votes and would end after 50 percent of states have voted. Of course everyone is entitled to free speech, but this could easily be established as a party norm.

6. Reward caucus and convention states with additional delegates. Throughout the primary season it has been evident – with the exception of Iowa – that caucusing produces superior results than primary voting. This should not be a surprise. The average primary voter may not spend more than a few minutes contemplating and making their vote. A caucus-goer, on the other hand, must make a diligent effort and substantial time commitment to their candidate. This results in a more robust and carefully contemplated choice.

So these are some of my ideas that I believe would contribute to a stronger nominee in 2012. The current process is bad, but it can be fixed. A staged primary is much better than a national primary. A national primary would be so expensive and the electorate so ignorant that only rich and famous people would have a chance. It would be a terrible idea.

So let's stick with a staged process, but mix up the order. Above all, let’s allow Republicans and conservatives to determine the nominee. The idea of “open primaries” early in the process is absurd. Also, let’s not be religious bigots. We need to make sure that a person of any faith – as long as he or she is a full-spectrum conservative – can win the Republican nomination.

What are your thoughts?

Romney's Leadership Role in the GOP is Only Beginning

2008-02-09T14:37:00.000-08:00

"The conservative heir apparent". That's what Matt Lewis called Mitt Romney just two days after Romney halted his presidential bid.

Lewis makes a good argument that Mitt Romney's star is only beginning to shine. A virtual unknown only a year ago, Romney has now become a household name. This newfound popularity and the dedication Romney has shown to the GOP, including his gracious departure from the race, helps solidify his position as "the next in line." Similar to Ronald Reagan, who lost in 1976 only to win four years later, Mitt Romney is the GOP's de facto frontrunner heading into 2012 and even 2016.

Over the next few years expect to see Romney rise to influential leadership positions within the conservative movement. You will continue to hear his name until he becomes President Romney.

America, witness the birth of something extraordinary: ROMNEY REPUBLICANS. This new breed is only beginning to breathe, but it will become a powerful force in the not-so-distant future. Count on it!

To read the full text of Lewis' excellent article click here.

Romney's extraordinary CPAC speech in full

2008-02-07T13:18:00.000-08:00

I want to begin by saying thank you. Its great to be with you again. And I look forward to joining with you many more times in the future.

Last year, CPAC gave me the sendoff I needed. I was in single digits in the polls and I was facing household Republican names.

As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for president, less than Senator McCain’s 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. 11 states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he’s doing quite a bit better with his number of delegates.

To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future.

I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century-still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable.

Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. First, he said, I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses.

One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world. The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America! And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead.

Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture. Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations.

I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he’s a liberal–I guess that’s redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history.

After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this: If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity-opportunity is in our DNA.

Americans love God, and those who don’t have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves-a Purpose Driven Life. And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nations strength and they always will be!

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up.

At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug-we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography-even celebration of it-and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today’s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children.

How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school-and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to Americas vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

The attack on our culture is not our sole challenge. We face economic competition unlike anything we have ever known before.

China and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty. Their people are plentiful, innovative, and ambitious. If we do not change course, Asia or China will pass us by as the economic superpower, just as we passed England and France during the last century. The prosperity and security of our children and grandchildren depend on us.

Our prosperity and security also depend on finally acting to become energy secure. Oil producing states like Russia and Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran are siphoning over $400 billion per year from our economy–that’s almost what we spend annually for defense.

It is past time for us to invest in energy technology, nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable sources and energy efficiency. America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Ahmendinejad.

And our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping of government spending. Don’t focus on the pork alone-even though it is indeed irritating and shameful. Look at the entitlements.

They make up 60% of federal spending today. By the end of the next Presidents second term, they will total 70%. Any conservative plan for the future has to include entitlement reform that solves the problem, not just acknowledges it.

Most politicians don’t seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens–that it’s just there. But every dollar represents a good or service produced in the private sector. Depress the private sector and you depress the well-being of Americans.

That’s exactly what happens with high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government. Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector. Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?

It is high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government!

And finally, let’s consider the greatest challenge facing America–and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad.

In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy–to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%.

We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn’t get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might. Raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve!

Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the constitution.

Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.
Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign. You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like childs’ play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Usama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!!

It is the common task of each generation-and the burden of liberty-to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.
To this task… accepting this burden… we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the earth.

Thank you, and God bless America.

Romney Suspends Campaign - Time for 2012!

2008-02-07T09:50:00.000-08:00

Even though it is on hold for this round...anything suspended will not sink. Romney is placing his party before his campaign. What a great run Romney!

“If this were only about me, I’d go on,” he said during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. “I feel I now have to stand aside for our party and our country.”

Story

Romney for '08 or '12

2008-02-07T08:07:00.000-08:00

by David Alvord

Sometimes I have to try on an idea and let it sink in a little before I really know how to feel about it. I would like to take back my suggestion that Romney and McCain run together. That would be like Abraham Lincoln running as VP to Jimmy Carter.

Romney should see this thing through. He is new to the political scene and has finally gotten his name out there. While not likely, there could still be some unforeseen events that could propel Mitt to the nomination. What Romney needs to do is to wrap himself up in conservatism and work till our country comes to our senses. His election may be realized in '08 or 2012...but now is not the time for compromise...especially with such a traitor to the party like John McCain.

John McCain is not the man to lead the Republican party and I would be ashamed to have Mitt help him in that effort. Sorry about my moment of weakness that was on display yesterday. If it ends up being a choice between McCain and Obama or Hillary, I will vote for Bloomberg or Bart Simpson as a write-in. I will still vote so that I can choose the most conservative Senator and Judges...but for the choice of president, McCain will not get my vote just because he has an R after his name.

The Romney Rap: Mitt's Got Substance AND Style Baby!

2008-02-06T19:43:00.001-08:00

In case you've ever wondered if Romney's candidacy has serious sex appeal, you've gotta check this out!

A conservative reconciliation

2008-02-06T09:38:00.000-08:00

by David Alvord

If you are reading this, you probably have that nervous knot in your stomach. The prospects of a McCain, Obama, or Clinton presidency leaves conservatives feeling very uneasy.

Now, this thing is not over...there are still nearly one thousand votes up for grabs. Things could still change, and we may still see Romney win this thing. But, the odds are against him and that's why we all have that knot in our stomachs.

If Romney does not win, there is one possible solution to the problem: a McCain-Romney ticket.

But in order for this to happen, it would require a few things:

1. Both John and Mitt (and their supporters) would have to swallow their pride. They have been fierce rivals...and it would take some humility from each of them. They both would have to admit where they are weak. Romney would have to defer to McCain on military decisions, McCain would defer to Romney on economic matters.

2. Romney would have to be persuaded that McCain will not run and govern as a liberal/moderate. McCain would have to reassure the base by running a conservative campaign and by not using the rhetoric of the left. It would be a hard decision by Romney, but if Mitt could be persuaded that McCain will be Reagan-like as president, and not try to out-Clinton everybody, then I think that Romney should accept the post.

The result could be a conservative reconciliation. Our forces would be united against the democrats this fall. Romney's ability to raise money would be combined with McCain's friends in the political world. A Mitt VP could be the means to reach out to fiscal conservatives and help us feel better about the future of the party.

James Dobson Condemns McCain: Will Vote for Romney

2008-02-05T19:29:00.000-08:00

James Dobson issued a statement today saying he is strongly opposed to John McCain's candidacy. He criticized McCain as an enemy of conservatives on many issues. Said Dobson: "I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are."

Shortly after releasing his statement, Dr. Dobson was a quest on Dennis Prager's radio show, where he stated that he will cast his vote for Mitt Romney. While Dobson made it clear this was a personal decision and not a formal endorsement, he said he was willing to overlook the differences between evangelicals and Mormons in favor of the "strong leadership" Mitt Romney brings to the table.

As one of the most influential voices in the evangelical community, Dr. Dobson's statement is likely to have a strong influence on many evangelicals. It's worthwhile to note that Dobson has chosen to support Mitt Romney rather than fellow evangelical Mike Huckabee.

To read excerpts from Dobson's written statement and his radio interview with Mr. Prager click here.

Don't you dare!

2008-02-05T07:49:00.001-08:00

It's all about delegates...

2008-02-04T09:42:00.000-08:00

Here are some numbers to keep in mind for tomorrow.

So far the delegate numbers are as follows: Romney 93, McCain 97. So we are TIED.

Super-duper Tuesday delegates at stake: 1071

Post Super-duper Tuesday delegates: 978

Number of delegates needed to win the nomination: 1191

Bottom line: no one will have the nomination locked up tomorrow and there are plenty of delegates still up for grabs...this thing is far from over.

Three things to watch (and pray) for tomorrow...each would be a huge boost for Romney.

1. Romney picks up more delegates than expected.
2. A Romney California win could be very symbolic and momentum changing.
3. A poor Huckabee showing would make it a two man race...positioning Romney for the majority of the remaining 978 delegates. (Mike, give it up!)

Mitt's Eyes are on Tuesday's Prize...California!

2008-02-04T01:00:00.001-08:00

Zogby says, "Romney is widening his lead in California and has a really big advantage with conservatives,...Romney winning California would give some Republicans pause when they look at McCain as the potential nominee." Full artice

Latest Zogby poll puts Mitt leading McCain in California 40 percent to 32 percent! This win will not only PUNCTURE McCain's perceived momentum...it will SLASH it. Get your Mitt on and vote!

Q: What do electric voting booths and cleverly-dressed line dancers have in common?

A: They shout, "Mitt's ELECTRIC!"

McCain Confesses: "It's Not Social Issues I Care About"

2008-02-03T11:50:00.000-08:00

I was only mildy shocked today when I read a Washington Post interview with John MCain. In the interview the wily old senator dropped a bombshell: "It's not social issues I care about" he said. Say what? And you're running to represent the Republican party and the millions of social conservatives who belong to it?

Here's the quote in context:

"McCain seems distinctly uninterested when asked questions concerning abortion and gay rights. While campaigning in South Carolina, he told reporters riding with him on his bus that he was comfortable pledging to appoint judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution in part because it would reassure conservatives who might otherwise distrust him.

'It's not social issues I care about,' he explained."

Do social conservatives need any more reasons to be highly suspicious of this guy? I mean, here we are, just hours before Super Tuesday, and he admits to the national media that he doesn't care about issues of high moral importance to a huge portion of the GOP base, such as the sanctity of life.

What's more, he hints that he would appoint constructionist judges only so he could win the trust of the base, not because he personally believes in constructionist judges. He acts like he'd only do it to throw us a bone.

Add to this apostasy the fact that McCain has admitted he knows practically nothing about the economy, and we've got somebody who has no claim to be being a "true conservative" as he boasts in his TV commercials. Since when does being a war hawk alone qualify someone as a conservative? The truth is, a strong military is the ONLY thing McCain has in common with the GOP base--hardly enough to represent us as our President. To be a "true conservative" Mr. McCain, the social issues must be important to you, along with economic conservatism.

How could conservatives possibly reward this one dimensional candidate with the opportunity to represent the voices of full spectrum conservatives?

THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS: WE CAN'T!

For those in America who care about the defense of conservative moral values, we must vote for Mit Romney or we will suffer the consequences.

For the full text of the Washington Post article click here.

Romney Rockets to the Lead in California: Continues to Surge in Other Key States

2008-02-03T10:54:00.000-08:00

This just in. The brand new Reuters/Cspan/Zogby poll shows Romney BEATING McCain 37% to 34% in California. This poll has the biggest sample size and is the most recent poll conducted in California. Couple Romney's California surge with his dominating leads in Massachusetts and Colorado--and his surges in other big states like Georgia--and we've got a battle royale on our hands. Buckle your seatbelts folks!

This race is far from over.

To see the newest poll results from California click here.

Mitt Rocks Minnesota! Event Comments

2008-02-02T20:13:00.001-08:00

by Brent Moritz

While my posts below capture some of the "feel of the people", the event seemed to be a rousing success. According to Romney's staff, attendance was in the 750-1000 range, though I suspect it may be on the lower end of that range. There were people of all ages, including several families and retirees. The event itself was put together on relatively short notice, with the decision to come to Minnesota happening on Friday. Held at the HQ of Frauenshuh, Inc., the room could not have held many more people.

Those who attended got to hear a fairly typical stump speech from Gov. Romney, and his comments were well-received by the attendees. I thought Gov. Romney did fine, and he played to the crowd. Three criticisms: First, I thought the introduction was lacking, as it would have been great to have some Minnesota politicians present at the event to talk to the crowd. If nothing else, showing a couple of video clips or Romney campaign commercials would have been good. Mr. Frauenshuh, highly successful in the real estate business and active member of the Republican party, introduced Romney but he could have let us know a bit more about his decision to endorse the candidate and get the crowd a bit more excited.

Romney's stump speech was red meat for the mostly Republican crowd, with the usual attacks on Clinton and the Democrats. He did contrast himself with McCain as well, and clearly was viewing this as a two-man race for the nomination. However, this is the second issue I had with the speech. I thought Romney could have appealed to those undecided voters more, asking them to come support him in the march to the White House. That was also the case at the end of Romney's speech, as I felt like he could have put out the call, making a stronger case for those in attendance to go to the caucuses on Tuesday, or to call their friends to join them.

Still, it was an interesting night, and Romney did well by most accounts. Still, McCain may win the most delegates in Minnesota on Tuesday. After all, Mondale and Dukakis carried Minnesota in their resounding losses, so the moderate to liberal message of McCain will have some support here. Yet I think the results will be closer than McCain might think.

Mitt Rocks Minnesota

2008-02-02T19:26:00.000-08:00

by Brent Moritz

With Super Tuesday just days away, Mitt Romney made a short-notice stop today in Edina, Minnesota. Meeting with an enthusiastic crowd, Romney's stump speech was well-received by the largely partisan and conservative crowd. I had the chance to visit with many Minnesotans and ask them a number of questions about their support for Romney. Old and young, families, couples and singles came from up to 70 miles away to hear Romney speak. I put on my journalist hat and wanted to report some of what the public was thinking.

Most people in attendance were either long-time Romney supporters or had recently switched to support Romney. Romney’s recent performance in the debates was seen as critical by several people. Some had followed his progress since Iowa, lamenting Huckabee’s win there while believing Romney won that debate. A few people had initially supported Tancredo, Hunter or Thompson and had moved to Romney as the most conservative candidate left in the race.

Many were really impressed with Romney’s conservative credentials. His positions on illegal immigration, trade and his stand on social issues were well-received in this partisan crowd. In addition, many people spoke highly of Romney’s personal lifestyle, as he was viewed by many as a man of character, integrity and “tremendous values.”

The economy was the number one issue cited by countless individuals, and Romney’s background was mentioned by nearly every supporter. Romney’s experience in the private sector was seen as a huge plus. One individual mentioned that Romney was the kind of guy he would expect to see in the CEO’s office, and was hopeful that experience would translate well to the Oval Office. Several mentioned that Romney as a “pro-business outsider” would be a great asset for the country. His experience was cited time and time again.

Other issues cited by Romney’s supporters were his work as the governor of Massachusetts and his work with the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Those who were undecided seemed genuinely interested in learning more about Romney the man rather than Romney the politician. They were open minded and wanted to see what Romney had to say, really to find out more about him. The number one issue for the undecided voters was the economy. One undecided voter from St. Paul was “leaning to Romney because of his fiscal policy” but was considering Obama “for his social policies.”

Several in attendance had been former Huckabee supporters but “Huckabee lost touch with me” after his win in Iowa, while another lamented that after Iowa, “Huckabee flaked out” and that “Mitt was the most Presidential” Several were concerned that Huckabee was dividing the opposition to McCain, while quite a few thought that “Huckabee was too liberal”. Several thought that Huckabee was staying in just to “siphon off votes from Mitt.” Still, a few thought that Huckabee was promised the VP spot.

Many individuals were vehemently opposed to McCain, which is not surprising considering those who were attending. Others were more kind, but worried that “it is too bad he is so popular.” One individual mentioned that “McCain is a great guy, but he is not well-suited to be president.” Another individual noted that “McCain is a Democrat, who associates with Ted Kennedy and Clinton”. Another called McCain a “quasi-Republican” and was supporting Romney because he could “drive the change we are looking for”. McCain’s attack of Romney by using the “timetable in Iraq” argument was particularly strong by several attendees. Several individuals called McCain “disgusting, smarmy and a liberal (as in the Clinton fashion).” One mentioned that McCain is running on his record in Vietnam, but that was “ancient history”. He wanted to see someone who was not a roadblock and who would “reduce the size of government.” “McCain has been in Washington too long” lamented one attendee, and Romney was the guy who could bring real change.

One individual mentioned she would “have to leave the country if Hillary wins”, and believed that Romney would put the country on the right course.

On the LDS issue (which I didn’t initially ask about), several volunteered that his standing in the LDS added to his integrity. One young Romney supporter from Corcoran, MN noted that “it is awesome that we have a Mormon running for President.” It seems like Romney has the strong support of the Minnesota LDS community, though my sense is that the majority in attendance were not LDS members.

I also asked the attendees about who would win the Minnesota caucuses. While no one predicted a runaway Romney win (he was running third in some polls), many at the rally thought it was too close to call. McCain has not visited Minnesota, and the number of likely caucus-goers is relatively small and that makes the polls hard to predict. My sense is that Romney’s supporters were really excited about the caucus and would out in force on Tuesday. In addition, many of the independent voters are likely to caucus for Obama in Minnesota. So while some were holding out for a “squeaker” or calling it a “toss-up”, most were realistic in their assessment in Minnesota.

Mitt Rocks Minnesota! (Images)

2008-02-02T19:15:00.001-08:00

by Brent Moritz

Here are a few images from the Mitt Romney rally held in Minnesota on 2/2/08

Mitt Wins Maine Caucuses in Landslide Victory Over McCain

2008-02-02T19:06:00.000-08:00

It looks like Maine voters don't let polls tell them who to vote for. They vote for the candidate who they think will do the best job. In the state of Maine, that candidate is Mitt Romney. In Maine's largest voter turnout since 1980, Romney won in a landslide over John McCain. Romney earned 52% of the vote to McCain's paltry 21%.

It is yet another sign that Romney's strength continues to grow, despite premature predictions that McCain is the "inevitable" nominee (give me a break). Conservatives are waking up and realizing that Romney is an excellent candidate and a far superior alternative to John McCain, who as recently as 2004 considered joining the Democratic party. In 2004 McCain even begged Democrat John Kerry to be his vice presidential running mate. Are you kidding me? It's true. Google it.

The truth is, John McCain is no conservative, and he's never going to be able to convince conservatives otherwise, no matter how hard the grizzled old senator tries.

For anyone who's counting Mitt's finishes in the early primary races, that's four gold medals and three silvers. No other candidate comes close, polls be damned.

To read the full story about Mitt's landslide win in the Maine caucuses click here.

McCain gets ripped for his flip-flop on taxes

2008-02-02T16:40:00.000-08:00

Follow this link to see McCain get ripped for flip-floping on the Bush tax cuts, and then for lying about why he voted against them...

LINK TO CNN VIDEO

McCain now says he opposed the Bush tax cuts because they did not come with spending cuts. Back when he voted against them (1 of only 2 Republicans to do so) he said that they favored the wealthy.

Apparently my 5-year-old understands economics better than McCain. Maybe if John has some time between campaign stops, he can learn something by reading this:

QUOTE:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

-David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Rick Santorum and Laura Ingraham Endorse Mitt Romney

2008-02-01T18:00:00.000-08:00

The endorsements for Mitt continue to pour in. Former GOP Senator and stalwart conservative Rick Santorum endorsed Romney as did conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham. Conservatives everywhere are realizing that Romney is a great candidate, and an excellent alternative to John McCain.

Wake up people! Conservatives cannot afford to pass on Mitt Romney. A John McCain nomination will doom the GOP. Not only will McCain likely get trounced by Clinton in a general election, but if he did happen to squeak out a victory, he would lead our party down the road to liberalism.

For the Santorum endorsement click here.

For the Ingraham endorsement click here.

ARKANSAS REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY ENDORSES MITT ROMNEY-TAKE THAT HUCKABEE!

2008-02-01T17:52:00.000-08:00

In a move that doubtless infuriated former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, the Arkansas Republican Assembly today endorsed Mitt Romney. To read the full article click here.

SEAN HANNITY WILL VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY

2008-01-31T19:09:00.001-08:00

Want further proof that true conservatives are coalescing around Mitt Romney? Sean Hannity will vote for Mitt! Watch here to hear Hannity express his support for Mitt.

5 Reasons to Vote for Mitt Romney

2008-01-31T18:35:00.000-08:00

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED A FEW WEEKS AGO. BUT IT IS MORE RELEVANT NOW THAN EVER. FOR THOSE CONSIDERING MITT ROMNEY, PLEASE REVIEW THIS POST.

Dear America,

In what has turned out to be a highly fluid GOP race, you will have a big say in who becomes the next president of the United States. For the first time in years, voters in all 50 states will have a strong voice, not just the voters in a few lucky early primary states. This is a wonderful opportunity--but it brings an important responsibility.

Voters cannot afford to base their votes on reading a couple of newspaper articles or watching a debate or two. Instead it is critical to take some time to research the background and positions of the top candidates.

BEFORE YOU CAST YOUR CRITICAL VOTE, PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO PONDER THESE 5 IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT MITT ROMNEY:

1) Mitt leads an examplary personal life:

Mitt married his high school sweetheart, Anne, and has stayed loyal to her their entire married life.
Mitt's wife, Ann, was diagnosed with MS in 1998. Mitt has stood by her side during her difficult challenges.
Mitt and Ann have raised five outstanding sons, each of whom loves their father and is living a responsible life. All have worked hard to help their Dad with his campaign.
Mitt is a man of faith. He has spent many hours volunteering in his church and strives to live a moral life.
Mitt is an extremely hard worker and is willing to do what it takes to get things done.

2) Mitt had an extraordinarily successful professional life:

After graduating at the top of his class from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, Mitt had a highly successful career as a management consultant. The focus of his work was to to help the world's largest corporations improve the efficiency of their operations.
Mitt was founder and CEO of Bain Capital, currently one of the world's most successful investment firms. Bain is largely responsible for the success of Staples, Brookstone, and Dominos Pizza. While at Bain, part of Mitt's job was to help struggling business become financially successful. He had much success doing this. Many of the struggling companies Mitt helped became very profitable and have now become household names.

3) Mitt saved the 2002 Winter Olympics (and took no paycheck):

Mitt volunteered his skills (taking no paycheck) to help rescue the 2002 Winter Olympics from financial crisis. As the CEO of the 2002 Organizing Committee, Mitt managed the overall operations of the Olympics, including thousands of volunteers and a multimillion dollar budget.
When Mitt took over the Olympics, they were millions of dolllars in debt. By the time the 2002 games concluded, the Games had a 100 million dollar surplus and were declared by many to be one of the most successful Olympic games in history.
During the Olympics Mitt was able to build strong diplomatic ties with the leaders of many foreign countries. If he becomes president these relationships will help him create more effective foreign policies.

4) Mitt governed as a conservative governor in ultra-liberal Massachusetts:

In the most liberal state in the US, Mitt governed as a conservative governor
Mitt balanced the budget every year in office.
Mitt designed and implemented a revolutionary health plan that uses private insurance (not taxpayer funded government insurance) to ensure that every citizen in the state of Massachusetts is covered.
Mitt opposed abortion.
Mitt opposed same-sex marriage in a state whose Supreme Court tried to implement it.
Mitt made 100 promises to Massachusetts voters when he was campaigning. Before he left office he had fulfilled every single promise.

5) Mitt wants to create a more efficient Washington and a stronger America:

What matters most in an election is what the candidate will do in office. Do you really know what Mitt plans to do?
Please take a moment to read Mitt's detailed plan for what he will do if we elect him our president.

IS MITT ROMNEY PERFECT? NO, LIKE THE REST OF US HE HAS HIS FLAWS. BUT WHEN CLOSELY EXAMINING HIS PERSONAL LIFE, PROFESSIONAL LIFE, VOLUNTEER WORK, AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE, I BELIEVE WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE SUCH AN IMPRESSIVE MAN OFFERING HIS SKILLS TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY. AMERICA, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES FOR MITT ROMNEY!

Some wisdom from Ferris

2008-01-31T15:01:00.000-08:00

At last night's debate, Romney had a look on his face like: "If I am going to get beat, it's not gonna be by a guy like that."

That direct quote from Ferris Bueller has some wisdom in it (full quote from the scene with the Maitre D' who was getting 'snooty') :

Cameron: Okay Ferris, can we just let it go, please?

Sloane: Ferris, please. You've gone to far. We're going to get busted.

Ferris: A: You can never go too far. B: If I'm gonna get busted, it is *not* gonna be by a guy like *that*.

Romney is P.O.ed and is going to see this thing through. McCain is like that snooty Maitre D' who thinks that because he was a POW long ago that he is entiltled to take cheap shots and is immune from answering the big questions.

I would love to see a two hour debate with just the two of them. Romney would wipe the floor with him!

If only voters would watch the debates!

2008-01-31T09:22:00.000-08:00

Romney won debate (again)

2008-01-31T09:19:00.000-08:00

MITT STILL HAS A GREAT SHOT: A LITTLE DELEGATE MATH

2008-01-30T21:52:00.000-08:00

The below "delegate math" was taken from Hugh Hewitt. To see his full analysis click here.
DELEGATE MATH: ROMNEY'S STILL IN IT
CNN puts McCain with 97 delegates and Romney at 74.
Let's look at the worst case for Romney on Super Tuesday.
Next Tuesday the winner-take-all states that lean McCain are New York (101), Missouri (58), Arizona (53), New Jersey (52) Connecticut (30), and Delaware (18) for a total of 312 delegates. (Even though Missouri, another winner-take-all leans Huck right now, lets give its 58 delegates to McCain.)
Romney is favored in winner-take-all Utah (36) and Montana (25), for a total of 51 delegates.
Thus before the sorting takes place in the other states, McCain's got 409 delegates and Romney's got 126.
Huckabee will certainly get the 34 Arkansas delegates to go with his 29, for a total of 63.
States dividing delegates Tuesday on other-than-a-winner-take-all basis:
California: 173
Georgia: 72I
llinois: 70
Tennessee: 55
Alabama: 48
Colorado: 46
Massachusetts: 41
Minnesota: 40
Oklahoma: 41
West Virginia: 30
Alaska: 29
North Dakota: 26
Total: 671
If these divide 40-40-20, McCain and Romney will add 269 delegates each, and Huck 133. But since we are going worst case for Romney, make it 50-30-20, or 336 for McCain, 201 for Romney, and 134 for Huck.
Total at the end of Super Tuesday without a major reversal of fortune for Romney:
McCain 745, Romney 327, and Huck 197.
It takes 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination. There are more than 900 delegates left to fight for after Super Tuesday.Start looking hard at the numbers and put yourself in the discussions with Team Romney. It isn't pretty, but it is far, far from over.
And if the Huckabee voters look at the reality and see they are voting for McCain when they vote for Huck, anything can happen.

Romney's week ahead...

2008-01-30T09:58:00.000-08:00

by David Alvord

There is still a way for Romney to win this thing guys. Now, I will not pretend that McCain is not the frontrunner. After the Florida loss, Romney is now the underdog.

Here is the strategy that I would suggest:

1. Spend enough money to make sure that this a two-man race; the conservative vs. the moderate.

2. Pray that the conservative base still represents the majority who belong to the Republican party.

Even though Giuliani will endorse McCain, there were probably a bunch of conservatives who voted for Rudy in Florida. Now that it is down to Romney and McCain, he can run as the conservative and then label McCain the moderate.

Then have Romney say: "What happens when you have a Democrat controlled congress and you have a moderate President? You get a blend of liberal and moderate laws and spending. But conservatism will not be represented in our government."

Lost Conservative

2008-01-29T19:43:00.000-08:00

I am a conservative.
As a conservative, I found my place in the Republican party.
Today, my party betrayed me.
And I don't know where to go.

Florida: A vote for McCain is a vote for Clinton

2008-01-29T07:05:00.000-08:00

From a post here:

ATTENTION: Florida Republicans must unite behind Romney. voting for McCain would result in Hillary Clinton as president...

Here are the potential outcomes in November:

Romney 55%
Hillary 45%

*OR*

Hillary 45%
McCain 33%
Bloomberg 22%

Choose wisely Florida…

Here is the rationale: If Mitt runs, Bloomberg's money and private sector experience are NOT a competitive advantage against Mitt, so he won't run. If McCain wins the Republican ticket and Clinton (or Obama) wins the Democrat ticket, nobody in the race will have any private sector experience or any significant understanding of the economy - providing a perfect opportunity for Bloomberg to make his run. If he did so, much of his support would come from independents who would otherwise support McCain.

Something big happening here: Mitt takes the lead NATIONALLY for the first time

2008-01-28T09:19:00.001-08:00

Todays Rasmussen numbers are great news for all Mitt supporters (and that includes all you new supporters: Fred-heads, and Rudy-guys).

Mitt's numbers today show him with the lead NATIONALLY:

Romney 28
McCain 26
Huckabee 16
Giuliani 13

But Romney has reached another milestone: Romney has nearly one third of the vote...the highest number for any Republican on the Rasmussen daily tracking poll in recent months.

The internals also bode well for Romney:

"Nationally, Romney leads McCain 36% to 21% among conservatives likely to vote in a Republican Primary. McCain leads Romney 41% to 12% among moderate voters. The good news for Romney is that there are more conservatives than moderates. "

For months now, we've argued that national polls do not matter. Well, now they do matter because we are just a week away from Super-duper Tuesday. In Florida tomorrow, the underpinnings are there for a big Romney win. The polls are tight, but this all-Republican race would have to favor the man who is polling well among conservatives.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, 1910-2008

2008-01-27T20:19:00.000-08:00

Well done! We love you!

Romney's New Groove

2008-01-27T10:22:00.000-08:00

Mitt's background continues to align with voter's economic concerns. Read Elizabeth Holmes' article published in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Romney's New Groove."

ED MORRISSEY-THE INFLUENTIAL CONSERVATIVE BLOGGER-ENDORSES MITT ROMNEY

2008-01-27T09:08:00.000-08:00

Romney continues to pick up steam! Ed Morrissey, one of the blogosphere's most influential conservative voices, has made his choice. He is endorsing Mitt Romney!

TO READ HIS REASONS FOR ENDORSING MITT CLICK HERE.

Mitt surges to all-time high in National poll

2008-01-26T21:07:00.000-08:00

Rasmussen's daily presidential poll has Romney at an all-time high of 25% which is right at the heels of McCain's 27%.

See poll

Romney is surging just in time for Super-Duper Tuesday. A win in Florida could put him in the top spot for the first time in this election....but will it be enough to propel Mitt on to the nomination?

So, assuming that the order of the returns in Florida are 1st Romney 2nd McCain 3rd Giuliani...what does that do to Rudy's campaign? And who benefits from Rudy's decline?

It would seem to me that Romney would benefit from the conservative media that would be forced to coalesce around Mitt. Also, is it possible that Rudy fans like him because he was Mr. Fix-it?

Or, does McCain benefit because Rudy's supporters go off of name-recognition...and McCain has been on SNL and Letterman so many times?

What are your thoughts Mitt Rocks! readers?

McCain and Hillary's love child will be the end of conservatism as we know it

2008-01-26T10:20:00.000-08:00

By just looking at the pictures above, I feel more warmth between these two characters than I do between Bill and Hillary.

The fact is, having these two run against one another would be the liberals dream come true!

It sickened me to hear McCain say that Mitt is a manager and McCain the true leader. Well, other than being one vote in one hundred as a united states senator, where has McCain lead? Answer: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and as a the lead member of the gang of 14. The few times that McCain has lead, he has led as a liberal!

Iraq? McCain was right to follow Bush and Gen. Petraeus. The surge in Iraq would have happened whether or not McCain supported it! We were happy to have McCain's support (for once) but the surge would have been implemented with or without him! I am tired of hearing McCain take credit for the idea! He was one vote in one hundred...and it would have happened without him.

McCain called Rummy the "worst secretary of defense in US history"! And that was after Bush had accepted his resignation. Secretary Rumsfeld served his country well and defeated the Saddam regime in what only took a few days. McCain kicked Rummy when he was down for his own personal ambitions.

The whole P.O.W. thing: I admire anyone who has served our country and risked their life to defend America. There have been hundreds of thousands who have made that risk and hundreds of thousands who have made the ultimate sacrifice. But it is the years that followed his release as a POW that should be evaluated as to whether or not he is the most fit to be commander in chief. Just because someone has been taken prisoner, doesn't make that person most fit to be a surgeon, or a mechanic, or a NASA engineer. So why does being taken as a POW make you ready to be the president?

It is McCain's record as senator that should be weighted out...and that record is one of opposing conservatives and aligning with democrats. Just ask Liberman and Clinton about his voting record!

McCain: Democrats' Favorite Republican

2008-01-26T08:11:00.001-08:00

John McCain once considered becoming a Democrat. What's scarier? It was only 8 years ago when he considered becoming JOHN KERRY'S running mate! Gross!

Florida Debate: Mitt Flies, McCain Lies

2008-01-25T18:24:00.001-08:00

Thursday night's debate in Boca Raton, Florida was a Tour de Force by Governor Romney. After the debate even lots of Dems were giving Romney props.

But good ol' John McCain, he told a couple of BIG whoppers that will surely come back to bite him:

LIE #1: McCain said he received the majority of the Republican votes in some of the early primaries.

FACT: John McCain has NEVER won a plurality of Republican votes in any of the primaries so far. His victories have come on the backs of Independents, who unfortunately were allowed to vote in some of the early Republican primaries.

LIE #2: McCain denied ever having said that he "doesn't know much about economics."

FACT: MSNBC backed up their question by pointing to two solid sources that show McCain admitting he's a dunce on economics.

THE EASY CONCLUSION: Mitt flies, McCain lies.

To see the evidence proving McCain's lies click here to read MSNBC's "Fact Checking McCain."

And the Fred-heads go to...

2008-01-24T12:24:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney!

"Well duh", said my wife.

Of the three polls since Fred has dropped out, we now have a solid Romney lead.

Insider

McCain 23
Romney 22
Rudy 18

Rasmussen

Romney 27
McCain 23
Rudy 20

Mason-Dixon (fox news...thanks Brent)

Romney 30
McCain 26
Rudy 18

These were taken from Real Clear Politics.

David Alvord

FOX News: Romney Has Lead In Florida

2008-01-24T12:10:00.000-08:00

by Brent Moritz

According to the FoxNews.com poll from January 22-23, Romney now has the lead in Florida.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/romney-takes-lead-in-latest-florida-gop-primary-poll/

Romney 30%
McCain 26%
Giuliani 18%
Huckabee 15%

Clearly we like Romney's chances and he has gained significant support in Florida and elsewhere.

While the race for first is within the margin for error, what is particularly interesting is how far Giuliani has fallen. Once the clear frontrunner in Florida, he is now running third. A bad loss in Florida would likely doom his chances to secure the nomination.

Similarly, Huckabee does not have the money to compete in Florida and appears to be focused on other states.

Headhunting Happens

2008-01-24T11:53:00.000-08:00

by David McEntire

Why don't Democrats want Mitt to be their opponent? Because they will have to work harder.

From time to time, I receive phone calls from headhunters wanting to know of my interest in new jobs. When they discover I am not currently looking they will ask, "would you recommend anyone else for this position?" At this point, I will always refer them to my biggest competitor in the market. The reason is because the less resistance I have in the market--the more success the market has in my favor.

This is why there has been hostility and will increase hostility towards Mitt. We are taught to tackle the man who is carrying the ball. In this case, Mitt continues to carry the pigskin because of his solid experience, smart work, and true character.

When Mitt gets the GOP nomination, the Democrats will be headhunting. When this hunt begins, it will become more apparent that America needs Mitt.

"Why They Hate Mitt Romney"

2008-01-23T19:38:00.001-08:00

The American Thinker just published an outstanding story on why the other GOP candidates are not so fond of Romney. I found the analysis spot on. For the full article click here.

By the way, it comforts me that lots of super smart people are flocking to Romney. Coincidence? Nah.

What will they say now?

2008-01-23T16:44:00.000-08:00

Soon, Romney will lead in the Flordia polls. So, it begs the question: What will the media give as an excuse for Romney's popularity?

I can picture Chris Mathews saying the following:"Mitt Romney is now taking the lead among Republicans in Florida, which has to be expected because his father was once a governor ...er.....because of all those "mormons"....well no.... maybe it's because he has spent the most time and money there....er no wait that was Rudy........actually, I have no idea why Romney is leading!!! Then in comes a voice on Mathews' ear thing... Oooh, (mathews says) Romney is leading because he has all of the money and he can just write his campaign a big check!"

I just love watching the liberal media trying to make up excuse after excuse for the fact that Romney is the leading Republican. Perhaps a win in Florida and then in California will shut them up. Not likely...but it is fun to watch anyway.

RedState of denial

2008-01-22T20:15:00.000-08:00

The conservative blog RedState, or as others call it "fredstate", is in a "state" alright, a state of denial.

I had to rub my eyes as I read that Erick Erickson is encouraging Fred-Heads to still vote for Thompson (who has dropped out) on Feb. 5 as long as his name is on the ballot. See this moronic link.

Erick, it is time to let go. Fred is a great guy, and a good conservative. We will miss his sense of humor and especially his jabs at the Huckster...but it is time to regroup and fight a new fight.

We know, you thought that your blog could pull Fred through...but it is time to let go of the fight. Fred has let go...now it's time for you to do the same.

There there...Erick Erickson. You and your repetitive-sounding name should now just let go.

By the way, were you this broken up when Tommy Thompson dropped out? After all, he has a repetitive-sounding name too!

Welcome FredHeads: Mitt Supporters Embrace You

2008-01-22T18:44:00.000-08:00

Fred Thompson is a good person with outstandanding conservative credentials. He stands for solid principles and honorable living. However now that Fred is no longer in the race, we Mitt supporters invite Fredheads everywhere to join us in support of Governor Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney will fight for conservative principles. Mitt is a fiscal conservative, social conservative, and military conservative. Although he may have expressed those positions differently than Fred, he shares Fred's belief that the Reagan coalition is not dead. Mitt has a vision of restoring the party to the greatness it once enjoyed. Mitt Romney is the only remaining candidate who is capable of uniting all three wings of the Republican party.

NEWFLASH FOR FREDHEAD CONVERTS: MITT ROCKERS SEEKING A NEW BLOGGER!

HERE AT MITT ROCKS WE ARE SEEKING A FREDHEAD-TURNED-MITT SUPPORTER TO JOIN THE MITT ROCKERS AS A NEW BLOGGER. YOUR TASK WOULD BE TO WRITE BLOG POSTS EXPLAINING WHY YOU'VE DECIDED TO THROW YOUR SUPPORT TO MITT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE CAMPAIGN CLOSELY AND IS DEDICATED TO ADVANCING THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA. BUT ABOVE ALL, YOU MUST BE COOL, AS COOLNESS IS A PREVAILING TRAIT AMONG CURRENT MITT ROCKERS :) PLEASE WRITE A SAMPLE POST AND EMAIL IT TO MINDSTRETCH1 AT YAHOO DOT COM.

Fred Thompson Bows Out

2008-01-22T12:51:00.001-08:00

by Brent Moritz

Fred Thompson, actor and former Senator from Tennessee, has exited the race for the Republican nomination. You can read more about it here in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us/politics/23thompson.html?ref=politics

This comes as no surprise to the Mitt Rockers, who have been speculating as to Mr. Thompson's demise for some time. Still, what is interesting is that the Times and other sources point to the potential positive impact for Mitt Romney. Clearly Thompson was a favorite of the conservative wing of the party, yet he could not win in any of the primaries and was not relevant in many of them.

Thompson supporters are likely to select one of the remaining leading candidates. This makes Romney's wins in Michigan and Nevada even more important, as Romney has established himself as one of the leaders. It is unlikely many of the Thompson supporters will move to Giuliani, as he clearly holds more liberal social positions than the other candidates. So this makes Florida a tighter race between Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain, with each of the latter three gaining some Thompson supporters. In addition, Huckabee appears to be conceding Florida, so more of the Conservative voters (there and elsewhere) have to chose between McCain and Romney, and McCain has never been the favorite of the Republican right.

Another gold on Mitt's horizon?

2008-01-21T10:40:00.000-08:00

Those polled by Rasmussen sure think so.

Most recent polling in Florida shows:

Mitt 25
McCain 20
Rudy 19
Huck 13
Thompson 12

PS: Has anyone heard whether Fred is ready to drop out?

5 Reasons to Vote for Mitt Romney

2008-01-20T18:27:00.000-08:00

Dear America

In what has turned out to be a highly fluid GOP race, you will have a big say in who becomes the next president of the United States. For the first time in years, voters in all 50 states will have a strong voice, not just the voters in a few lucky early primary states. This is a wonderful opportunity--but it brings an important responsibility. Voters cannot afford to base their votes on reading a couple of newspaper articles or watching a debate or two. Instead it is critical to take some time to research the background and positions of the top candidates.

Before you cast your critical vote, please take a moment to ponder these 5 important facts about Mitt Romney:

1) Mitt leads an examplary personal life:

Mitt married his high school sweetheart, Anne, and has stayed loyal to her their entire married life.
Mitt's wife, Anne, was diagnosed with MS in 1998. Mitt has stood by her side during her difficult challenges.
Mitt and Ann have raised five outstanding sons, each of whom loves their father and is living a responsible life. All have worked hard to help their Dad with his campaign.
Mitt is a man of faith. He has spent many hours volunteering in his church and tries hard to live a moral life.
Mitt is an extremely hard worker and is willing to do what it takes to get things done.

2) Mitt had an extraordinarily successful professional life:

After graduating at the top of his class from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, Mitt had a highly successful career as a management consultant. The focus of his work was to to help the world's largest corporations improve the efficiency of their operations.
Mitt founded Bain Capital, currently one of the world's most successful investment firms. Bain is largely responsible for the success of Staples, Brookstone, and Dominos Pizza. While at Bain, part of Mitt's job was to help struggling businesses become financially successful. He had much success doing this. Many of the struggling companies Mitt helped became very profitable and have now become household names.

3) Mitt saved the 2002 Winter Olympics (and took no paycheck):

Mitt volunteered his skills (taking no paycheck) to help rescue the 2002 Winter Olympics from financial crisis. As the CEO of the 2002 Organizing Committee, Mitt managed the overall operations of the Olympics, including thousands of volunteers and a multimillion dollar budget.
When Mitt took over the Olympics, they were millions of dolllars in debt. By the time the 2002 games concluded, the Games had a 100 million dollar surplus and were declared by many to be one of the most successful Olympic games in history.
During the Olympics Mitt was able to build strong diplomatic ties with the leaders of many foreign countries. If he becomes president these relationships will help him create more effective foreign policies.

4) Mitt governed as a conservative in ultra-liberal Massachusetts:

In the most liberal state in the US, Mitt governed as a conservative his entire term.
Mitt balanced the budget every year in office.
Mitt designed and implemented a revolutionary health plan that uses private insurance (not taxpayer funded government insurance) to ensure that every citizen in the state of Massachusetts is covered.
Mitt opposed abortion.
Mitt opposed same-sex marriage in a state whose Supreme Court tried to implement it.
Mitt made 100 promises to Massachusetts voters when he was campaigning. Before he left office he had fulfilled every single promise.

5) Mitt wants to create a more efficient Washington and a stronger America:

What matters most in an election is what the candidate will do in office. Do you really know what Mitt plans to do?
Please take a moment to read Mitt's detailed plan for what he will do if elected our president.

IS MITT ROMNEY PERFECT? NO, LIKE THE REST OF US HE HAS HIS FLAWS. BUT WHEN CLOSELY EXAMINING HIS PERSONAL LIFE, PROFESSIONAL LIFE, VOLUNTEER WORK, AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE, IT IS CLEAR THAT MITT ROMNEY IS AN OUTSTANDING CANDIDATE WORTHY OF OUR VOTES.

LANDSLIDE VICTORY FOR ROMNEY IN NEVADA

2008-01-19T12:55:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney crushed the GOP competition in Nevada for his second straight gold medal. With first place wins in Michigan, Wyoming, and Nevada, to go along with his strong second place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney now has three gold medals and two silvers. No other candidate can claim such success. Romney now leads by a wide margin in the delegate count, ensuring that even with top tier finishes in South Carolina and Florida, he'll be very competitive on Super Tuesday.

With respect to Florida, Romney stands an excellent chance of pulling out the win, especially if Fred Thompson drops out after South Carolina, in which case Romney will pull much of his support. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Mitt Romney wins Florida it's game over for the other GOP candidates--and onto the nomination for Mitt.

To read the story of Romney's landslide victory in Nevada click here.

What's ahead?

2008-01-18T09:00:00.000-08:00

Two predictions: (or are they wishes?)

1. Thompson to drop out after SC and then endorse Romney. Even if he doesn't endorse Mitt, his conservative followers will have to pick the next most conservative. (Mitt is just as conservative as Fred...but is a pro-life convert)

This prediction is based on this RCP average:

McCain 28
Huckabee 24
Romney 17
Thompson 14

A dismal fourth-place finish will force Thompson to drop out (hopefully sooner than later)

2. McCain will not have the money to compete in Florida...and it will become a Rudy/Romney slug-out. Romney will tout his economic strengths and run against a pro-choice former mayor. Expect a Romney win in Florida!

Florida's latest polls (insider advantage):

Rudy 21
Romney 20
McCain 20
Huckabee 13

Mitt will Rock Leno tonight...

2008-01-18T08:39:00.000-08:00

Good luck Mitt!

LARGEST NEVADA NEWSPAPER ENDORSES MITT ROMNEY

2008-01-17T12:16:00.000-08:00

The editors of the Las Vegas Review Journal, Nevada's largest newspaper, have endorsed Mitt Romney. Citing Romney's outstanding business skills as best for the economy, the editors also praised Romney's conservative agenda and strong family values. Here's the closing line of their editorial:

"WE URGE THE NEVADA REPUBLICANS ON SATURDAY TO SUPPORT MITT ROMNEY."

For the full text of the endorsement editorial click here.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "MITT ROMNEY IS NOW THE FRONTRUNNER"

2008-01-17T10:15:00.000-08:00

The liberal media is in damage control mode, trying to divert attention from Mitt's dominating victory in Michigan by flooding us with stories bearing headlines such as "No GOP Frontrunner" and "GOP Field in Total Chaos." Despite what these liberal journalists, or the Drive-Bys as Limbaugh calls them, want us to believe, there is, in fact, a GOP frontrunner. It's Mitt Romney.

With two golds and two silvers, Mitt Romney currently leads the delegate count and pushes forward in the race with more momentum than any other candidate. Mitt's strong position prompted Rush Limbaugh to loudly proclaim:

"MITT ROMNEY IS NOW THE FRONTRUNNER"

I suggest we conservatives listen to our own leaders, rather than allowing our presidential race to be defined by those who wish to hurt us.

FOR THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF RUSH LIMBAUGH'S COMMENTS CLICK HERE.

Ross Perot Slams McCain's Character: Will Vote for Mitt

2008-01-17T10:02:00.000-08:00

Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate Ross Perot recently criticized John McCain's character, saying that for frivolous reasons he abandoned his wife who had stayed loyal to him during his time as a POW:

Perot: "After he [McCain] came home [from the war], he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp [because of a car accident]. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

While Perot distrusts John McCain, he strongly supports Mitt Romney. When the election comes to Texas, Perot said he will cast his vote for Mitt Romney, citing his extraordinary business skills and strong family values. To read the Newsweek story click here.

Huckabee and McCain are hanging by a thread...

2008-01-16T20:02:00.000-08:00

by David Alvord

Although this post will defy most of what you will hear from the national media, I must say that I believe that neither McCain nor Huck have the message or the resources needed to see the election through to the nomination.

Let's start with McCain's MONEY: About three weeks ago (seems like political light-years ago doesn't it), McCain had promised a New Hampshire victory...but his campaign was bankrupt. It was reported that the AZ senator would have to borrow money to keep his hopes alive (there are those who question the ethics and legality of that move). But the loan was secured and McCain fulfilled his promise as independents gave him the 37-32 victory in NH. That was last week. Sen. McCain hasn't had time to do any fund-raising since then. His loss in MI had to hurt. Has McCain taken out another loan? He has to be running on fumes. Who will be his lender now?

McCain's MESSAGE: McCain only got 11% of the conservative vote in Michigan! (see story) McCain is running as a moderate Republican, translation: McCain is not really a Republican. McCain's famous bills have angered most conservatives. And you know what they say: "An elephant never forgets." Helpful Hint: Standing side by side with Joe Liberman is not how you get the Republican nomination. (It didn't work well for Gore either, by the way). You see, Republicans don't want to compromise with Democrats...we want to defeat them...because we think they have bad ideas. Here is the perfect analogy: Person A wants to share a toast of arsenic poison. Person B does not want to ingest the poison. So, in the name of compromise, they decide to only drink half the poison. What? Don't be insane, Person B! McCain's message of moderate compromise might be alright for a senator, but when it comes to our President, Republicans want someone who will take on the libs and defeat them!

Huckabee's MONEY: the Huckster did not peak until shortly before Iowa. (Two weeks ago) Three losses later, and the Huckster really does wish he could pass the plate at the debates. While I cannot confirm this, I have some serious doubts as to the financial standing of the Huck campaign.

Huckabee's MESSAGE: in a nutshell is populism. "I feel your pain and I am the only one who does." Sorry Mike, wrong party! Could we please refer you to Jimmy Carter? Remember the one-term president who lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan? You see, even in bad times, Republicans don't want to have big brother "helping" us. Just get out of our way and let us fix the problem ourselves. And for heaven's sake don't impede us and tax us while we are down. Just get out of our way! We would rather have an optimist who will ease our burdens, rather than a liberal who will tax and regulate and mandate. Again, you are probably running in the wrong party. Perhaps a third-party? "The pro-life liberal party."

We just need to remember what these guys are running for: the Republican nomination. These guys are trying to reinvent the party, but in reality both are hanging by a thread.

If Romney wins in SC: GAME OVER. South Carolina is a must-win for both Huck and McCain...and in the end still wont be enough.

Republicans have spoken

2008-01-15T20:51:00.000-08:00

The best part of the Romney victory was that it came about due to the Republican vote! Shouldn't that be how things work anyway? Republicans might want to consider a revamp in the order of the first contests because they don't really reflect how mainstream Republicans will vote.

I hope that the naysayers were watching tonight. Because tonight we learned that America will pick the best nominee regardless of which church the candidate attends. If Romney can win in Massachusetts and then Michigan, he should have no problem with the rest of the country. After all, America is choosing a commander in chief not a pastor in chief (sorry Huckabee). Mitt got a huge chunk of the evangelical vote tonight...along with Catholics, Mormons and the unaffiliated.

The other candidates are out of gas. Romney is just getting warmed up...with lots of time, energy, and money to see this thing through. McCain had to borrow money to fund his campaign in NH. I wonder if there is anybody willing to lend him money for SC?

As long as Republicans are allowed to vote for their nominee, we can expect a Romney nomination this spring.

Congratuations Team Mitt - Look at all those medals!

2008-01-15T19:28:00.000-08:00

Michigan Speaks. Romney Steamrolls McCain: Huck a Distant Third

2008-01-15T18:33:00.000-08:00

With a decisive win in Michigan, Mitt Romney is well positioned to take over the GOP front runner position going into Super Tuesday. Romney is running strong campaigns in both Nevada and South Carolina, the states which host the next two elections. Riding the momentum from his surprisingly easy victory over McCain (he won by over 80,000 votes), Romney stands an excellent chance of winning the Nevada caucuses. But he should now also be considered a strong contender in South Carolina, where he is currently running a close third.

What we are witnessing here is a major change in the dynamics of the race, a change that strongly favors Mitt Romney. If Romney wins Nevada and contends strongly in South Carolina, he could be considered the favorite to snatch the winner-take-all state of Florida, where the Rasmussen poll shows him tied for first place. If Romney wins Florida it's game over for the rest of the GOP candidates, and on to the nomination for Romney.

GOP voters should pay careful attention to the fact that among registered Republicans in Michigan, Mitt Romney beat John McCain by a whopping 2 to 1 margin. Such an overwhelming victory among Repulicans is a clear indication that Mitt Romney is well positioned to capture the support of the GOP base--not only in the remaing primaries and caucuses, but also in the general election. Even from the standpoint of the most biased Romney supporter (which I am), I'd say the future is very bright for Mitt Romney. Romney is a true Mr. Fixit poised to fix what's broken in Washington.

FINAL MICHIGAN RESULTS
Romney: 39
30: McCain
16: Huckabee
6: Paul
4: Thompson (ouch, gets beat by Ron Paul)
3: Giuliani (double ouch, former frontrunner gets beat by Ron Paul AND Fred Thompson; implosion complete)

MITT ROCKERS PREDICT MICHIGAN RESULTS

2008-01-14T19:28:00.000-08:00

With the exception of Brent Moritz, all of us have been wrong so far in predicting the victor. So take these predictive polls with a grain of salt (except Brent's), remembering that they are, after all, scientific polls based on pure speculation:

Brent Moritz: (PLEASE BE RIGHT YET AGAIN!)
Romney: 31
McCain: 30
Huckabee: 17
Paul: 8
Giuliani: 6
Thompson: 6

Matt Connelly:
Romney 32
McCain 30
Huckabee:18
Giuliani: 8
Thompson: 6
Paul: 6

Branden Neish: (based on a complicated mathematical model only a Harvard MBA could invent)
Mitt: 31.3
McCain: 31.2 (wow, truly a narrow loss..can you say old Mac's requesting a recount?)
Huck: 17.4
Paul: 7.4
Rudy: 5.4
Fred: 4.4

David Alvord (looks like I am the last true believer)
Mitt 35
McCain 31
Huck 16
Fred 7
Paul 7
Rudy 7

Mitt Romney's Address to the Detroit Economic Club

2008-01-14T11:51:00.000-08:00

"A lot of Washington politicians are aware of Michigan's pain, but they haven't done anything about it. I hear people say it's Michigan's problem. Or, the car companies just brought it on themselves. But that's where they are wrong. What Michigan is feeling will be felt by the entire nation unless we win the economic battle here. Michigan is a bit like the canary in the mine shaft - what's hurting Michigan, if left unchecked, will imperil the entire nation's economy.

"I don't know about the Washington politicians, but I can tell you this: if I am President, I will not rest until Michigan is back. Michigan can once again lead the world's automotive industry. But it means we're going to have to change Washington. We're going to go from politicians who say they are 'aware' of Michigan's problems to a President who will do something about them."

"First, we have to tackle the problems head on. If I am your President, in my first 100 days, I will roll up my sleeves, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, Congressional and state leaders to develop a plan to rebuild America's automotive leadership. It will be one that works for Michigan and that works for the American taxpayers."

"From legacy costs, to health care costs, to increased CAFE standards, to embedded taxes, Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner, not a disinterested observer. The plan should include increases in funding for automotive related research and new tax benefits including making the research and development tax credit permanent."

"Washington has to stop loading Detroit down with unfunded mandates. Of course fleet mileage needs to rise, but discontinuous CAFE leaps, uncoordinated with the domestic manufacturers, and absent consideration of competitiveness, kills jobs and imperils an industry. Washington dictated CAFE is not the right answer.

"We also must stop Washington politicians from imposing enormous unilateral energy costs on American manufacturing, including automotive.

"For example, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman have a bill pending in Congress that unilaterally imposes new high energy costs on U.S. manufacturers, with no safety valve. The Energy Information Agency estimated that this bill would raise electric rates by as much as 25% and gasoline prices by 68 cents a gallon. And the cost in American jobs – over 300,000. So it would not only kill jobs, it would make it harder for families to make ends meet."

"But taking off all these burdens is only half the solution. If we are going to be the world's greatest economic power, we must invest in our future. It's time to be bold. First, I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion dollars to $20 billion dollars – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology. "Research spins out new ideas for new products for both small and large businesses. That is exactly what has happened in health care, in defense, and in space. Look how industries in other states have thrived from the spin out of technologies from our investment in these areas. So if we can invest in health care, in defense, and in space, why not also invest in energy and fuel technology here in Michigan?"

"By the way, this is what I have done all my life – take on complex situations, lead tough negotiations, find solutions, and get things back on track. That was my job as a leader in the business world, as the head of the Salt Lake Olympics, and as the governor of Massachusetts. "I am the only candidate with this kind of experience, and frankly, this is exactly the kind of experience Michigan and America needs in the White House "There are some people who don't think there's a future for the domestic automobile industry. They think the industry and its jobs are gone forever. They are wrong."

For the full text, go to:

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/DEC_Excerpts_1.14

Romney in four-way tie in Florida

2008-01-14T08:22:00.000-08:00

The two latest polls out of Florida have all four candidates at about 18%. What would a win in Michigan and another in Nevada do for Mitt (along with a decent showing in SC)? Perhaps Romney is peaking at the right time...right before Super Duper Tuesday.

Rasmussen Florida poll:

McCain 19
Romney 18
Giuliani 18
Huckabee 17

Quinipiac poll:

McCain 21
Romney 19
Giuliani 20
Huckster 19

DON'T BE INSANE! If you care about the economy, vote for Romney!

2008-01-13T14:39:00.000-08:00

American auto manufacturing is a Trillion-dollar industry. Yep, that’s Trillion with a capital “T”, as in $1,000,000,000,000.00. GM alone has revenues of 200 billion dollars per year. Most people outside of Michigan, especially politicians in Washington, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the auto industry’s impact on the US economy. Not only is it the biggest cog in the intricately interconnected American economic machine, it is also one of the only remaining vestiges of American manufacturing might – a capability we need to retain for national security reasons. While some may say that Toyota and Honda build some of their cars in the US, it is important to remember that the point of final assembly is a relatively minor contributor to an economy. The two most economically and socially valuable aspects of the auto industry are:

1. Design, engineering, marketing, and research and development jobs (high-paying jobs that keep American companies competitive in the world economy).

2. Country of incorporation (this is where the company’s profits end up and typically corresponds to the homeland of its shareholders).

GM, Ford, and Chrysler (the Big 3) do almost all their design/engineering/marketing/etc. in Michigan, and all three corporations are headquartered in Michigan. Because of this, it’s imperative that Michigan is strengthened to help the Big 3, and that the Big 3 are strengthened to help Michigan. Mitt Romney is the only presidential candidate who seems to understand or even care about this. In addition, he’s clearly the only candidate with the skills, experience, and intelligence to actually do something about it.

As a former GM employee (I’m on educational leave right now) I’m frustrated that Washington has turned a blind eye toward the American car companies in recent years. I remember President George Bush taking more than a year to finally agree to sit down with the CEOs of the Big 3! What a tragedy! (It would probably have been even worse with a Democrat in the White House as they would have only listened to the unions.) With President Romney, the White House would have an open line and a listening ear for the Big 3.

One of the most frustrating Washington-based initiatives are the “CAFÉ” fuel economy MANDATES. Most people think, “hey, better fuel mileage, I support it!” But what they fail to realize is that the Big 3 – in catering to the tastes of the US market for generations – have built an infrastructure, set of expertise, and entire lines of vehicles designed to meet the needs of the large-vehicle-oriented US market. While importers like Honda and Toyota came to America with a history (and from a geographic base) that favored small cars. So when you require both companies to meet the same fuel mileage requirements, you are clearly favoring the importers. It’s like telling a 5-foot tall woman and a 6-foot tall man that they both need to lose weight and get down to 120 lbs!

This kind of unfair Washington mandate is what McCain and the Democrats support. It hurts the Big 3 and it hurts the American economy.

Here’s what Governor Romney said about it:

“I wasn’t wild about those because even though we all agree we want to see our fuel economy standards go up, when CAFÉ was put in place, it helped the foreign manufacturers and hurt the domestics, it hurt our jobs here.”

“I want to make sure that if we’re going to have a change in fuel standards that this has been worked out with our domestic manufacturers in a way that helps them rather than hurts them and it’s not what I’ll call an unfunded mandate, which is the federal government says, ‘You’ve got to do this — now find a way to go pay for it. Instead, we’re going to have to work together — federal government and state government, manufacturers and labor — to make sure that if there’s gonna be a dramatic change in the industry, it works for the benefit of American jobs, not for the benefit of foreign jobs.” (Source)

(I’m sure we’ll hear more about this tomorrow when Romney addresses the Detroit Economic Club.)

Besides the fuel economy mandates, Mitt Romney has a deep understanding of the other issues the Big 3 are struggling with. Issues like skyrocketing legacy costs, artificial devaluation of the Yen to make Japanese imports cheaper, and unfair trade agreements that put US manufacturers at a disadvantage are at the top of Romney’s list. Not only does he understand these issues, he is willing to do something about them – and frankly, he’s the only person running for president, Republican or Democrat, who can actually FIX them.

Here’s the bottom line: If you care about the economy – nationally and in Michigan – you would be completely insane to vote for someone other than Mitt Romney.

Huckabee Clemency Song

2008-01-13T14:33:00.000-08:00

What do all five early contests have in common?

2008-01-13T13:09:00.001-08:00

The political pundits don't know anything! Just last week they had Hillary out of the race! First, there was the so called Huckaboom. It ended up more like: "Huck-a-let's all go out and vote for the evangelical cause we're Iowans and we love to waste our vote in every election."

Here's a question: What does it mean to have four third-place finishes in a row? Yes, Huckabee may be facing that reality because Mike was third in New Hampshire and was fifth in Wyoming. New polls show him at third in Michigan and then third or fourth in Nevada! Why isn't Michigan or Nevada a "must win" for Huck? Answer: because the pundits don't know anything!

We here at Mitt Rocks! would love to see a solid win for Mitt this Tuesday, but we don't think that even Michigan is a must win for Romney. If you hear otherwise, don't listen. The authors of this website are smarter than the pundits.

All five of the early contests have featured Mitt battling it out for the win. The last major contest, New Hampshire, Mitt won among conservative voters. The independents got in there for McCain...and barely beat Mitt at 37 to 32%. That was hardly a landslide.

But five states in a row...and the common feature in all of them is Mitt Romney. If not for the spoilers in the election, the republicans would already have their nominee. First it was the unpredictable HUGE showing of evangelicals for Huckabee. Second, there were independents for McCain. Now we have Michigan where Romney is, again, leading in most polls and should win...unless some dems or indies come in and spoil it again for McCain. ALL THAT WE ASK IS THAT REPUBLICANS GET A CHANCE TO PICK THEIR OWN NOMINEE!!!

So when should Romney drop out? As soon as conservative Republicans start voting for someone other than Mitt. Otherwise, Mitt is basically saying to the independents and the democrats in sheep's clothing: "go ahead and pick our nominee".

Mitt, keep fighting till super duper Tuesday and beyond. Keep up the fight until MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS have spoken... because so far, you are their top pick. Keep Thompson pounding on Huckabee and McCain. Is he hinting that he wants to be your Veep?

Romney Leads Latest Detroit Free Press Poll

2008-01-12T20:17:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080112/NEWS06/80112066

Great Article on Romney in Jewish World Review

2008-01-12T19:11:00.000-08:00

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen121407.php3

QUOTE:

Romney has been masterful in everything he has attempted. It is not insignificant that this cum laude JD/MBA graduate of Harvard guided Bain Capital to become a hugely successful private equity investment firm and rescued Bain & Company from financial collapse. Romney was brought in to save the 2002 Winter Olympics when the games were mired in scandal and $379 million in debt. Romney was able to turn the situation around completely so that the games actually turned a $100 million profit instead. (He also gave back his salary.) That's not slick, that's substance.

When Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the state had a $1.2 billion deficit. Four years later it was in surplus. He boasts that fourth and eighth graders in Massachusetts achieved the highest scores in the nation in reading and math, though they were doing so before he became governor as well. But his program of assessment, merit pay for good teachers, English immersion and a focus on math and science may have helped keep them at the top.
It is difficult to find any significant weakness in Romney. He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined, clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base.

He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.

* * * * *

Unlike Huckabee, Romney knows that the presidency is a secular office and that this country was founded upon principles of religious freedom and tolerance. It seems that Huck's only supporters are Evangelicals, and that they support him merely because he wears his religion on his sleeve.

From Mitt Romney's Faith in America speech:

No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

Conservatives Remembering Why We Didn't Vote for McCain in 2000

2008-01-12T10:13:00.000-08:00

John McCain, the proud, grizzled, go-it-alone maverick from Arizona, is basking gleefully in the afterglow of his narrow New Hampshire win. McCain is not the frontrunner. Nobody is. Yet if he somehow pulls out more victories in early primary states that might change. I, along with conservatives everywhere, are scared to death of that proposition, for it would destroy the conservative coalition as we know it. It would rip apart the Reagan coalation of social conservatives, fiscal conservaties, and defense conservatives.

There were lots of reasons conservatives didn't vote for McCain when he ran for president in 2000. Since that time he's given us many more reasons not to vote for him. Here they are (taken from Mark Levin's National Review article):

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

To read the full text of Levin's National Review article on McCain click here.

Mitt and his faith: Remembering when candidate Romney was Bishop Romney

2008-01-12T09:02:00.000-08:00

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7943560?source=rv

"For the record, let me say that the Romneys their neighbors and associates know are neither phony nor scary," Barlow writes in a forthcoming issue of Religion in the News, published by the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

"Like it or not, Romney is naturally smooth, as much in private as in public." The candidate has always "smiled faintly when listening and talking, even about serious or controversial matters," Barlow writes. "Romney smiled in conducting religious services or planning meetings. He smiled while hosting friends at his Cape Cod vacation home. He smiled when comforting a wounded congregant."

This was not a false persona, Barlow writes, but a "mixture of good will, confidence, optimism, enjoyment of intellectual challenge, and idiosyncrasy."

Republicans Unite - Let's Nominate a Conservative!

2008-01-11T13:35:00.000-08:00

If you are a conservative, you ought to be worried. Very worried. The Republican Party is getting closer and closer to nominating either McCain or Huckabee - the least conservative candidates possible. If either of these guys get the nomination, it will destroy the Reagan coalition of fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. We can't let that happen.

I am calling on all Republicans to unite behind conservative candidates. This is a pro-Romney blog, so it shouldn't be surprising that I believe Governor Romney is the only full-spectrum conservative capable of going the distance and beating the democrats in November. But the nature of the situation is dire, and I'm willing to step back from my candidate in the best interest of this country and the GOP, so I'm willing to allow room for Fred Thompson (and possibly Rudy Giuliani as well). Despite their weaknesses, I believe they would at least operate as full-spectrum conservatives if elected.

So here's the plan: Let's bombard prominent conservatives with emails asking them to support Mitt Romney, or if they refuse to do that, at least anti-endorse Huckabee and McCain.

Here's a list of prominent conservatives and how to contact them. Please take a minute to compose a short email and send it to each one of them. If I've missed someone, or if you know a better email address, post a comment to this blog entry.

Matt Drudge http://www.drudgereport.com/ (scroll part-way down, submission field on right)
Rush Limbaugh ElRushbo@eibnet.com
Laura Ingraham http://www.lauraingraham.com/asklaura
Glenn Beck me@glennbeck.com
Grover Norquist friends@atr.org
Mark Levin marklevin.show@citcomm.com
Sean Hannity http://www.hannity.com/contactus.asp
Michael Savage paulreveresociety@yahoo.com
Charles Krauthammer letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Pat Buchanan americancause@gmail.com
Bill O’Reilly oreilly@foxnews.com
Peggy Noonan http://www.peggynoonan.com/contact.php
Michelle Malkin writemalkin@gmail.com
William Bennett http://bennettmornings.com/askbill
Michael Medved http://www.michaelmedved.com/askmike

It should only take about 5 minutes to email all the people on this list, so go to it!

Here is the message I sent:

Dear __________,

Thank you for your commitment to conservative principles. I am writing to ask you to endorse one of the full-spectrum conservatives running for president. I realize you may be reluctant to endorse a candidate, as it may lead some to question your objectivity in the future or alienate some fans, but in these precarious times, it is the right thing to do. Although your journalistic reputation and fan base are important, the future of the Republican Party - even the future of this nation - is at stake.

Personally, I support Mitt Romney. I believe he is the most electable full-spectrum conservative. I hope you will join me in supporting Governor Romney. If you are unwilling to do this, please at least speak out against McCain and Huckabee. McCain is willing to compromise any and all conservatism when tempted by liberals, and Huckabee is simply a socially-conservative Democrat.

Please do the right thing. We need your help. People like you were able to defeat the amnesty bill, and it's people like you who will ensure that Republicans nominate a full-spectrum conservative.

Thanks for your time and consideration.